27-06-2016, 06:25 PM
Koen,
As I said, I particularly like the first comparison you made. So how do you propose that the pattern made its way from Pharaonic Egypt to 1400s+ at a place somewhere - possibly in Europe? Obviously the Romans looted Egypt, and left much of it in Rome. And clearly there was a parade of literate individuals through Rome, having to do with the church and and other events. But if it cannot be asserted that an educated person of the time was knowledgeable about something as chronologically current to the VMs creation and widely known across various nations and languages as the medieval science of heraldry, how can it be the original creator of this document is so wise in the ways of ancient Egyptian patterns? How can the VMs author be so wise in the obscure, and so stupid in the obvious? It doesn't make sense. You have suggest that such difficulties may arise from problems in the transmission system - shall we say. The problem of the sloppy copy.
Let me suggest an alternative. The author has intentionally obfuscated certain material in the illustrations. Not eliminated; not contradicted, but intentionally disguised images that can be historically validated to make them more difficult to recognize. The modern investigator does not know the heraldry-based references being made. And therefore recognition does not occur.
&&&
Anton,
Follow your interests - is my recommendation. But if I may reply. Dots is dots, I always say. Is your interpretation of orientation a total full-stop to further investigation? Perhaps it we borrow Koen's suggestion of the sloppy copy, it might be assumed that the unthinking copyist didn't give a sniff which way the dots were aligned.
If you think that something like this is sufficient to completely derail an investigation, well, I hate to be the one to tell you..., but, you known the VMs illustration of a violet? One of my favorites. Well the flowers are all upside down, like inverted. So that invalid orientation totally discredits any identification same as with the dots. After that the whole botany thing gets much worse real fast IMO.
Heraldry has a set of rules well in place before the creation of the VMs and little changed over centuries - with one relevant, modern exception which is the institution of the counting of parts in the paly, bendy, barry patterns. What set of rules did botany have in the era of the VMs creation?
As I said, I particularly like the first comparison you made. So how do you propose that the pattern made its way from Pharaonic Egypt to 1400s+ at a place somewhere - possibly in Europe? Obviously the Romans looted Egypt, and left much of it in Rome. And clearly there was a parade of literate individuals through Rome, having to do with the church and and other events. But if it cannot be asserted that an educated person of the time was knowledgeable about something as chronologically current to the VMs creation and widely known across various nations and languages as the medieval science of heraldry, how can it be the original creator of this document is so wise in the ways of ancient Egyptian patterns? How can the VMs author be so wise in the obscure, and so stupid in the obvious? It doesn't make sense. You have suggest that such difficulties may arise from problems in the transmission system - shall we say. The problem of the sloppy copy.
Let me suggest an alternative. The author has intentionally obfuscated certain material in the illustrations. Not eliminated; not contradicted, but intentionally disguised images that can be historically validated to make them more difficult to recognize. The modern investigator does not know the heraldry-based references being made. And therefore recognition does not occur.
&&&
Anton,
Follow your interests - is my recommendation. But if I may reply. Dots is dots, I always say. Is your interpretation of orientation a total full-stop to further investigation? Perhaps it we borrow Koen's suggestion of the sloppy copy, it might be assumed that the unthinking copyist didn't give a sniff which way the dots were aligned.
If you think that something like this is sufficient to completely derail an investigation, well, I hate to be the one to tell you..., but, you known the VMs illustration of a violet? One of my favorites. Well the flowers are all upside down, like inverted. So that invalid orientation totally discredits any identification same as with the dots. After that the whole botany thing gets much worse real fast IMO.
Heraldry has a set of rules well in place before the creation of the VMs and little changed over centuries - with one relevant, modern exception which is the institution of the counting of parts in the paly, bendy, barry patterns. What set of rules did botany have in the era of the VMs creation?