+- 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: The loss of detail (/thread-1614.html)
The loss of detail - R. Sale - 09-03-2017
As part of the Oresme challenge, here is the question. Can we put Oresme's cosmos back together again, using VMs parts?
We need to understand the details. How well do we know the relevant details?
Can we describe or represent:
1) the structure of Oresme's cosmos and the pattern of the cloud band?
2) the pattern on the armorial insignia of the pope who started the tradition of the cardinals' red galero?
3) the traditional patterns of the heraldic furs?
Do we understand heraldic canting?
These are things that might be seen as much more familiar to a time long passed. These are things that, under certain historical conditions, may have been taken as potentially common knowledge in certain groups. There is nothing particular unusual about this information. And only the first question might be somewhat restricted, though there are a number of years of historical separation.
The VMs answers these questions. The VMs author knows the answers in illustrated detail. The line encompassing the cosmos (f68v) is a nebuly line. It matches the Oresme illustration in basic structure. The VMs corresponds with the historical examples in numerous details, but we have lost much knowledge of relevant detail from the time of VMs creation.
RE: The loss of detail - Sam G - 09-03-2017
(09-03-2017, 02:07 AM)R. Sale Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.cloud band... armorial insignia... red galero... heraldic furs... heraldic canting... nebuly line...
I think you forgot papelonny.
RE: The loss of detail - Davidsch - 09-03-2017
"Je ne sais donc que je ne sais rien" (I do not know that I know nothing. N. Oresme)
a. Did Oresme drew and paint all his works?
b. Are the elements in the drawings copied from other works? (my answer: yes)
c. which of his works is the most relevant?
d. why are his works so relevant?
In order to answer all those questions you have to read the immense commentary works on Oresme, which is still laying here unread at my desk.
Some relevant background from wiki NL:
In zijn Livre du ciel et du Monde besprak Oresme het bewijsmateriaal voor en tegen de dagelijkse rotatie van de Aarde om haar as.[4] Uit astronomische overwegingen stelde hij dat als de aarde en niet de hemelse sferen zou bewegen, alle bewegingen die we in de hemelen zien en die door de astronomen zijn berekend, er op precies dezelfde manier zouden uitzien als wanneer de hemelen rondom de aarde zouden draaien. Hij verwierp het natuurkundige argument dat als de Aarde zou bewegen de lucht achter zou blijven, wat tot een enorme wind van oost naar west tot gevolg zou hebben. In zijn visie zouden aarde, water en lucht allen in dezelfde beweging delen.[5] Met betrekking tot de Bijbelse passage die spreekt over de beweging van de zon, concludeert hij dat "deze passage de populaire manier van spreken weergeeft" en niet te letterlijk moet worden genomen.[6] Hij merkte ook op dat het economischer zou zijn als de kleine Aarde om zijn as draaide dan als de immense sfeer van de sterren dat zou doen.[7] Toch concludeerde hij dat geen van deze argumenten overtuigend waren en dat "iedereen van mening is, en ikzelf ook, dat de hemelen en niet de aarde bewegen."[8]
-------
ENG google translated:
In his Livre du ciel et du Monde Oresme discussed the evidence for and against the daily rotation of the Earth around its axis. [4] Astronomical considerations, he suggested that if the earth and would not move the celestial spheres, all the movements that we see in the heavens and calculated by astronomers, would look exactly the same way as if the heavens rotate around the earth. He rejected the argument that physics and the Earth would move the air would remain, which would have an enormous wind from east to west as a result. In his view would earth, water and air all share in the same movement. [5] With regard to the Biblical passage that speaks of the movement of the sun, he concludes that "this passage reflects the popular way of speaking" and should not be taken literally. [6] He also noted that it would be more economical if the small Earth revolved around its axis than when the immense sphere of the stars would. [7] However, he concluded that there were no convincing these arguments and that "everyone believes, and I, too, that the heavens and do not move the earth." [8]
RE: The loss of detail - R. Sale - 09-03-2017
Greetings,
Sam G. said, "I think you forgot papelonny."
Thanks, Sam. for demonstrating the point I was trying to make. Actually papelonny and plumetty are traditional heraldic furs, along with the variations of ermine and vair - but apparently you missed that detail. [traditional = well prior to VMs parchment dates]
Davidsch,
Thanks for the explanation. However, at this point, I am only interested in the detail that can be seen in the illustration, the similarities between VMs You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and the interior of the Oresme depiction, the use of the nebuly line in the VMs representation, and the similarities between the Oresme cloud band design and the fancy, scallop-shell circle found in the VMs central rosette, just outside the circular band of text.
*
The comparison of VMs You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and the Oresme cosmos is the work of Ellie Velinska, as I have cited many times. And the cloud band pattern in the VMs central rosette was found by Don Hoffmann. Both VMs elements should be compared with the Oresme original in regard to their general structure. Ms Velinska has established the similarities of the interior. Mr Hoffmann found an interesting VMs example, but did not discuss, to my knowledge, anything in particular about the interior structure of this pattern or its comparison with the Oresme illustration. That is the matter under discussion. And the comparison seems to show strong similarity, in that both are similar examples where a scallop-shell type of pattern is used to to create a cloud band. And secondly, once getting past the multitude of illustrations from de Pizan, this sort of scallop-shell pattern (pure and simple) is rather difficult to find in the full set of the medieval cloud band patterns.
The investigation of patterns which compose medieval depictions know as cloud bands (formerly wolkenbands) shows that each artist's representation tends to be highly individualistic - as has been shown by various illustrations in a prior discussion. There are, among this variety, a few where the pattern is based on a scallop-shell motif. Among these are Oresme and the VMs. When the details match, do you think that they match by chance? How do you know if the details match, if you don't know what the details are? It's not a matter of absolute visual identity. It's a matter of representations that are based on the same structure as shown by the similarity of design details.
Would you know in advance the difference between a '56 Chev and a '57 Chev or the difference between the Beetles and the Rolling Stones? Some will and some will not. Now think about this type of distinction, this discriminatory knowledge of detail being moved back five or six centuries. The people living at the time of VMs creation are the ones best acquainted with their relevant cultural details. They are not simply aware of those details, but they are also able to make a more sophisticated use of those facts in a form similar to of heraldic canting - functionally similar to mnemonic devices.
My point is that certain educated persons at the time of the VMs creation would have been much more familiar with the details of science, history, heraldry, etc. of their own culture than we are. They would know the details in advance, and looking at the VMs, they would recognize those details when they saw them. We don't always know that these details even exist. And, consequently, (in some cases) we have to work from VMs illustrations to try to find historical correspondence. But we have the difficulty of selecting a VMs representation and then finding a good historical match to that particular representation. That is why it has taken so long to find things like the Oresme cosmos or the papelonny patterns even though they are clearly represented in the VMs. Additionally, the VMs author makes a subtle and unconventional use of such information and we fail to understand or even identify these examples because the necessary details are essentially lost as they are no longer relevant factors in modern culture.
More importantly, when we look back at the content and the nature of this VMs construction, we need to ask whether this is enough to indicate purpose.