Botany and Mariology
#2
I agree with the overall sentiment that the non-botanical aspects of the plants must be pointed out and deserve study. Understanding these, and how they differ from non-botanical parts in other manuscript traditions, may offer clues to what is going on with the VM plants.

However, I have also become more cautious when it comes to following a sentiment to the extreme and trying to generalize a thing one may spot in one part of the MS. It is oh so easy to get stuck in a cycle of confirmation bias with this manuscript, and learning how to recognize this and halt it on time is part of the learning process of the study.

That all said, there is certainly a subset of plants with decidedly architectural (and unnatural) stem bases. These are the most obvious examples, though I may have missed some:

   


About the m-arches, I'm not sure if they are supposed to represent letters, since arches like this are common in medieval painting. The subject of Mariology might indeed be relevant, since the Annunciation is often set under arches, associating the architectural form with Mary. Just google annunciation painting, and you will see that in the majority of late medieval examples, Mary is placed under arches. This still holds true later in Renaissance painting, though the arched forms may be shifted to the background.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Botany and Mariology - by R. Sale - 23-01-2024, 09:22 PM
RE: Botany and Mariology - by Koen G - 24-01-2024, 09:32 AM
RE: Botany and Mariology - by nablator - 24-01-2024, 09:58 AM
RE: Botany and Mariology - by nablator - 24-01-2024, 10:05 AM
RE: Botany and Mariology - by Ruby Novacna - 24-01-2024, 04:09 PM
RE: Botany and Mariology - by R. Sale - 24-01-2024, 09:34 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)