Why we can't read it and Michael Coe's "Five Pillars of Decipherment"

[kckluge]

Others such as Koen Gheuens have mapped specific motifs over a more limited European range. It's very unfortunate that we don't have any visibility into the content of Martina Pippal's recent course on the subject at the University of Vienna.

I just want to point out here that the mapping over a limited European range is not restricted by choice, but rather by the evidence. For example, when I referred to academic publications that indicate that the T-O diagram is an expression of a medieval Christian world view, Diane protested that my scope was too limited. But I can't expand my scope if there is nothing to expand it to. When I asked for examples of a similar T-in-O diagram in non-Christian cultures, the answer was silence.

I hear what you're saying. I'm not unsympathetic, especially with respect to the issue of T-O maps in general and f68v3 in particular. Having said that:

* Diane is not the only person to make facially plausible claims that some of the plant drawings depict Asian plants that were unfamiliar to Europeans prior to the mid 15th century (if you take the date of the vellum as a terminus ad quem) and/or unrepresented in European manuscripts through that period. (I think I got that right.) If that's the case, then maybe we do need to consider broader cultural horizons.

* As surprising as it may be given some of my more...vigorous...comments, I do try to keep an open mind. (I've been posting to the mailing list, etc. for 30+ years, and we all have bad days with regard to tone and/or accuracy.) So when Diane writes about artistic conventions regarding the depiction of unclothed female bodies over time and space, I recognize that I lack the necessary background to take issue with her opinions in an informed way. Which is why I wish we had the luxury of having other trained art historians engage with her analyses and claims. Which I hope will happen. Ideally by her submitting to and being published in journals that not only do peer review but also accompany published papers with commentary by the reviewers.

* And I think the broader point remains, which is that we sorely need a critical mass of professional art historical attention directed at MS 408 that has been lacking to date. For its own sake as well as how it may potentially help inform reading the text.

By the way, I actually meant to refer to J. K. Petersen (not to deprecate the comparative studies you've done) -- so shout out to J. K....

Also by the way, I still think that the potential f68v3-BNF Fr. 565 connection (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.) is one of the best threads we have to pull on. Unlike the oak-ivy drawing where there is a family resemblance to a number of manuscripts, it seems plausible that the creator of f68v3 had that specific manuscript in front of them as a model -- so what is the relevant set of people who that could have been true of? Unfortunately, I think the real problem we face is that the sort of people who were likely involved in the creation of MS 408 are not the sort of people whose papers were preserved and whose lives were well documented. Consider the notebook (sic) of the architect Villard de Honnecourt -- it's not unique because there was something special about the author, or there's something special about the contents, or because it's at all likely that Villard was unusual in keeping such notes. It's unique because it survived.

Karl