+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: Voynich Talk (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-6.html)
+--- Thread: Expert opinions about the VMS (/thread-676.html)
RE: Expert opinions about the VMS - ReneZ - 25-08-2016
This month, an impressive volume about astronomical illustrations throughout the ages appeared.
It is vol.2 of "Sternbilder des Mittelalters" (Constellations of the middle ages, the painted skies, between
science and phantasy). Vol.1 covering the years 800-1200 already appeared in 2012. Vol.2 covers
1200-1500. It can be partially browsed You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. . It has a comprehensive overview, of (as far as
I can judge) all known illustrated MSs related to the constellations.
Anyone able to read German will note that all the questions related to transmission of these illustrations
that are being asked in this formum, are discussed in detail.
I asked the author about the illustrations in the Voynich MS.
He specifically and strongly confirmed the opinion already stated by Dr. Stolot, and sees the style of Germany
of the second half of the 15th Century.
More details (not many) are at my web site, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
RE: Expert opinions about the VMS - Diane - 26-08-2016
David,
To generalise, there are two classes of specialist: the micro- and the macro-.
The micro-specialist is the norm. Not every medieval historian would claim expertise on every facet of history through the medieval centuries, even for Europe. It is more likely they will have a general knowledge of European history and a specialist knowledge of, say, Benedictine monasteries, their distribution, activities and so on.
The macro- sort of specialist is the sort you need if the boundaries are not clear. A specialist might be able to say that a given manuscript is not a Benedictine manuscript, but would tend to resort to "not my area" if pressed for an opinion about the style of writing - if it's not Benedictine. They may have a private leaning, but wouldn't claim to have the sort of expertise needed to provenance a manuscript which looked to be out of their own time and speciality.
The weakness of a micro-specialist is that they can tend to take the parameters of their own specialty as absolute, and also that if you present them with an artefact which *you* say belongs within their range: fifteenth-century, Latin Christian, zodiac etc. they tend to take those 'givens' as true as a rule, and then tend again to define what they see according to that description, unless it is plainly impossible. It is a constant characteristic and not the fault of anyone: just how it goes, but as I see it this pre-empting of the initial definition by amateurs, enthusiasts or people who adopted the old and entrenched theories has been a constant drag for Voynich studies.
A person thus begins by assuming, for example, that the imagery in the centre of the calendar roundels is a fifteenth-century creation, and that it is the creation of a Latin European 'artist', and that it refers to the standard European zodiac series, and that it must relate to astrology, even though each of those points is assumed, and not a conclusion gained from any prior macro- or comparative study of the images themselves, individually or collectively, to determine provenance and origin.
But if you take an image to a specialist in European zodiac imagery, or a specialist in German zodiac imagery (or whatever) and begin by telling them that it is a fifteenth century Latin zodiac series, then it is almost inevitable that they will find the nearest to it which exists within their own range of of specialisation; they hunt through their existing repertoire for a "nearest match". It's just not their business to decide whether these particular images, individually or collectively have been rightly represented to them. i
To correctly provenance a problematic object, and to gain a clear idea of where to seek appropriate precedents, you need the specialist in comparative studies, the 'macro-' sort of person, to set things on the right track in the first place.
Macro- specialists also have their weaknesses, of course.
Mostly minutiae - for which reason the two usually work together: you pick your micro- according to the macro- study's results. In Voynich studies, however, there tends to be a certain reluctance for those who know the minutiae of past studies of the Vms to assist, to help by correcting a detail and so on. I can't explain that, but such as been my experience.
About specialists in Christian art - well, I'm afraid that your impression isn't quite what my experience has been. Specialists in Christian art have been generally very reluctant to accept that iconic imagery now regarded as Christian wasn't always so. For example, the 'dog-headed' Christopher has recently been the subject of an academic paper, and the author was not only completely unaware of the figure's antecedents but became indignant when I showed him imagery of that type, and of the 'Good Shepherd' type from the centuries BC. Devotion of all sorts, whether religious, nationalistic or whatever, very often form a determined barrier to information. That's just how it is. There's a sort of loop happens. They say "Michael is a Christian figure'; you say "True, but there is a consistent lineage from long before the Christian era" and they reply "Look at this book' or 'Listen to this micro-specialist' - which describes it as a Christian figure, while entirely missing the point.
On the other hand, if an example I use is marked 1350, the micro-specialist could correct me (and I hope he would) by pointing out that it was actually made in 1340.
Rene,
You speak of that very impressive sounding volume (a natural companion for Elly Decker's Illustrating the Aratea), as
"about astronomical illustrations throughout the ages"
but the details suggest it deals with the European Christian world, (and presumably recognised influences upon such works) and that it is not so much "throughout the ages" as from 800AD.
Is there perhaps another volume by the same publisher dealing with the previous millennium?
RE: Expert opinions about the VMS - Koen G - 26-08-2016
(26-08-2016, 07:20 AM)Diane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The weakness of a micro-specialist is that they can tend to take the parameters of their own specialty as absolute, and also that if you present them with an artefact which *you* say belongs within their range: fifteenth-century, Latin Christian, zodiac etc. they tend to take those 'givens' as true as a rule, and then tend again to define what they see according to that description, unless it is plainly impossible. It is a constant characteristic and not the fault of anyone: just how it goes, but as I see it this pre-empting of the initial definition by amateurs, enthusiasts or people who adopted the old and entrenched theories has been a constant drag for Voynich studies.
This paragraph summarizes well how I feel about the experts that have been consulted until now. The problem can also be summarized as an opposition between diachronic and synchronic analysis. Many experts referred to so far have been asked (directly or indirectly) whether the the VM series of images corresponds to what they know about a certain period. Their answer is usually along the lines of "it looks a bit like it, but it's still very weird".
The kinds of experts I would like to hear more are those who can answer questions about a wider geographical and chronological range: where and when does this come from?
As it happens, I recently had an email conversation about the Voynich with a curator at the Getty museum. This would be the kind of macro-specialist Diane is talking about. Whe I showed her the VM feline, she said its style reminded her of an item from the Getty collection. A mosaic of a griffin, " which is said to be from Syria, dated to the 5th or 6th century AD."
Now I had not mentioned Syria, nor the 5th or 6th century. Nor have I ever written about this region or those centuries in relation to the VM. But the mosaic she showed me did, indeed, resemble the style of the Voynich critters (with of course a number of notable differences as well, as there are bound to be). I'll post it in the Qasr mosaic thread.
RE: Expert opinions about the VMS - Davidsch - 26-08-2016
Talking about experts, i was reading here, and also another thread
My frustration is written here: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
RE: Expert opinions about the VMS - Diane - 27-08-2016
Davidsch,
I have enormous respect for micro-specialists, and realized when choosing my specialty that it was one where there was constant need to refer to them.
I will say, though, that I find one has to be terribly neutral in the sort of questions one puts. As any PR chap will tell you, the way you phrase a question largely determines the sort of answer you get.
Ask "who most often pictured crossbowmen in calendars after 1440" and the answer will surely come back "Germany". However, if you ask "Does anyone have an idea of why the crossbow in the Voynich manuscript looks as if it's made of wood, and why the archer's hand might be pictured in that position?" then the answer comes back (as it did thanks to a former colleague) - because it's a rare form of crossbow only known from a couple of late archaeological finds - of Spanish bows specifically meant for maritime use.
D
RE: Expert opinions about the VMS - david - 27-08-2016
Diane,
I would suggest that
- "who most often pictured crossbowmen in calendars after 1440"
- "Does anyone have an idea of why the crossbow in the Voynich manuscript looks as if it's made of wood, and why the archer's hand might be pictured in that position?"
I'm intrigued by your comment on the Spanish maritime link. Rather than hi-jack the thread I've You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.to ask you about it.
RE: Expert opinions about the VMS - Anton - 27-08-2016
If to adopt the terminology of "micro" vs "macro", then I'd say we are all going into micro with the course of time, due to increasing specialisation in science (engineering etc.) The institute of macro-experts probably expired with Diderot or even Kircher
Collaboration of a huge number of "micros" is what the modern tendence is toward.
RE: Expert opinions about the VMS - davidjackson - 27-08-2016
They do call Kircher 'the last man who knew everything'
Experts specialise. If they aren't able to see that something isn't within their area of expertise, then they probably just aren't very good.
RE: Expert opinions about the VMS - ReneZ - 28-08-2016
I'm sorry but the concept of a "micro specialist" dealing only with "Latin Christian" manuscripts is really strange, and I can't accept the idea that an art historian would be able to analyse and publish a corpus of known manuscripts from 800 to 1500, without completely understanding the wider context.
This sort of micro-specialism is exactly what one would find in well-informed amateurs or anyone without the solid background of a complete academic curriculum. Or like the dentist assistant, who mainly knows about the specific area of dentistry, while the dentist himself has a complete medical background.
It's the opinion of the dentist we want to hear.
I have a problem with the term "Latin Christian". I don't know what that means. As far as I can tell, it is used only in Voynich fora and blogs, in order to try to push certain people into a corner that they do not see themselves in.
If you say European, then you say Latin and/or Christian.
Anyone reading even just the most basic text books about the history of science understands that in Europe books were circulating in many languages and were translated from one into the other. Herbal MSs have a strong connection with Greek, Byzantine and Arabic sources and were translated into all languages. Astronomical MSs similarly.
There are remarkably few things that are generally accepted about the Voynich MS, but one of them is that the MS has essentially no Christian symbolism, but also not of any other religion.
The word Christian is completely out of place.
It is worth looking into the book of D.Blume before stating an opinion about it. As I already said (as it seems: too briefly), it deals (among many other things) with exactly the topics that are being explored here in this forum: which elements in which MSs trace back to antique sources, which have arabic influences etc etc.
One cannot get much more 'macro' in the already quite specialised field of art history applied to astronomical MSs.
The special reason for asking him about the Voynich MS was because of the long list of MSs that he has seen. If there is still some little-known manuscript hidden somewhere in a little known library or archive, that has illustrations more similar to the Voynich than what we, as amateurs, have been able to dig up so far, he is one of the likely people to have seen this.
The answer to that, so far, remains negative.
The more general purpose of obtaining such expert opinions is to have information about the MS which is:
- relevant (it is specifically referring to the Voynich MS)
- meaningful (it comes from someone with accepted credentials)
- traceable / falsifiable (the argumentation is presented)
These are not the truth, to be followed like a dogma. They are more pieces of the puzzle.
But they are big important pieces.
One can discard at ones own risk.
RE: Expert opinions about the VMS - Anton - 28-08-2016
Dear all,
I'd suggest to exercise certain restraint in using expressions like "old & entrenched theories" or "absurd concepts". Not that a concept cannot be absurd or a theory - old and entrenched, but expressions of these kind may be percepted by those who hold a different opinion as blatant and flaming.
As our You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. suggests,
Quote:For example, the following comments (all real life examples) illustrate what is not permitted:etc.
- The nonsensical theory as expounded by xxx;
- The ideas of XXX have no intellectual value;
- I remember when XXX said that the idea of YYY was moronic;
- XXX is of course a great subject matter expert;
The problem is that even if the speaker did not really intend to flame or insult anybody, just using strong language in the course of discussion, the aforementioned anybody could likely percept this as flaming or insult.
And we moderators receive such complaints from time to time indeed.
So please stand neutral (in language of course, not in your opinions).