Is anyone planning to submit a paper for the University of Malta conference? Or maybe still considering to?
I'm thinking about submitting something. Specifically about the origin and page 116v and the curse against warts.
Hi, Koen:
Yes, l’m preparing a paper concerning my recent work which compares known ciphers (in the medical field) compared to the Voynich. I have a cipher that has never been described in detail from a manuscript likely from the same time period as the carbon dating. Unfortunately, it’s not similar to the Voynich approach, but l think a review of the similarities and differences is useful.
I’m working in collaboration with an academic as a co-author to prepare this submission.
(13-04-2022, 07:44 PM)MichelleL11 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.compares known ciphers (in the medical field) compared to the Voynich.
That is awesome! One of the great gaps in VM-related publications.
It is my understanding that the conference is mainly interested in linguistics. However, I would suggest that some significant progress has rather been made in the interpretation of certain VMs illustrations in relation to historical events and provenance. A selective collation of investigative discoveries from multiple researchers shows different references to a common cultural period that is coincident with the C-14 dates.
In order to make an evaluation based on fact / truth, it seems that what is expected is some sort of clear, direct, and incontrovertible example. And if there's not such an example, then there is nothing. The VMs approach is different, and based on multiple examples, some of which have been disguised. Rather than a single column, the VMs is like a American Indian teepee in that many poles are put in place before the covering is possible. All examples are based on interpretation, but there is common circumstance to a number of these historical examples that belong in the C-14 timeline and are tied first to Paris and then to Dijon.
The subtly simmering potential for religious connections warmed up a bit with the VMs ties to New Jerusalem, and "rho-chi", and the mystical ring and cross of Colette of Corbie, whose story is tied to the Dukes and Duchesses of Burgundy. Along with Melusine of Luxembourg and the Golden Fleece, there are common cultural connections that are reflective of the C-14 era. And the drawings in the VMs represent the artist's interpretation and reflect the artist's knowledge of historical traditions, myths, and events.
The VMs illustrations have indicated a historical context for the VMs artist.
I don't claim these discoveries. I have selected the examples for collation based on compatibility with the two VMs examples of the Golden Fleece. Appearance is really not definitive. This makes the interpretation dismissible. What is learned through cultural history is that the interpretations are supported in their positive interpretation by a structural association within each VMs illustration. In the one case, by the association with the Valois version of Melusine. And in the other example, by association with the particular structure of the Agnus Dei from BNF Fr. 13096. Evaluation through cultural interpretation argues in favor of a positive determination. And if she is just a mermaid, to the reader, the interpretation will fail. But, of course, she is not. And there are other potential indicators that had clear connections to Dijon.
(13-04-2022, 08:05 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (13-04-2022, 07:44 PM)MichelleL11 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.compares known ciphers (in the medical field) compared to the Voynich.
That is awesome! One of the great gaps in VM-related publications.
Thanks so much for the positive comment. I do think it will be interesting, if just for the negative (non-parallel) conclusions. Of course l went into this “new” cipher analysis with high hopes which did not pan out - it’s just another substitution cipher - but the date ended up being good and there are aspects that are interesting. And we know what it says - well, almost all of it - still some guessing - but it may all clear by submission time.
(13-04-2022, 09:05 PM)MichelleL11 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I do think it will be interesting, if just for the negative (non-parallel) conclusions
Negatie conclusions are useful as well.. we are in no position to be picky
R.Sale: I think academic publications about the VM are more comfortable for certain disciplines than for others. Iconography is all the way at the uncomfortable end, unfortunately. Commentaries by academics about the images are often in the negative ("it does not resemble any traditional x or y"), or short remarks. It should be possible to write something suitable for the conference, but the topic would have to be relatively free of interpretation to make it palatable for a wider audience.
Agreed. But then, what topic, having to do with VMs illustrations, is going to be "relatively free of interpretation"? Analysis of the VMs illustrations is nothing but interpretation - or what else??
Evaluation of interpretive validity is not based solely on appearance, especially considering VMs ambiguity. Validity is not measured to see if it is sufficient. VMs validity is affirmed by a second factor consisting of a structural or associated interpretation tied to the first. As potential interpretations of an illustration, both Melusine and the Golden Fleece confirm each other since both connect to the Valois dynasty and the state of Burgundy. There's no getting free of interpretation here, it's one interpretation supporting the other.
It is certainly interesting for academics to present some of their results, but I wonder if the conference could really bring something new to the research on the manuscript.
(14-04-2022, 08:10 AM)Ruby Novacna Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I wonder if the conference could really bring something new to the research on the manuscript.
It depends. There are probably a bunch of people with a private VM research project going on, this might encourage them to publish. I am not hoping for a grand solution, but rather little bits of evidence that might help us build a better understanding.
R.Sale: It is difficult. If it is the case that VM images are not literal, they need to be interpreted in a way. When interpretation issues arise in regular manuscripts, we can often refer to the text to understand what they were trying to communicate - but clearly we don't have that luxury in the VM. The most prominent art historian to have commented on the VM was probably Panofsky, and his assessment of the MS was easily swayed just because someone told him one of the flowers was a New World species.
There is almost no foothold, and therefore it is difficult to rise above anything other than personal interpretation. So if someone (who is not a professional art historian) sends in something about the imagery, the peer reviewer would be tasked with assessing this person's interpretation. I suspect that in most cases, this should lead to a justified rejection.
One way around this is to focus on a small aspect and try to find its place in (art)-history. This allows you to ask a question and answer it through your research. Something like Marco Ponzi and Darren Worley did with features of the Zodiac figures. Or more recently what we did here by finding manuscripts that depict swallowtail merlons and mapping where they were produced. If you ask a question and present the way you found an answer, nobody can say that it is just your interpretation.