08-03-2016, 09:31 AM
Oocephalus: those are definitely penises. The two animals appear to be different species though. The one on the right is smaller, has a curved back and a fox-like tail. I'm not sure about the opening having been made on purpose though. Either that or the plant (and the one on the recto side) has been drawn around it. Wouldn't it be weird to damage vellum on purpose, possibly increasing the risk of further tearing?
Vviews: that tree is awesome! About the foot not looking like the other ones... well look at the hand-root I posted earlier in this thread, it looks radically different from the other ones in the manuscript, and yet is clearly a hand, much more so than the other ones. If we get rid of the assumption that the manuscript was illustrated by one and the same person, there's no objection at all, and even one artist can use different styles.
David: haha, I think you are right. If he is supposed to sport an erection, it's more one of the slender type preferred by the ancients than one of the "fertility god" type though
Vviews: that tree is awesome! About the foot not looking like the other ones... well look at the hand-root I posted earlier in this thread, it looks radically different from the other ones in the manuscript, and yet is clearly a hand, much more so than the other ones. If we get rid of the assumption that the manuscript was illustrated by one and the same person, there's no objection at all, and even one artist can use different styles.
David: haha, I think you are right. If he is supposed to sport an erection, it's more one of the slender type preferred by the ancients than one of the "fertility god" type though