(21-06-2026, 08:34 AM)oshfdk wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.That's true. You can see that the word otol appears in the illustration of "fallopian tubes":(20-06-2026, 11:07 PM)ololololo wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Such liberties are possible, but they do not take place, and when you write a book about medicine, you rather sign the fire as fire, because you do not need to play the reader.
I can't agree, if this is a book about medicine and not a kindergarten primer, I'd say it makes little sense to draw fire and label it as "fire". Certainly the reader knows what fire looks like.
In a medical book of the time one example could be a text talking about how humors relate to elements, in which case labelling elements for their corresponding humors would be informative. Then fire would be labelled something like "bile", air as "blood", water as "phlegm", etc.
In reality I don't believe we can expect the fire image to be literally labelled as "fire". It is possible, but it's far far from certain.
In one of the interpretations, shedy was translated as "hot," and or was translated as "cold." But as far as I know, according to medieval beliefs, bile did not flow to the fallopian tubes. This may mean the following:
1). It is possible that the author imagined bile flowing into the fallopian tubes, as he might have associated it with the digestive system, but this is unlikely...
2). This is not a fallopian tubes. There are illustrations nearby that look like the pancreas and intestines, so it's likely true.

