Rene
I have a genuine question for you, since there is one point that, as an amateur, I don't understand. A point of criticism I often get, from you or like minded people, is that I have to demonstrate transmission. Now I understand what transmission means and why it would strengthen an argument. What I don't understand tgough, is why it is necessary before anything can be considered.
Simply put, I believe the large lines of Diane's conclusions (even though we disagree about speifics): the base layer of the imagery is Hellenistic, and the effects of subsequent copies can be seen in the imagery. There is a clear Eastern influence in some sections, and some medieval European alterations can be seen as well, with the crossbowman as an obvious example.
Now for the sake of argument only, let me grossly simplify and say that I'd want to argue that the VM is the result of someone in the 15thC travelling to Egypt, finding a scroll in a buried chest and having it copied back in Europe.
Obviously the scroll would not be in optimal condition, so interpretations have to be made by the poor copyists. Is this a tail or some kind of tree?
Once again, this is not exactly what I think happened, but just a hypothetical scenario. So someone finds a foreign scroll and has it copied. My question: how do I demonstrate transmission if the scenario I propose is in itself a unique and undocumented form of transmission?
I have a genuine question for you, since there is one point that, as an amateur, I don't understand. A point of criticism I often get, from you or like minded people, is that I have to demonstrate transmission. Now I understand what transmission means and why it would strengthen an argument. What I don't understand tgough, is why it is necessary before anything can be considered.
Simply put, I believe the large lines of Diane's conclusions (even though we disagree about speifics): the base layer of the imagery is Hellenistic, and the effects of subsequent copies can be seen in the imagery. There is a clear Eastern influence in some sections, and some medieval European alterations can be seen as well, with the crossbowman as an obvious example.
Now for the sake of argument only, let me grossly simplify and say that I'd want to argue that the VM is the result of someone in the 15thC travelling to Egypt, finding a scroll in a buried chest and having it copied back in Europe.
Obviously the scroll would not be in optimal condition, so interpretations have to be made by the poor copyists. Is this a tail or some kind of tree?
Once again, this is not exactly what I think happened, but just a hypothetical scenario. So someone finds a foreign scroll and has it copied. My question: how do I demonstrate transmission if the scenario I propose is in itself a unique and undocumented form of transmission?