Dear all
Quote:JKP brought to our attention the flag finials decorating the rooftops of some of the buildings in the 9-rosette foldout.
JKP - could you add a link to where you brought our attention to this? Thanks.
Other notes
Folio "85v-and-86r" (beinecke foliation or "86v" on other sites) includes 3 roses, not nine.
Also I was left uncertain about the point that other contibutors intended to make, or what inference they expected readers to draw.
Without formal argument to prove it, I don't think we have enough reason to suppose the various structures are meant as literal portraits of the various buildings; that isn't the custom seen in Latin charts and mappaemundi. And since the whole folio (not just the 'minimap') IS a chart/map, comparisons to manuscript illuminations and ornament really aren't the most appropriate comparisons here.
I'd really enjoy reading some formally-argued and documented exposition of the 'central European' theory and its recent expansion, in that group, from 'German-Italian' to 'German-French', but it has yet to be done - if it can be done.
I'd at least like to see some reasonable explanation for assuming literalism, and for overlooking or positively rejecting the many other reasons that particular forms of building and ornamental detail were added to maps and other forms of imagery. Above all, one has to address the issue of contemporary significance borne by structures of particular forms, or carrying particular types of detailing.
It's easier to accept reliance on juxtaposition-and-reader's-inference to support an hypothesis when the Voynichero's argument doesn't obviously run counter to what we know about the history and attitudes informing western and non-western cartography during the 12th-mid-fifteenth centuries. And we know a fair bit.
re: 'European saddleback roofs with flags' - I don't see any flags. I doubt that it is reasonable to presume that the person who added these structures to the map had horizons as restricted as some members seem to assume.
The impression I get in reading a number of previous comments in this thread is that I'm supposed to infer that the images shown here offer compelling evidence as support for an idea that everything in the manuscript is an expression of some uniquely "Franco-German" culture - as sub-set within western Europe's Latin culture.
I've never seen any Voynich writer establish that such sub-culture existed at all. And demonstrating the validity of that notion is surely the fundamental stage in formulating an hypothesis, let alone trying to convince others to believe it.
Admittedly, the writers do not make clear whether their use of "Franco-German" is supposed to describe a particular school of manuscript art, or whether they mean "Franco-German" to refer to some line drawn by geography, politics, religion or a supposed folk-culture held in common by none but a 'Franco' and 'Germanic' population. I wonder if "Franco-German" is imagined (or not) to include the Anglo-French culture of England's elite, or whether the construct depends on modern political borders, on antiquated ideas about science, or some solid study of the medieval sources and more recent secondary studies.
Is northern Italy supposed 'Franco-German'? Are the Jews, the Greeks, the Bulgarians, Slavs, Muslims and others who lived in regions where French or German dialects were spoken supposed to be included in this definition of 'Franco-German'?
But if they are, then we are reduced to an absurd situation which does not help us limit our hunt for the manuscript's origin or the likely language of its content, so much as just expands the parameters of an obviously flawed theory (the 'central European Germanic') to a point where it means nothing at all.
If attribution to a Catalonian Jew in England, or a Greek in Mallorca or an Englishman in the Greek islands can all be adduced as proving a 'Franco-German' narrative, then we are definitely in a looking-glass world where the very idea of academic rigor is unknown. I've recently returned to an interesting observation made in Nick Pelling's book of 2006, one that had been relentlessly ignored since then, and which shows that someone who knew Occitan also wrote Voynichese. Another and later hand (possibly, but not certainly, of a German-trained scribe) wrote over the original text, but that of course is no evidence for 'Franco-Germanic' character for the Vms.
Swallowtail merlons
For a number of reasons, the structure with the 'swallowtail' battlements is unlikely to be meant for a nobleman's castle. Identifying the site was certainly far from easy, but after having examined a fair number of possibilities in considerable depth (i.e. by reference to the historical and archaeological sources as well as various maps, charts, and other documents), I came eventually - and after a couple of false starts - to the view that the structure is meant for Laiazzo/Ayas, the port of Cilician Armenia.
As the reason for addition of those 'imperial' merlons to the drawing in the Voynich map during that map's last major revision, I date the addition to between the second half of the thirteenth century and first half of the fourteenth.
The thirteenth - when Laiazzo was the only port available to the Genoese in the east Mediterranean.
The fourteenth - when Leo IV, ruler of Cilician Armenia, married Constance, daughter of Frederick III, king of Sicily.
Our first record of the 'swallow-tail merlons' use by Latins comes from Sicily, and to some they may have suggested not only Frederick II or 'imperial' in general, but the Sicilian rulers.
In saying that here, I anticipate some of the research informing the present series of posts going up at voynichimagery. The detailed comment on the swallowtail-merloned castle is scheduled to appear in ten days' time, but I may move it forward.
To muse over - absence of (or paucity of) Latin or Orthodox Christian crosses upon any of the buildings in the Voynich map.
Sorry about the following blank space: for some reason, I don't have the option to delete paragraph markers.