(15-01-2025, 08:39 PM)Koen G wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.What should be the default assumption for a medieval work? Most of the imagery comes from somewhere . It's exactly the details that change. Even a hunter's bow becoming a crossbow is considered a change in fashion rather than type.
The default assumption for a manuscript that has been widely known to the public for 100+ years and has been reviewed by numerous scholars with knowledge of medieval works, but has no direct relations to other manuscripts identified so far, is that it has no clear direct relation to other manuscripts. I suppose, this is precisely why you are hunting for parallels, and why finding a clear parallel would be so valuable - because none so far have been found.
(15-01-2025, 08:39 PM)Koen G wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Just compare the two doctor illustrations in the remaining manuscripts of this tradition (Berlin and Karlsruhe). Would they be placed on the same family tree by your standards?
Given the images below (Berlin/Karlsruhe/VMS, if I'm reading the notes in the thread correctly), I wouldn't say Berlin and Karlsruhe are related based on the image of the doctor alone, because the only things that are similar there are the basic shape of the container, clothes and part of the posture. However, if we include the image of the lady with the rosary into the consideration, then it becomes very probable that the images are indeed related: same type of the cane, same grip used on the cane (an unnatural one, by the way) and almost the same way of holding the rosary, similar headgear.
As far as I can see, there is not a single clear unambiguous detail that would perfectly match between the other manuscripts and VMS.