This is not an orb, but the intention is the same as many orbs and T-O configurations.
In this case, it's somewhat like an inverted T-O, except that the elements are outside a nontraditional depiction of the three earthly regions, oriented differently and also proportioned differently in terms of the amount of space within each section.
[
attachment=2480]
Source: Astronmical Compilation, ÖNB Cod. 387
It's very nice to see this subject re-visited.
I won't pretend not to have seen, and even used, most of these illustrations before, but I don't remember the material being greeted with so much enthusiasm last time round and perhaps this will see your effort, JKP, alluded to and correctly attributed across more sites.
I hadn't noticed Marco's example when writing the subject up, it might be worthwhile (if anyone has the time) to cross-check it against other works from the period made in glass and stone.
Thanks again.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
Also interesting, spiral sun (f. 94r) and Asia/Africa/Europa in the same half-disk (f. 81r).
(30-12-2024, 12:10 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.And no, the Cosmos illustration of BNF Fr. 565 has no place in this. There is no link between the two manuscripts, and both illustrations might relate to a common source, but they are not so similar that they can be connected.
Much more would need to be found to say more about this.
Hi Rene,
I have a question but then I realized I am unclear on what you are saying. Do you mean that they share a 'single' source, or do you mean they are a 'motif' that can be found in many sources? (e.g. a mother cradling a child, below a star.)
I am assuming you mean the latter simply because the diagrams are clearly 'very' similar -- they share at least three distinct and independent features so it would be remarkable for them to coincide simply by chance unless they were intentionally combined to convey a common motif. (And if it is not a motif, there would have to be an earlier document from which they were both copied, or else one was based on the other. But in either of those cases, one would say there is a 'direct' link.)
So, assuming that is what you meant -- the "common source" is a motif --what does the motif represent? Perhaps more importantly, what is the motif's origins (culturally, geographically, era, etc.)? I expect, of course, that I am asking something that is common knowledge to medievalists (and just unknown to me). But I'm curious because the motif's origins would surely say something useful about the origins of the VMS as well.
The cosmic comparison of E. Velinska is now over a decade old, and was well-received by many at the time, starting with Nick Pelling. Although her information has been taken down, the comparison is still worthy of examination.
The VMs artist's use of visual trickery is provable in White Aries because the evidence is contained within the illustration. In the cosmic comparison the evidence of trickery is external. The evidence is in the degree of visual dissimilarity when contrasted with the numerous points of structural similarity.
The VMs cosmos is centered on an inverted T-O Earth, surrounded by stars and enclosed in a cosmic boundary. This is a very uncommon structure when compared to the standard structure of the time with its rings of elements, planets and heavens.
In BNF Fr. 565, the three parts of the Earth are represented pictorially. In the VMs the pictures are absent and words have been used instead. Ostensibly, this is a code shift - providing the same information but using a different method of communication. This is the height of visual trickery, because there is no way for appearance to retain any similarity, while the object represented is still the same object whatever its path of derivation.
In addition, the 43 undulations of the BNF Fr. 565 cosmic boundary compare with the 43 ambiguous (tricky) undulations of the nebuly line that forms the cosmic boundary of the VMs. Again the VMs cosmos (interior) presents the same structural information, but with a maximum amount of visual diversity. That seems highy suggestive of visual trickery - not provable here, but previously demonstrated elsewhere.
(30-12-2024, 03:09 AM)R. Sale Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The VMs artist's use of visual trickery is provable in White Aries because the evidence is contained within the illustration. In the cosmic comparison the evidence of trickery is external. The evidence is in the degree of visual dissimilarity when contrasted with the numerous points of structural similarity.
I'm sorry --What do you mean here by "visual trickery"?
The intentional use of duality to disguise historical information.
From another thread:
While visual trickery may look like ambiguity or individual variation, sometimes it is a bit more obvious.
In VMs White Aries, (f71r), there are two tub patterns at 10 - 11 o'clock that were painted with blue stripes.
What is the orientation of these patterns and how do they compare with standard heraldic examples?
To determine orientation, it is natural to turn the VMs illustration so that the nymphs and the tubs are viewed upright. Thus the stripes on the inner tub are vertical, and the stripes on the outer tub correspond to the heraldic sinister (left-handed) diagonal. This is the 'radial' interpretation.
As an alternative, consider just the patterns themselves in isolation on the page. In this interpretation, both patterns best correspond to the heraldic standard, dexter (right-handed) diagonal. Is this interpretation valid or just an artifact?
Note that the nymph in the inner circle is also wearing a large, reddish hat.
What do you know about the origins of the Catholic tradition of the cardinal's red galero? It was instituted by Pope Innocent IV, who was Sinibaldo Fieschi. The Fieschi armorial insignia is 'bendy, argent et azure - blue and white stripes on a dexter diagonal - the same as the secondary interpretation above. Furthermore, Pope Innocent IV made several of his relatives cardinals, most notably his nephew, Ottobuono Fieschi, who was later Pope Adrian V.
Does the VMs image support this interpretation?
1) With the cardinal in the inner ring and the pope in the outer ring, this is the correct placement for hierarchical positioning in the celestial spheres.
2) Both figures are located in the more favored heraldic upper right quadrant.
3) The choice of *white* Aries as the medallion figure is the only zodiac animal suitable for celestial sacrifice.
4) In the preceding Pisces and Dark Aries illustrations, corresponding in both quadrant and sphere to the striped tubs of White Aries, are tubs with scale-like patterns. This is an obscure heraldic fur known as papelonny. The structural correspondence, and the French word "pape" for pope make this look like an extended version of heraldic canting.
5) Does the number of stripes matter? No, the heraldic counting of parts comes much later.
6) What about the markings on the unpainted stripes? Has anyone found painting and hatching used in combination? The use of an invalid technique makes for an invalid objection.
7) The prolific painting of this particular zodiac page serves to hide the two tubs involved and to emphasize the 'whiteness' of White Aries.
What is hopefully clear is that there are two different ways to interpret the orientation of the blue-striped patterns of VMs White Aries - the radial way and the non-radial way. That is built into the structure. There are two options for interpretation. That is duality. The facts are that the more obvious, radial interpretation is historically insignificant (AFAIK), while the less obvious, non-radial interpretation is indicative of an important historical event in the heraldic tradition of the Catholic church. Less obvious implies a degree of disguise - not to mention a large dose of historical obscurity. Duality and disguise combined approach deception. The VMs artist is a practitioner of visual trickery at least.
(30-12-2024, 02:21 AM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I have a question but then I realized I am unclear on what you are saying. Do you mean that they share a 'single' source, or do you mean they are a 'motif' that can be found in many sources? (e.g. a mother cradling a child, below a star.)
I am assuming you mean the latter simply because the diagrams are clearly 'very' similar -- they share at least three distinct and independent features so it would be remarkable for them to coincide simply by chance unless they were intentionally combined to convey a common motif. (And if it is not a motif, there would have to be an earlier document from which they were both copied, or else one was based on the other. But in either of those cases, one would say there is a 'direct' link.)
So, assuming that is what you meant -- the "common source" is a motif --what does the motif represent? Perhaps more importantly, what is the motif's origins (culturally, geographically, era, etc.)? I expect, of course, that I am asking something that is common knowledge to medievalists (and just unknown to me). But I'm curious because the motif's origins would surely say something useful about the origins of the VMS as well.
Hi Andrew,
the common features between the two drawings are clear. The significant differences as well.
My main point is that no dating information (of any useful accuracy) can be derived from this.
There is nothing to suggest that one was copied from the other, in either direction.
Not knowing of any other examples that are as similar as this, does not mean that they don't exist, or never existed.
There was a time that the Voynich community was aware of exactly one sagittarius that was a human with a crossbow. I obtained it in 2009 from an Austrian historian. That situation lasted for a number of years, but later at least two dozen more were found.
When I showed the diagram found by Ellie Velinska to a group of medievalists, they were unimpressed and said that this illustration is common. I could not find out more at the time, but to come back to the point - we do not get any dating information from this similarity. A common ancestor could be 5 years old but also 50. The two copies (Voynich and BNF Fr) would have been made independently of each other.
Now finally to your question: beside the suprirising (to me) response I got as just mentioned above, I am not aware of any background information, and I am not qualified to make any more specific statement. I have spent some time browsing whatever illustrated manuscripts were online in past years, but that is not systematic and completely unscientific. Some common origin seems completely likely, from this limited point of view, but how direct/indirect it would be remains beyond me.
I agree it is interesting, but it is not something that I feel up to pursuing. A more general impression I have obtained (and this seems to be more generally agrees) is that most of the astronomical and cosmological illustrations in the MS are quite different from those in other astronomical and cosmological works. These tend to form quite a recognisable set, and again none of these are found in the Voynich MS.
![[Image: pisan.png]](https://voynichviews.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/pisan.png)