28-10-2021, 11:35 PM
One's answer to this probably depends on which part of the manuscript they focus on. For instance, profusely illustrated plant manuscripts are not unusual. Collections of various topics in one manuscript are also not unusual.
However, I think its particular collection of (apparent) subjects does make the VM unusual. And the details of the images are unusual as well. There are many things besides the script that make it unique. D'Imperio wrote of a mind-boggling queerness.
I think that if someone calls the MS "conventional", they are probably doing so as a reaction to someone claiming that it has nothing in common with other 15thc manuscripts. This is obviously not the case. But especially if we are talking about the contents alone, I would say that it is much more unusual than conventional.
However, I think its particular collection of (apparent) subjects does make the VM unusual. And the details of the images are unusual as well. There are many things besides the script that make it unique. D'Imperio wrote of a mind-boggling queerness.
I think that if someone calls the MS "conventional", they are probably doing so as a reaction to someone claiming that it has nothing in common with other 15thc manuscripts. This is obviously not the case. But especially if we are talking about the contents alone, I would say that it is much more unusual than conventional.