JKP: they might just represent the constellations on the ecliptic, like in Aratea manuscripts. That is ignoring the fact that some of them are problematic. This would make them astronomical rather than astrological.
If the duplicate symbols are meant for something like intercalation, it would be more of a calendar. I don't recall who it was that said the inages look more appropriate to a calendar than a zodiac.
Those are just two alternative options. However , I think the interpretation as a zodiac is very deep rooted and accustomed to many, so it may be hard to come up with something better.
Pool pages is a good idea for those who wish to talk about a subset of Q13.
I like big plants and small plants, it's descriptive and easy to use. Do native English speakers see a difference between 'big plants' and 'large plants'?
I think Cosmology section is fine for the other section, unless someone knows a reason why it should be an inappropriate name...
(16-11-2016, 09:00 PM)VViews Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.And yes, I too would like to hear what others think about this whole topic.
For what it's worth...
The purpose of the discussion isn't really that clear to me from the first few posts.
If the aim is to reduce or minimise confusion, then that certainly sounds like a worthwhile discussion.
In that case, pointing to the You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. and the existing literature, which are more or less
consistent, could be sufficient.
(By the way, I can only recommend reading also some of the older literature, to those who are
seriously interested in the MS).
These names are a use by 'convention'.
If this forum wants to define new names, then this is perfectly possible of course. This will then
create a new mini-convention in a possibly limited sphere, and most probably increase confusion.
I think the term 'consensus' should not be used in such a context at all.
Ten years ago, astronomers decided that Pluto was no longer a planet.
Was there consensus? I dare say: not!
Rene: the purpose is to reduce confusion. The current situation is that a number of names are accepted, but a growing number of researchers is unhappy with these names because of their implied assumptions. This leads to people coming up with their own names, more variety and more confusion.
If we could come up with a set of neutral names, these could exist alongside the traditional ones an posters could choose which one they use. I for one would be happy to adopt the neutral names in my forum posts and blog posts alike.
The advantage will be that those who are dissatisfied with the classic terminology have a standard they can adhere to, streamlining communication.
I'll admit it: I never use the Yale site except for the scans. I'd never even read their description of the MS.
Here are the sections according to them (I've edited out some of the descriptions for the sake of brevity):
"The contents of the manuscript falls into six sections:
Part I. ff. 1r-66v Botanical section
Part II. ff. 67r-73v Astronomical or astrological section
Part III. ff. 75r-84v "Biological" section
Part IV. ff. 85r-86v This sextuple-folio folding leaf contains an
elaborate array of nine medallions, filled with stars and cell-like
shapes, with fibrous structures linking the circles.
Part V. ff. 87r-102v Pharmaceutical section
Part VI. ff. 103r-117v Continuous text, with stars in inner margin on recto
and outer margins of verso."
I note three issues with this:
They have ignored the weirdness of Q8 and consider it as part of the Botanical section.
They also describe the "pharmaceutical" section as a continuous section from 87r-102v, which is simply incorrect.
Also, they consider the rosette-map foldout as a whole section.
ReneZ, I don't mind using their terminology, but I do find it insufficient because of these three concerns.
(17-11-2016, 10:11 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....
Ten years ago, astronomers decided that Pluto was no longer a planet.
Was there consensus? I dare say: not!
Teachers used to teach that Saturn was the only planet with rings. They were wrong. They should have taught that Saturn was the only planet with rings "that we know of so far", but they didn't do that and they stuck a very wrong concept in people's heads (just as a flat earth and earth as center of universe were wrong concepts).
If it's wrong, change it. So what if half a generation will be confused and have to sort out two different messages if the
result is that the next generation will have better information and things are given an opportunity to evolve.
We are stuck with QWERTY keyboards, which slow down typing, even though there was an opportunity, when computer keyboards were introduced, to change it, to introduce the faster, easier-to-learn DVORAK keyboard. There was a lot of discussion about grabbing the opportunity for positive change in computer journals—the opportunity was squandered and now we're stuck with a long-since-obsolete system.
I see no problem with discussing alternatives. And... if they are good ones, over time, they may be adopted. We may know more about the VMS than those previous researchers due to radio-carbon dating results, multi-spectral images, historic letters, and other research that comes to light. We have to expect that some older ideas about the VMS are obsolete and some may be dead wrong.
I'm in support of neutral terminology as long as the terms are natural enough to perceive and remember.
I honestly don't think a new researcher would have trouble making the conceptual leap between small-plant pages and an earlier and perhaps incorrect designation of "pharmaceutical". The same with "biological". It may be an incorrect designation. What if Koen turns out to be right and these are fanciful expressions of Ovidian myths or constellations? They may not be biological at all (or there may be several sections, myths, constellations, AND biological). If that's the case, a more neutral designation might make it easier to see what's really there.
@JKP,
don't get me wrong. This forum can of course decide to adopt its own terminology (as I already wrote).
However, in the first message it was written that this was not the purpose.
In any case, every blog owner can of course also adopt his or her own conventions.
I did want to point out that the term 'consensus' seemed out of place, and I also don't think one
should try to argue whether any existing conventions are 'right' or 'wrong' since nobody knows.
It's a matter of preference.
Clearly, the names that have been used over the last decades were chosen because that it what
the illustrations look like. Nobody ever claimed that this is what these sections are about.
In most cases, it seems hard to argue that these would be misnomers, though I'll be the first to agree
that the pharmaceutical section is an exception, and whoever coined that name did use a lot of imagination.
This is the easiest one to wonder about.
If anyone wants to argue that the zodiac section should not be called zodiac section, well, I can't take
that proposition too seriously, but that's just my opinion.
If there's any term I never particularly liked or understood, it's the term "gallows characters"....
(18-11-2016, 08:11 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....
If there's any term I never particularly liked or understood, it's the term "gallows characters"....
I never gave much thought to what they should or could be called and picked up the term "gallows characters" simply because I saw it so often. But is there a better one?
They look like capitals (upper case) but perhaps that's by "design" (misdirection or convenience) rather than by meaning, so capitals would probably be misleading.
The word "ascenders" doesn't quite describe them either and "ascender glyphs" isn't quite as poetic as "gallows characters" but perhaps "ascender glyphs" is a more direct interpretation.
Maybe someone with both imagination and a practical streak has a better way to describe them.
I use the term "gallows" because to me it doesn't mean anything. I mean, it doesn't steer one's interpretation. So it's as good a name as any.
Even though I believe them to be a bit like capitals, a term like "capitals" would be worse because this foregrounds one well understood aspect of writing.
Rene: I know the original terms were never meant to convey consensus. I also know that when people like us use the terms, we understand that they are just names, nothing more.
But there are plenty of other people reading our messages, and they may not know these things. There are generations of future Voynich researchers who could benefit from more descriptive names.
Additionally, I had noticed that a number of different people were starting to feel uncomfortable using names like "pharma section" and "biological section". So I'm hoping we can channel this into a positive change.
We don't want to change just to break with tradition. For example, I personally see no problem with a term like "cosmological section" since this section depicts heavenly bodies. The term feels descriptive rather than interpretative.
I have mixed feelings about the term "zodiac". On the one hand, the term is easy and we all know what it refers to. On the other, I believe there are other reasonable interpretations for this section. A number of constellations of the ecliptic don't have to be interpreted as a zodiac sequence.
In the current form, it seems reasonable that the figures were meant to represent the constellations on the ecliptic. But that does not mean that they were actually seen or used as the signs of the Zodiac (= astrology). But I guess it comes down to the definition of "zodiac" one uses.
The term for the "gallows characters" in "traditional" scholarship is the term "litterae oblongatae", a term well known in diplomatics, it is the term for the well known Cappelli illustration
I basically use the conventional terms, even though none of them are really in agreement with what I tend to think about the purposes of these sections (not even "Herbal", really). "Pharmaceutical" is certainly the most problematic one since lots of people do in fact assume that this section is about pharmaceutical mixtures, an idea that is unproven at best (and that I'm actually convinced is completely wrong for reasons I won't go into here). So I could see some basis for replacing that particular section name. Other sections like "Biological" and "Cosmological" are vague enough that I don't think many people assume much on the basis of these names - it seems obvious that we just use these terms so that we have words to refer to these particular sections.
I do think that there's a problem with unwarranted assumptions being treated as established fact with the VMS but I don't the names of the sections have much to do with it. It seems that most fields of study have a lot of historical nomenclature that doesn't really reflect the current thinking and I'm not sure it's much of a problem.