Melusine has been depicted as a dragon and as a top-half human female - bottom-half ichthyological /reptilian thingybob. It doesn't much matter. The details of the mythological story vary. The depictions are idiosyncratic. It doesn't matter. What matters is the cultural connection with tradition. What is the interpretation based on tradition as shown for the use of the Melusine mythology as political propaganda, as best seen in the historical and literary connections with Duke Jean of Berry (d. 1416, Paris), but something which was also strong in other Valois lines - specifically Burgundy.
The problem with VMs Pisces is not with the appearance of the Pisces medallion. The problem is with the comparison with the traditional zodiac sequence. Where does the sequence start? According to the Zodiac Man, Pisces represent the feet. The problem is with the structure, not with the VMs representation.
(03-06-2020, 09:55 PM)R. Sale Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
...
Where does the sequence start? According to the Zodiac Man, Pisces represent the feet. The problem is with the structure, not with the VMs representation.
Yes, interesting point.
If the focus of the VMS is medical (including the zodiac section), and if it followed the anatomical relationships of the constellations to the body parts, then the sequence would quite likely start with Aries (head) or Pisces (feet).
If Aries, it works its way down. However, if it starts with Pisces, then it would have to rotate up to the head again and work down in order to follow the traditional sequence.
The Getty image and Babylonian zodiac throw up some engaging concepts. Pisces has been related over time to fish, monster (depicted like a wyrm in Getty image), bird, goddess, rope. The VM Pisces looks pretty straightforward but that would be not very Voynich like.
Suggest f86v3 in the light of outside data shows the location of the garden of Eden being in Iraq.
Bunny
Tradition is there. You can count on that. But which traditions are they and how are those traditions expressed? The VMs is strange, but even recognizing that, there are still difficulties that would not exist in a text that was intended to present information in a plain and simple manner. The VMs is altered in appearance and it has been altered by intent. The dual interpretation of the heraldic orientation for the blue-striped patterns of VMs White Aries is built into the illustration. Look at the cosmic comparison (BNF Fr. 565 fol. 23)
Tradition has been disguised by alteration, obfuscation, combination and deception. It was hidden from those who would know what the tradition was. Or, in the case of the VMs creature on You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. (Melusine) and elsewhere, it has been hidden by the loss of tradition and by investigations lacking access to various relevant, but obscure details of historical fact that were familiar to the VMs artist and others of that time (1400-1450).
The cosmos, the critter (f80v) as an Agnus Dei, the creature as Melusine (f79v), and heraldic canting open up the path of traditional interpretation with a VMs twist.
Assumption being C15th genuine manuscript?
Bunny
I think it is very likely a genuine 15th-century manuscript.
I still keep open the possibility that it is a 16th-century manuscript on old parchment and intended to express early 15th-century ideas, text, fashions, etc., (perhaps a copy of an early 15th-century manuscript????), but I am doubtful that it could be any later than 16th century.
The various notes added to the VMS are all in styles that were prevalent in the 15th century, as are the quire numbers. I base this on over 10 years of collecting and studying scripts that are similar to the scripts in the VMS.
The folio numbers could be anytime from latter 15th century to 17th century, but are mostly likely 16th century (this style of numbers was used for about a century and a half).
It is my opinion that the information and illustrations that do the most to help understand various parts of the VMs have an innate chronology that brings the investigative focus up to the the first half of the 15th Century. The easiest way to acquire the necessary perspective on that information is to have lived during that period of time. However, that is not the only way.
(04-06-2020, 11:26 PM)bunny Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Assumption being C15th genuine manuscript?
This is not an assumption. It is something that can be derived from a multitude of serious and reliable pieces of information.
(05-06-2020, 01:16 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I think it is very likely a genuine 15th-century manuscript.
I still keep open the possibility that it is a 16th-century manuscript on old parchment and intended to express early 15th-century ideas, text, fashions, etc., (perhaps a copy of an early 15th-century manuscript????), but I am doubtful that it could be any later than 16th century.
The various notes added to the VMS are all in styles that were prevalent in the 15th century, as are the quire numbers. I base this on over 10 years of collecting and studying scripts that are similar to the scripts in the VMS.
The folio numbers could be anytime from latter 15th century to 17th century, but are mostly likely 16th century (this style of numbers was used for about a century and a half).
The trouble with it being like so many other examples is that it is like SO MANY other examples, and yet not quite right in the details of any, more like a mishmash. It is almost as if elements had been pulled from many sources as examples of what would expected to be seen but not quite done right. This is the kind of thing seen with various historical documents, manuscripts maps etc that have had their genuineness questioned that look as though they should be right for the era but not quite so. Parachronism, prochronism and intentional anachronism may be at work. As far as I understand it was posessed by Voynich, the parchment has been C14 dated, the cover determined to be goat skin, beyond that I believe no further statements of fact can be made or have I missed something?
Bunny
That's the beauty of it. If it were the same as others, we would glance through it, maybe reference it in a paper, and that would be it. On to the next one.
What if it's a family project?
What if the illustrator was 16 years old, methodical, with a certain amount of talent, but not fully trained yet?
What if it's a late-15th-century copy of an earlier original by an amateur?
What if it's a person born into one culture but raised in another?
What if parts of it were dictated to the illustrator from unillustrated manuscripts (of which there are MANY) and the illustrator had to create some of the drawings from imagination rather than from exemplars?
Certainly there's something different about it, but being different doesn't mean it's modern. It's different in a modern context also. It's different in any context. Probably the circumstances under which it was created were different.