Edit:
My original question, which can be read below in small text, was apparently full of wrong assumptions. I will rephrase it:
There are a number of people who seem to think the chance that the manuscript was copied with minimal adjustments from older, non-Latin-European sources unlikely. I wonder which concrete evidence these people see for their preferred interpretation.
((original: )Most people seem to think that the content of MS Beinecke 408 was created at the time of its writing in 15th century Europe. The images are peculiar, but this is seen as the result of an individual's quirks, rather than unexpected cultural influences.
So I would like to know why people are convinced of this, and why they seem to be very unlikely to consider any non-medieval-European sources.
I fully understand that certain elements in the nymph sections look very medieval. For eample the clothes in some of the roundels. But these are relatively rare, and often considered later additions or modifications. Either way, it was common practice for copyists to update aspects like clothing.
What I would specifically like to know is which concrete evidence there is against earlier sources.
In other words , why can't it be a lucky surviver -by medieval copy- of a lost type?)
My original question, which can be read below in small text, was apparently full of wrong assumptions. I will rephrase it:
There are a number of people who seem to think the chance that the manuscript was copied with minimal adjustments from older, non-Latin-European sources unlikely. I wonder which concrete evidence these people see for their preferred interpretation.
((original: )Most people seem to think that the content of MS Beinecke 408 was created at the time of its writing in 15th century Europe. The images are peculiar, but this is seen as the result of an individual's quirks, rather than unexpected cultural influences.
So I would like to know why people are convinced of this, and why they seem to be very unlikely to consider any non-medieval-European sources.
I fully understand that certain elements in the nymph sections look very medieval. For eample the clothes in some of the roundels. But these are relatively rare, and often considered later additions or modifications. Either way, it was common practice for copyists to update aspects like clothing.
What I would specifically like to know is which concrete evidence there is against earlier sources.
In other words , why can't it be a lucky surviver -by medieval copy- of a lost type?)