Quote:Rene said,
"... that the MS was copied from something that was many centuries old, possibly even more than a 1000 years, which had not been copied by anyone else in the meantime. is not impossible... but it is not the most likely of all scenarios..
I wouild say that the opinion that the content in the manuscript originated - as it appears presently - before the current fifteenth century manuscript is not the sort of thing which is reasonably entertained as an "idea" or a "storyline" or any other of those things constantly and wrongly called a "theory", and which are often no more than an initial bit of day-dreaming - for which bits and pieces are then hunted in the hope of lending a flimsy idea the colour of verisimilitude: aka 'plausibility'.
To reach the opinion that there is a strong disparity in the style, form and content of the imagery and that obtaining in fifteenth century Europe - a disparity which requires the conclusion that as much as a thousand years passed between first enunciation of the imagery and its inclusion in our present manuscript - is the sort of conclusion which can only be drawn after the imagery has been studied in detail, its stylistic influences and intent first evaluated by careful analysis.
So if it's not a conclusion from previous study and evidence, then its no more likely than any other of the popular scenarios.
Of course, anyone can ignore any amount of evidence and conclusion. All one can do is present the evidence and then be able as well as willing to discuss it fairly. After all, our common aim is the better understanding of a fifteenth century manuscript, not the "triumph" of a pet storyline - I hope all would agree.
PS - marginalia in a manuscript means only that someone who could write in the marginal language could write in the marginal language. It tells us nothing about the language or content of the principal text. For all we know, it was written as a curse by someone who thought that any language but their own was "foreign muck".
