12-11-2016, 12:22 AM
JKP
this made me smile. The 'authorial' idea was absolutely the only idea acceptable around 2010-2013. Even saying something fairly unremarkable - that it was a compilation from older sources - created something of a furore back then - the 'compilation' bit as well as a the 'older sources' bit. But in those days it was necessary to explain that Latin Europe traded directly with Egypt in the medieval period, and that Europeans were in the east before da Gama. We've actually come a long way in the past few years.
I guess ideas rise and fall in popularity, but it is amusing to see that for you to voice an opinion near-universal just a few years ago now sees you 'smacked'. [Sorry -
]
In any case the written part of the text could prove to be an original composition; why not? We have no way to date tht part of the content because, unlike the pictorial text, the written offers testimony to nothing except the style in which the fifteenth-century scribes' hands were trained. I wish reports on the paleography were a little less biased - the 'humanist-influenced hand' idea gets a lot of air, but it's not the only opinion, nor necessarily the best opinion.
Quote:I sometimes get smacked when I suggest that much of it may be original rather than copied from older sources
this made me smile. The 'authorial' idea was absolutely the only idea acceptable around 2010-2013. Even saying something fairly unremarkable - that it was a compilation from older sources - created something of a furore back then - the 'compilation' bit as well as a the 'older sources' bit. But in those days it was necessary to explain that Latin Europe traded directly with Egypt in the medieval period, and that Europeans were in the east before da Gama. We've actually come a long way in the past few years.
I guess ideas rise and fall in popularity, but it is amusing to see that for you to voice an opinion near-universal just a few years ago now sees you 'smacked'. [Sorry -
]In any case the written part of the text could prove to be an original composition; why not? We have no way to date tht part of the content because, unlike the pictorial text, the written offers testimony to nothing except the style in which the fifteenth-century scribes' hands were trained. I wish reports on the paleography were a little less biased - the 'humanist-influenced hand' idea gets a lot of air, but it's not the only opinion, nor necessarily the best opinion.