(11-01-2025, 02:34 PM)nablator Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Should there be one? Random sequences don't matter anyway, there should be a logic: 4 winds, 4 ages... all plausible but not convincingly close to any known manuscript. AFAIK nothing similar to f85r2 was ever discovered in manuscripts even at the most basic level of description: 4 human figures around a spiral/Sun in the center, weird geysers between them.
That is a good point, and it is important to keep in mind that the overall diagram is unaccounted for. I am not intending nor hoping to explain it, but I do think this allows us to learn more about the figures' origin. I don't know why or what the diagram means, that's an entirely different discussion.
It would be interesting to find out where the "old woman with cane & chain" thing comes from. It may not be original to Laufenberg. Here are some "beguines" from a later MS (I haven't done an intensive search yet, these were the first ones I came across):
[
attachment=9756]
Source: You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
Lot books - BSB Cgm 312 , [Sl] Swabia, 1450 - 1473 [BSB-Hss Cgm 312]
This manuscript has got more groups of 4 than I've ever seen. Four hermits? Four Lay Princes? Four Forests?
For me the main problem with connecting the MS you found (which is a very interesting find, notwithstanding) and f85r2 is that two of the three drawings depict a very common scene: a person with a flower and an elderly person with a cane and rosary. As far as I understand, absent hip replacement surgeries and modern therapies, most elderly people would have used canes. And I assume the pious ones would probably spend a lot of time praying, hence the rosary. It's quite possible to imagine two artists independently creating a sequence with a person with a flower and an old person with a cane/rosary. If I find two modern images of kids on skateboards or elderly people in reading glasses, I wouldn't immediately think both artists are related in any way, unless some specific details match. Which is not the case here. I don't find the hunching pose a strong indication of anything, hunching goes hand in hand with using a cane. And it's not even perfectly clear, if these are a cane, a chain of rosaries and a flower.
The third image - a person holding some object - would serve as a good confirmation given a very plausible match for the first two images, but otherwise the thing in the hand could be anything really, my first impression was some kind of globus cruciger.
I think there is still significant probability that the two sets of images are connected somehow. But I wouldn't put it higher than 50/50 chance.
That's fine
I agree with Mark's philosophy here that at the very least we might learn something from this, even if it's just about some specific iconography unrelated to the VM.
You say the person with cane and rosary was a common scene - I'd be very interested in more examples, do you recall any? Or do you mean a common scene in real life? Medieval drawings are usually based on stock figures, with or without mistakes and alterations.
Here we are, yet again, on the horns of a dilemma. <ouch!> What is going on in this VMs illustration?? Did the doctor mistakenly get promoted to a prior "four seasons" / "four ages of (wo)man" sequence? The result of some accidental misinterpretation?
It might see probable to think so, just looking at this example. But how many similar "errors" have accumulated from the various other investigations: the cosmos, White Aries, etc. If the artist was so prone to mistakes, we are in big trouble. The alternative is that these are not copying mistakes. These are examples of subtle and intentional non sequiturs - artistic trickery. The VMs woman has a "cane" and a "rosary". The "cane" is too short. The "cane" is minimized = artistic trickery. It's still a cane. The rosary has been multiplied. Does that really matter?
Great work, Marco [Post #61] I take it [last line of Munich Ms] "(p.157): ein artzatt der wasser besichtTHe (a doctor examines the water)" retains the original wording. Why is it called 'water'? A euphemism?
In the VMs, the doctor is clearly a doctor. The woman with the cane and rosary is a beguine [Koen's Post #72]. Note the less refined representation of the rosary on the right-side drawing. The "maiden" / person holding a flower, if it were a male with a fleur-de-lis, might be seen as a king, and if female, might be seen as a queen.
The 'Man with no Attributes' then, is obviously a philosopher. Thus, the four characters represent philosophy, government, religion and medical science. How's that for a tall one?
(11-01-2025, 08:28 PM)R. Sale Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The 'Man with no Attributes' then, is obviously a philosopher.
The “man without attributes” already has attributes. He has a conspicuous hooked nose, a large ring on his finger and a strange fingertip. I have my own theory on this which I don't want to go into here (offtopic). But it seems to me that it makes sense to take these attributes into consideration.
The “man without attributes” whose main attribute is his gesture / pose , could be a person associated with the law, e.g lawyer, advocate, judge etc.
Theology, medicine and Law were the three higher disciplines in medieval universities.
Lawyers now as then do a lot of gesticulating.
14th Century Judge, laying down the law.
[
attachment=9757]
from You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
also :: You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
and one image in this blog post :: You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
I would not at all want to ignore the possibiity that the Voynich MS is not a serious science book of its time, but was just meant to look like it.
Perhaps just a collection of images of which the composer did not really understand the meaning.
Alternatively, he had his own very unique (dare I say "outsider") understanding of these images.
Copied three figures from a random book and decided that it looks better with four.
The possibilities are endless, as always ...
Given the image is on a 3 page fold out, should we not consider everything on the page? I'm by no means qualified but media 101 is "mise en scene" (everything in the scene)
I just wonder if the number is 8 not 4. Why pay for the extra vellum if not? Maybe the possibilities become lesser with everything considered.