Koen G > 16-12-2016, 06:02 PM
Linda > 16-12-2016, 08:13 PM
Koen G > 16-12-2016, 08:38 PM
Linda > 16-12-2016, 10:01 PM
-JKP- > 17-12-2016, 11:35 AM
Koen G > 17-12-2016, 11:52 AM
Sam G > 17-12-2016, 12:18 PM
(17-12-2016, 11:35 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.What if (this is a "what if" that I've been turning over in my mind for a while)... chunks of the VMS are based on UNILLUSTRATED texts? Most people tend to look for illustrated exemplars when researching a manuscript's provenance. I was actually quite embarrassed that it didn't occur to me earlier than a year ago that the "exemplars" for illustrations are sometimes textual descriptions and once it dawned on me, of course, it seemed very obvious (it was one of those D'oh!! moments). There is always a "first" manuscript that has illustrations—the first herbal illustrations, the first anatomical illustrations, the first zodiac man, etc.
I think it's reasonably clear that the VMS illustrator had seen illustrations in other manuscripts, some of them follow convention, but... I sometimes wonder if parts of the manuscript are pictorial interpretations of text that didn't have images and that's why they don't follow traditional models.
Koen G > 17-12-2016, 12:50 PM
Linda > 17-12-2016, 06:32 PM
R. Sale > 17-12-2016, 08:07 PM