In the lion thread, Koen said:
"The problem is of course that the Voynich MS is unusual.
I have seen several different arguments related to that:
- It is unusual, so it is probably a modern fake
- It is unusual, so it isn't European
- It is unusual, so its author probably was unusual (i.e. mentally abnormal in some way)."
I'd like to add another possibility.
- It is unusual, so it is a puzzle. Not just something mystifying and confusing, but a riddle to be solved.
Evidence:
The radial illusion that alters the interpretation of heraldic orientation in VMs You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. - White Aries.
The three page construction of the papelonny pun.
The unique placement of objects in the White Aries illustration to create objective, positional confirmations.
The unique connections to historical church tradition.
It's all in the VMs. As a matter of fact, much of it is in there twice. It's paired. It's part of the pairing paradigm. It's intentional because it's not shown twice by accident. It's a pair of questions. What is your response to the VMs presentation of the Genoese Gambit? Do you know the tradition of the cardinal's red galero?
The combined use of heraldic canting and intentional positioning of specific images reveals a level of sophistication on the author's part that many investigator's are yet to fully realize, myself included.
Out*of*the*Blue: I knew i've read that before: You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
Usual or not, the author of the content was a product of his/her time. If the VMS is a "composite manuscript", the authors of the parts thereof were a product of their times. The stuff gets more complicated in that case, though, because layers build one atop another, and later epochs contribute to the content borrowed from earlier ones.
If we discuss methodology, then in regard to particular observed objects or suspected concepts (such as pairing), one (as I believe) should address e.g. the following questions:
- is the object or concept traced consistently throughout the whole VMS or only in a certain part thereof (this might help to detect elements of a composite MS)?
- is the object or the concept characteristic for a particular cultural environment (time, place, culture, tradition...)? If yes, then are the adjacent imagery patterns characteristic for that environment? What if they are not? Is there a way for reconciliation or we are simply mistaken in our interpretation of objects?
I rename the thread to reflect that we are discussing methodology for analysis of imagery.
Will add more tomorrow...
Greetings David and Anton,
'Tis I, as they say.
Renaming is fine. The methodology starts out as being visual. But what it eventually shows is that the author is intentionally tricky. Tricky in the use of an optical illusion, tricky in hiding and disguising important things, tricky in using the methods of heraldic canting. Perhaps it continues further.
The pairing I refer to is found in the medallions of the first five houses of the VMs Zodiac. The initial structure of the VMs Zodiac is notedly problematic, but the pairing is clear enough to establish the concept of paired images.
Having established the concept of pairing in the medallions, the concept is carried further in the tub patterns of VMs Pisces and Aries with their potential heraldic correspondents and to their potential historical correspondents. The group of historical correspondents, for the most part, form a cogent and cohesive grouping.
The problem, as an example, is that one cannot be expected to understand things like heraldic canting if one is unfamiliar with the symbols that were used in the VMs illustrations.
I think the quote in the first post is Rene's, not mine
Let's look at the analysis methodology for images in recent discussions. Presented with a VMs image, the general method of investigation is to search for similar representations and present those examples from various other manuscripts. As with the recent discussion of VMs Leo, the author presents one image which is then compared with the extant array of historical illustrations. This is an image *comparison* methodology, not an image *analysis* methodology. It is an investigation of how one image compares with others, not an investigation of the purpose the image may have in the manuscript.
Image comparison takes a VMs example and references it *externally*. Image analysis takes a VMs example and demonstrates additional examples that are found *internally* - within the VMs. An investigation of VMs Pisces could compare the various artistic elements as to how the two fish are drawn. And that will lead off in one direction. Or the investigation can recognize the existence of a *pair* of fish. And then follow the examples of pairing, which leads in another direction and is evidenced by multiple, consecutive and compounded VMs examples. It is through the analysis of these examples that an investigator can consider whether such structure is accidental or intentional, and whether continued investigation along this line is warranted.
It seems to me that there are two possibilities of methodological orientation. One has a single point of contact with the VMs. It is externally focused and it is tangentially relevant. The other possibility has multiple points of VMs contact. It is internally oriented and it is radical - potentially - aimed at the root of the VMs.
I agree with the "comparison vs analysis" observation.
But even if one resides within the "comparison" field exlusively, the comparison methodology is still (to my opinion) undeveloped. What are the criteria of a "match"? Which matches are significant (and to be focused upon and to be sought after) and which are not?
R. Sale,
I think analysis and comparison must go hand in hand.
Pre-school children play a game where they are shown, say three pictures of beach balls, with two coloured red and one coloured blue. They are asked to "pick same" and "pick different". That's one level at which pictures can be compared.
A slightly more sophisticated version is suitable for teenagers: five articles are pictured - say, two showing pictures of furniture, one showing a domestic animal, one a wild animal and one showing a vase of flowers. They are asked "which does not belong'?
That's still kid's stuff, and many people stay at that level when comparing pictures.
So to argue provenance and meaning, it is important to not only produce the pictures one thinks "like" but to explain in detail both the points one sees they have in common, AND the points of difference, and then - most important of all - to produce the primary and secondary evidence which explains the significance of these particular pictures in their common, and differing, aspects. Only at that level does it begin to have relevance for provenancing a manuscript, or in this case the origins and evolution of imagery in the Vms.
And I do think it necessary to treat each image, in each section, *before* forming any conclusions about the whole thing. IMO
So - from my point of view, comparison-and-analysis with documentary evidence are needed to deal with a problematic group of pictures.
The visual comparison of images, particularly the odd VMs illustrations, is always going to have some element of subjectivity involved. However, with luck, there are going to be certain historical illustrations that are better than others. The VMs also has its cultural origins, but while those origins remain unclear, various comparisons have been suggested for many of the VMs illustrations. What are the relevant criteria that distinguish a useful matching of images? It seems that the criteria are going to vary from one comparison to the next. Either it's the tongue of the cat or the trigger on the crossbow.
And if there are enough of these matching criteria between the VMs and one of these external examples, then it leads to a consideration of provenance. Do these matching similarities imply a historical and cultural connection? Can that provenance then help to further investigate the VMS? Well, the proof is in the pudding. Does the proposed identification of provenance lead to further discoveries? Those that do will generally be considered more significant - in hindsight.
The sort of analysis proposed here is a different comparison. Rather than using a VMs illustration and an image from an external source, what happens if a comparison is made between two illustrations from the VMs? In many instances, the results are not going to be very useful, but that is not necessarily universal. Let's compare VMs Pisces and VMs Cancer. What are the similarities and what are the differences? There is plenty here to consider and discuss: similar structure, the possibility of common provenance and other elements of appearance.
In addition, there is the analysis (recognition) of content. Both Pisces and Cancer medallions display a pair of aquatic animals. The existence of a pair is a common factor between the two illustrations. It's clear; it's obvious, but it's probably not the first thing that comes to mind. The matching of pairs is a quantitative equality and an ideological reality that can exist and function independent of possible provenance.
Pairing is an idea that is suggested by the comparison of two VMs Zodiac illustrations. And the significance of the idea can be better determined by the investigation of the extent to which it occurs in the VMs Zodiac illustrations. Obviously Gemini can be considered to be a pair. And it goes on from there. And, again, the point being that this is not a search for similar appearance in an illustration from outside the VMs; this is an analysis of selected (VMs Zodiac) illustrations for all the various examples and expressions of a single concept, which is the internal pairing of images. And the judgment here for pairing is fairly simple: pass or fail. Whereas the comparison of illustrations for provenance has to be graded on the curve.
The search for pairings in the first five houses of the VMs Zodiac reveals a long list of examples. In my estimation, the existence of these numerous examples is the result of a complex, intentional construction. And that is an indicator of potential significance.
R.Sale,
It constantly surprises me that VMS is so often treated as if it existed in a vacuum.
Iconographic analysis is a talent but it is also one with formal method - a science.
Some methods are popular because they allow number-crunching and that style has been applied to the manuscript: I find it tends to produce results more apparently than genuinely valid, but professionals, like amateurs, will differ about methodology so there's no one answer and it's part of the job to make sure the client doesn't mistake one's informed opinion for some sort of "final truth" which none may debate or dispute.
Rather than trying to re-invent a method here, or accepting whatever interpretation is easiest to relate to, why not read a bit about the science itself?
Though to be honest, one usually spends more time reading about how people thought in a given time and place, and about etymologies, history, literature, attitudes,geography, religion, the heavens, commerce and technologies.. the reading never stops.
Sure you want to do this?