(11-12-2017, 04:07 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[*]Cotton MS Galba A XVIII is on bumpy terrain but in a different pose, facing right, head turned
This MS was featured on the BL blog just now, which prompted me to have another look. The Zodiac signs were added early 10th century, England. You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
I feel like most of this must have been mentioned before since it's quite a prominent manuscript so I'm probably late to the party, but quite a lot stands out in this series:
- Starts in Capricorn (January) so ends in Sagittarius. So perhaps the VM series used to be like this, but the first months are omitted or lost?
- Animals on rugged terrain
- Lots of blue animals
- Aries and Capricorn have somewhat similar horns, both facing a bush
- Very pronounced dew claws
- Red Taurus with bent, long neck. Horns are clipped by circle.
- Cancer is weird. I'd say it's a double crayfish with their ends joined.
- Scorpio has been replaced by Ophiuchus, suggesting perhaps that it was copied from a more complete astronomical source?
- Fully human Sagittarius, not really aiming.
I guess for this thread the most important question is, how do we interpret the Cancer? Whatever it is, it's not a crab and it's got two faces.
Link to page: You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
I don't remember seeing another crayfish like this one.
It has the same number of legs as many crayfish images, but includes extra "antennae" or unclawlike "claws" with round dots on the end that one can't help interpreting as eyes.
In light of the obsrevations I made my latest You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view., I would like to contest the position stated in the Voynich Essentials You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. regarding the two fish in Pisces being connected by a string.
This is a statement that has been made several times in various peoples' description of the Voynich Pisces, but in fact, the connection is an illusion created by blue paint.
The two fish are not connected. At all.
VViews, that is if you choose to ignore the paint. You might as well say that nymphs don't have mouths because those are only drawn by paint.
Nope. As I said in my post, even if you consider the blue line as valid, it actually doesn't connect the fish, or the stars.
If you say it does, show me where.
And by the way, the nymphs' mouths are drawn in brown under the paint. You can find several examples of nymphs with unpainted lips in the Zodiac section.
Alright, so should we remove the entry and explain it in a note?
I think that would be more accurate, yes.
Unless you want to put a poll up, but really, it should be pretty plain to see that there is no brown line and that the blue line just doesn't connect.
I'm just amazed that it took me so long to notice that.
It's fine for me, I think you're right in that the current statement assumes too much. Maybe we'll wait to see what Marco, JKP think? IIRC you can edit the essentials forum, right?
Yes, I can do it, but I agree, let's wait and see if there are any counter arguments.
ETA: I just noticed that I can't actually. Not sure if this is related to the recent forum upgrade or if it was the case before, I'll admit I had never tried to edit posts in that forum.
Quote:- a string that runs outside rather than between the fish [JKP]
- Each fish connected to a star by a string.
Maybe the better way to say this is, "• there is no line between the fish as is common"
I sometimes use the word string, but often I will say line, since we don't actually know if it is a string. "• each fish connected to a star by a line"
Does that work?