18-04-2016, 09:16 PM
JKP
I think this is again a problem of terminology. Very few people, if any at all, will ban anything that comes from outside of Europe from their analysis.
I think the difference can best be explained by answering the question "where did the creative effort that resulted in MS Beinecke 408 take place?"
What Diane means with "all European" is, I think, that the creative effort has mostly taken place in Europe. Rene, for example, mentions on his site that to him the MS looks like the result of 'one brain', and that this person probably lived in Europe. This does by no means imply that the author banned "foreign" elements from his work! It's clear from Rene's responses that he is open minded about this.
This "all European" way of thinking is the most logical and straight forward one, and the one that should be assumed at first, Occam's razor and all. The MS is European, so its contents was probably created there as well.
What can be contrasted with this, is the hypothesis that MS Beinecke 408 is the result of a copying effort in Europe, without much creative input from the copyists. Almost as if a document that had never been to Europe has been brought there and then multiplied using a "human copy machine".
So that is really the only thing this is about. You are also very open minded and professional, and I know you don't eliminate evidence based on country of origin or anything like that. The question is, whether or not European culture had any direct influence on MS Beinecke 408's creation. In other words, was it a person using the material around him (including, perhaps, foreign books), to compose this work, or was it someone copying documents that came from abroad, with minimal own input?
I think this last view is held by very little people - which is understandable, since it looks more far fetched than the other one.
So basically
All-European: most of the creative effort to make the MS in Europe/by a European.
Not European: most of the creative effort outside of Europe, copied in Europe.
It is because I hold the second view, that I don't demonstrate how an Egyptian snake icon should have been known to a 15th century European. If the document was just copied in Europe, this question is almost irrelevant.
I think this is again a problem of terminology. Very few people, if any at all, will ban anything that comes from outside of Europe from their analysis.
I think the difference can best be explained by answering the question "where did the creative effort that resulted in MS Beinecke 408 take place?"
What Diane means with "all European" is, I think, that the creative effort has mostly taken place in Europe. Rene, for example, mentions on his site that to him the MS looks like the result of 'one brain', and that this person probably lived in Europe. This does by no means imply that the author banned "foreign" elements from his work! It's clear from Rene's responses that he is open minded about this.
This "all European" way of thinking is the most logical and straight forward one, and the one that should be assumed at first, Occam's razor and all. The MS is European, so its contents was probably created there as well.
What can be contrasted with this, is the hypothesis that MS Beinecke 408 is the result of a copying effort in Europe, without much creative input from the copyists. Almost as if a document that had never been to Europe has been brought there and then multiplied using a "human copy machine".
So that is really the only thing this is about. You are also very open minded and professional, and I know you don't eliminate evidence based on country of origin or anything like that. The question is, whether or not European culture had any direct influence on MS Beinecke 408's creation. In other words, was it a person using the material around him (including, perhaps, foreign books), to compose this work, or was it someone copying documents that came from abroad, with minimal own input?
I think this last view is held by very little people - which is understandable, since it looks more far fetched than the other one.
So basically
All-European: most of the creative effort to make the MS in Europe/by a European.
Not European: most of the creative effort outside of Europe, copied in Europe.
It is because I hold the second view, that I don't demonstrate how an Egyptian snake icon should have been known to a 15th century European. If the document was just copied in Europe, this question is almost irrelevant.