+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: Imagery (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-43.html)
+--- Thread: Voynich Stars (/thread-624.html)
RE: Voynich Stars - Koen G - 19-07-2016
Interesting find again, Sam. This is one of those manuscripts that forms a bridge between late antiquity and the middle ages.
There's also a 12thC copy, Urb.Lat.67 which maintains the form of the stars. See You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. fol.124v for an example.
RE: Voynich Stars - Anton - 21-07-2016
Let's look at f68r1 and f68r2 which apparently present two sets of homogenous (in a certain yet unknown respect) objects.
The stars within each of the two sets have various number of points (btw, I think this is the fact I missed to mention in my blog post dedicated to Voynich "stars"). This, at the first glance, would suggest that the difference in the number of points is accidental, since objects are homogenous.
However: the stars here differ in other respects also - for example, some stars have an empty circle in the centre, some have a black-filled circle, some have no circle at all. The circles would hardly be accidental. So we must admit that, notwithstanding the general homogeneity of the sets, there is also some variation within.
Now, the question arises: is the difference in the number of points essential to the said variation, or it is accidental still (while e.g. only the different circles are essential)?
To address this question, let's look at small unlabeled stars in f68r2, especially those forming the perimeter. The outer small stars are all but two of the same central circle variant - ochre-painted. Two stars to the bottom right are unpainted, which might have been due to an accidental omission. So given the common ochre-painted variant and the fact that they are unlabeled (which suggests that they are a certain sort of a filler), it is reasonable to consider them purely homogenous "insignificant" objects. (When I say "insignificant" I mean that no one of them is specifically significant; their set as a whole may well have significant meaning - for example, they may designate a border of some kind). Yet the number of points still varies for them. If the number of points varies for insignificant objects, then it is likely that the number of points is accidental.
To check this further, one may consider all stars in the VMS and build the "number-of-points" histogram. What would be the distribution?
RE: Voynich Stars - Koen G - 21-07-2016
Good points Anton, though I wouldn't say that unlabeled equals individually insignificant. The stars in the manuscript shown by Sam earlier in this thread are also unlabeled, yet we could still find their names if we wanted since they represent constellations.
If a group of stars is a very schematic way to picture a constellation or asterism, and the number of points signals relative brightness, just to say something, it could all be significant.
I think your final though sums it all up: if we want to proceed with more certainty, we need an overview of the number of points used throughout the manuscript in various sections.
RE: Voynich Stars - Sam G - 23-07-2016
One possibility is that a star basically has six points, but occasionally the number of points was increased for the sake of variation. It does seem that whoever came up with the illustrations in the VMS did not like sameness or perfect symmetry much. Whenever there are two or more of any class of object, they are seemingly always differentiated in some way.
RE: Voynich Stars - Searcher - 08-12-2018
As we came to the issue about the VMs stars and their meaning in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., so it seems it will be better to continue the discussion in this thread.
In particular, I'd like to consider the meaning of stars exactly inside of diagrams, including diagrams of the "cosmological" section (Quire 9).
First of all, I compared divided in sections circular diagrams of f67v, f68v3 and a few diagrams of the Rosettes.
Although they have some differences, their general resemblance is obvious.
I want to note that 7 of 9 Rosettes diagrams contain the depiction of stars.
JKP wrote:
Quote:I'm not certain the "stars" in the upper right rosette are the same [as ones in the central rosette].I read VViews's blog post and knew JKP's opinion, but something confuses me here. What is the difference? They have the same shape, the only difference I can observe is different areas with different edges that tthe stars occupy. And besides, is it possible the map to contain the same shape, symbol or pattern for two or more meanings? Speaking about me, I never saw such maps.
At first I thought they might represent foliage, but VViews wrote a good blog that suggests they might be cartographic symbols.
In general, I admit that the Rosettes page may depict stars as decorations of some structures. But why they so much resemble with diagrams of the "cosmological" section? Is it a coincidence? How can it be explained?
Another comparison:
RE: Voynich Stars - -JKP- - 08-12-2018
The upper-right rosette has different "star-like" shapes. They are not outlines, they are lines crossed, but many people still refer to them as "stars", probably because they are similar to the shapes on the series at 67v.
Those are the ones I thought might be foliage but VViews made a good argument that they might be cartographic symbols.
Just because they are the same shape doesn't mean they have to have the same meaning. A star on a picture of Bethlehem has a different significance from a star on the end of a stick on a shield (which is a mace, a weapon, not a celestial star), and is also different from a star in a beaker in an alchemical drawing, and different again from a star on a marine map.
RE: Voynich Stars - Searcher - 09-12-2018
(08-12-2018, 11:13 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The upper-right rosette has different "star-like" shapes. They are not outlines, they are lines crossed, but many people still refer to them as "stars", probably because they are similar to the shapes on the series at 67v.
...
Just because they are the same shape doesn't mean they have to have the same meaning. A star on a picture of Bethlehem has a different significance from a star on the end of a stick on a shield (which is a mace, a weapon, not a celestial star), and is also different from a star in a beaker in an alchemical drawing, and different again from a star on a marine map.
To be honest, I don't understand what you mean by the "another shape". As for me, they absolutely identical.
As for the different meaning of the symbol, of course, it is not surprising in different maps or depictions in works with quite different context, it is strange to give different meanings for the same symbol in the same map, diagram or depiction.
RE: Voynich Stars - MarcoP - 22-04-2019
These are the stars illustrations mentioned by Sam and Koen above: Bamberg Msc.Patr.61f.79v and BAV Urb.lat.67 f124v.
It seems that in this thread the fact that several Voynich stars appear to be "tethered" or "tailed" has not been mentioned yet. This feature appears in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., both in the central medallions and in the nymph-stars around them and in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., in the paragraph-marking stars.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., Darren Worley pointed out some parallels, some of them from Breviari d'Amor (this is from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.).
A reference to a similar idea appears in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.a (G. Maspero). Bold mine:
Quote:[The Egyptians] imagined the whole universe to be a large box, nearly rectangular in form, whose greatest diameter was from south to north, and its least from east to west. The earth, with its alternate continents and seas, formed the bottom of the box; it was a narrow, oblong, and slightly concave floor, with Egypt in its centre. The sky stretched over it like an iron ceiling, flat according to some, vaulted according to others. Its earthward face was capriciously sprinkled with lamps hung from strong cables, and which, extinguished or unperceived by day, were lighted, or became visible to our eyes, at night. Since this ceiling could not remain in mid-air without support, four columns, or rather four forked trunks of trees, similar to those which maintained the primitive house, were supposed to uphold it.
The illustration in Maspero's book represents the night sky in a way that is somehow comparable to the starred-canopy at the centre of the rosettes-foldout. I am not sure this reconstruction is reliable and of course it would be interesting to find a similar image dating to an earliest time than Maspero's book (1900 ca).
RE: Voynich Stars - Koen G - 22-04-2019
Thank you Marco, I don't remember having seen those examples on Stephen's site.
In the other MSS Darren posted, the figures are holding large spheres representing their planets, but only in MS Yates Thompson 31 they become VM-like. This MS is from the late 14th century, which makes it even more relevant.
It's interesting that many of the figures are holding their stars (Gr. aster) like one would hold a flower. And indeed if you look at the decorations on the whole page, there is a flowery theme. The figures' backgrounds, a deep blue, play on the similarity between a field of stars and a field of flowers.
Normal stars are the "fixed stars", they don't move in relation to one another. The planets (which included Sun and Moon), however, were called the "wandering stars", since they move in relation to the rest.
This becomes quite obvious in three of the men. They look like ones who have snatched a flower from the field of the sky (blue background) and are carrying it along.
In this context, it might be of importance that so many of the star-nymphs are in implied motion, while others (the barreled ones) must be stationary.
RE: Voynich Stars - Aldis Mengelsons - 22-04-2019
(08-12-2018, 11:13 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The upper-right rosette has different "star-like" shapes. They are not outlines, they are lines crossed, but many people still refer to them as "stars", probably because they are similar to the shapes on the series at 67v.You are absolutely right! As I know most of the "star" pages have no even a world about stars....like page 71r-syphilis and"crabs" or 68r-curing from headlice. Also 86v telling us a story about a great marriage, when a dress of bride was so shiny(decorated with some kinda jewels)that the castle square got so bright ...well, I believe there will be no star"things" at all into other pages.I like to believe some strange things and magic, but after 60 pages of reading, there is no star maps, space traveling or witchcraft )))))))
Those are the ones I thought might be foliage but VViews made a good argument that they might be cartographic symbols.
Just because they are the same shape doesn't mean they have to have the same meaning. A star on a picture of Bethlehem has a different significance from a star on the end of a stick on a shield (which is a mace, a weapon, not a celestial star), and is also different from a star in a beaker in an alchemical drawing, and different again from a star on a marine map.