04-11-2018, 06:02 AM
I'd also note that the inset picture of Petasites hybridus Butterbur is another - of the myriad - instances where a plant is brought forward, less to explain what is in the Vms than to argue some less than solidly based theory about origins for both imagery and unclassified written text. We haven't yet obtained anything more than theoretical arguments for and against its being enciphered at all! (Did you know that, Michael?)
If the aim in referring to P.hybridus was to explain the primary source (not an effort to persuading us to believe an idea about the text's encipherment), then you must consider and treat every part of the Vms' plant-picture in detail.
Doing this, one finds that by comparison P.hybridus' leaves are of quite a different structure and class from those shown in that Vms picture. P. hybridus does not have root remotely like that displayed within the Vms' picture. Nor is P.hybridus a plant with layers of hollow stem - plainly shown in the Vms' picture.
In short, whatever the Vms' picture may be - and it has been identified as banana-plant(s) first by a pharmacist who did not offer analytical discussion, and independently by an iconographic analyst, who did - you cannot just 'dismiss' informed and detailed studies which reach their conclusions after (and not before) engaging in the research. In the present instance both those persons have solid qualifications and years of experience in their separate professions, and the second person did explain the analytical menthod, documented the analytical process in detail, adduced comparisons comparable not only in subject matter but stylistics and motifs before concluding that the plant was an exotic. The study went on to sketch the background to cultural and material exchange with Europe before 1438, outlining trade routes and the relevant economic history before concluding that the plant cannot have been pictured as it is by any 'Latin' (i.e European Christian) before 1438 and therefore that the image we have must be copied from one that was first made elsewhere.
A decade ago it was not uncommon to see apparently baseless narratives (deemed 'theories') pushed and promoted by 'dismissing' more informed and detailed studies, but it won't do these days - not with researchers on board such as Anton, Emma, Koen, and Marco (to name a few).
Michael - I suggest you stop trying to promote your views until you have considered the manuscript in greater depth, using a wider range of primary and secondary sources to inform your ideas.
NOTE:
With the delay on comments appearing in this thread, I'm never quite sure if one hasn't failed to post. So if this appears with another sent earlier, I apologise for seeming to reply twice.
If the aim in referring to P.hybridus was to explain the primary source (not an effort to persuading us to believe an idea about the text's encipherment), then you must consider and treat every part of the Vms' plant-picture in detail.
Doing this, one finds that by comparison P.hybridus' leaves are of quite a different structure and class from those shown in that Vms picture. P. hybridus does not have root remotely like that displayed within the Vms' picture. Nor is P.hybridus a plant with layers of hollow stem - plainly shown in the Vms' picture.
In short, whatever the Vms' picture may be - and it has been identified as banana-plant(s) first by a pharmacist who did not offer analytical discussion, and independently by an iconographic analyst, who did - you cannot just 'dismiss' informed and detailed studies which reach their conclusions after (and not before) engaging in the research. In the present instance both those persons have solid qualifications and years of experience in their separate professions, and the second person did explain the analytical menthod, documented the analytical process in detail, adduced comparisons comparable not only in subject matter but stylistics and motifs before concluding that the plant was an exotic. The study went on to sketch the background to cultural and material exchange with Europe before 1438, outlining trade routes and the relevant economic history before concluding that the plant cannot have been pictured as it is by any 'Latin' (i.e European Christian) before 1438 and therefore that the image we have must be copied from one that was first made elsewhere.
A decade ago it was not uncommon to see apparently baseless narratives (deemed 'theories') pushed and promoted by 'dismissing' more informed and detailed studies, but it won't do these days - not with researchers on board such as Anton, Emma, Koen, and Marco (to name a few).
Michael - I suggest you stop trying to promote your views until you have considered the manuscript in greater depth, using a wider range of primary and secondary sources to inform your ideas.
NOTE:
With the delay on comments appearing in this thread, I'm never quite sure if one hasn't failed to post. So if this appears with another sent earlier, I apologise for seeming to reply twice.