(18-09-2026, 01:10 AM)Jorge_Stolfi wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The diagram of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. also resembles an orange sliced in half, a carriage wheel, a cathedral's round vitral, a Lullian volvelle, ...
And the details are not consistent with those interpretations. Why would the rays of a diatom's cell have labels on them? If f86v4 is an cross-section of a plant stem, why are there four "angels" and a moon-face in it?
I agree with you on most points, especially regarding the willingness to thoroughly research cases of forgery.
But there’s one point I’d like to address specifically—this quote. Here’s my take on it:
Microcosm-macrocosm thinking was widespread back then. And it wouldn’t be unusual to “see” angels and animals as symbols of certain forces and “energies” in plants. And it’s common for people to describe what they see using terms they’re familiar with.
The best example is the “flying saucer”—no one believed they were actually saucers. And so it’s understandable that he recognized structures which he interpreted as buildings.
As a possible example: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
And the fact that he tried to place the plants within the context of astrology is also entirely understandable, in line with the microcosm-macrocosm way of thinking.
These things therefore actually serve, in a certain sense, as evidence that it was indeed written in the 15th century and not much later—by which time this way of thinking no longer existed in such a naive form.
Just a quick note: I find the theory about plants very interesting, and in a way, plausible as well, but I'm aware that it's just another theory that can't be proven.