+- 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: [split] Relying on external imagery (/thread-2919.html)
RE: [split] Relying on external imagery - R. Sale - 12-09-2019
The situation as I see it is whether we are trying to compare illustrations based on a similarity of appearance or whether we can look at images and recognize the underlying structure, and then find a similar structure in the VMs representation. The prime example of this is the VMs cosmos in comparison with BNF Fr. 565 fol. 23. Just compare the central earth, which has an inverted T-O structure in both examples. Yet the BNF illustration is pictorial while the VMs is linguistic.
The VMs isn't an inferior copy, it is a totally different method of representation. It's a code shift.
Same structure, with a totally different appearance. Are they the same thing or not?
The other parts of the VMs cosmos can be / have been likewise examined. And they present corresponding structure with a clearly differing appearance. In a way, it is a sort of parody. The VMs critter and the image of the lamb, cosmic boundary, and droplets of blood in the 'Apocalypse of S Jean' of 1313 is another example. Structure matches, appearance differs.
RE: [split] Relying on external imagery - bi3mw - 13-09-2019
The VMS is a product of its time. Image comparisons can help to understand motifs and structures. Basically, there is nothing wrong with comparing similarities, just do not interpret too much into it. This does not mean that one should disregard the pictorial language of the (late) Middle Ages. It is the key to recognize any similarities. This is far more than the simple statement that A has optical similarity to B. Of course you need the background knowledge that you have to learn as an amateur. For me this is one of the challenges of working on the VMS.
RE: Voynich Stars - Mark Knowles - 13-10-2019
[Edit KG: I moved these posts from the stars thread to this one]
Having just noticed this discussion it does rather make me tear my hair out. The idea that the author didn't just make up their own way of drawings stars, but must have been part of a long tradition of drawings seems like a big assumption. It is possible his/her way of drawing stars is part of a tradition, but it is also possible it is not. I think we have to be careful of assuming everything in the Voynich is part of a tradition or has a precedent and that there is no original material in the manuscript whatsoever. It is clear that the Voynich is an original manuscript for the time and yet it seems to be assumed that there is no original content in the manuscript.
It is perfectly reasonable to look for influences on the contents of the manuscript, but one needs to exert a significant degree of caution in some cases as it is possible that certain aspects of the manuscript are purely products of the author's creativity.
It is highly debatable as to whether the * symbols on the 9 rosette page represent stars. It is possible, but from what I have seen they are not drawn the same way as other stars in the manuscript and their distribution on the page does not seem to fit a pattern obviously consistent with what one would expect with stars.
RE: Voynich Stars - Koen G - 13-10-2019
(13-10-2019, 06:28 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Having just noticed this discussion it does rather make me tear my hair out. The idea that the author didn't just make up their own way of drawings stars, but must have been part of a long tradition of drawings seems like a big assumption.I no longer stand behind what I said back in 2016, when I was new to this whole thing. But what you write right now betrays an equal ignorance of medieval practice. They simply did not invent things.
And this way of drawing stars can be traced back at least to the Beatus manuscripts of the 10th century. Then to Hildegard, who relied heavily on the Beati. They really blur the line between flowers and heavenly bodies.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
RE: Voynich Stars - Mark Knowles - 14-10-2019
(13-10-2019, 11:55 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(13-10-2019, 06:28 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Having just noticed this discussion it does rather make me tear my hair out. The idea that the author didn't just make up their own way of drawings stars, but must have been part of a long tradition of drawings seems like a big assumption.I no longer stand behind what I said back in 2016, when I was new to this whole thing. But what you write right now betrays an equal ignorance of medieval practice. They simply did not invent things.
And this way of drawing stars can be traced back at least to the Beatus manuscripts of the 10th century. Then to Hildegard, who relied heavily on the Beati. They really blur the line between flowers and heavenly bodies.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
It seems that this is a very natural way to draw stars.
When you say:
"They simply did not invent things."
Then I can only conclude that it is amazing that the wheel of history has moved forward at all.
I would say that medieval people like modern people were highly inventive, why make assumptions about what they were capable of or inclined towards that you wouldn't make of modern people.
RE: Voynich Stars - Koen G - 14-10-2019
They had a different mindset. We admire and demand originality, while they revered the authority of the past and scripture. To invent something entirely new was just not the kind of thing they encouraged.
Of course they would adapt and improve things. But with any medieval document, you really want to look at which traditions inspired it.
RE: Voynich Stars - -JKP- - 14-10-2019
Even if they turn out to be made up (which I think is possible but it would be unusual), it's still important to investigate whether they are real star maps so the possibility can be eliminated on the basis of empirical evidence, rather than on assumptions.
It's also possible that they represent something (that they are not made up), but that it is "something" less obvious than star maps.
RE: Voynich Stars - R. Sale - 15-10-2019
I find it interesting that there are two different techniques used to create the stars. In one method, the lines are the stars, The stars are formed like asterisks. A single line represents each arm of the star. In the other method, the arms of the star are drawn with two lines. The star is the space inside the lines. The VMs uses both techniques. The asterisk style is seen in de Piisan, Harley 334 and BNF Fr. 565 fol. 23. The VMs cosmos uses the second method of star representation. Deliberately contrarian, perhaps??
RE: Voynich Stars - arca_libraria - 15-10-2019
(14-10-2019, 12:48 AM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.When you say:
"They simply did not invent things."
Then I can only conclude that it is amazing that the wheel of history has moved forward at all.
I would say that medieval people like modern people were highly inventive, why make assumptions about what they were capable of or inclined towards that you wouldn't make of modern people.
Try to think of it like this: imagine if I showed you 10 photographs taken all over the world in different decades of the 20th century, and each photograph showed a few people, a few buildings and a few plants, and I asked you to tell me approximately when and where you thought they had been taken. You would presumably look at the types of plants, the style of architecture, the clothing, and the general of the appearance of the people to offer your guesses about when and where the pictures had been taken? I think that's what people are doing when they are comparing the illustrations in the VMS to other examples in medieval art.
Or even just think about clothing - e.g. the shape of dresses, or trousers, or hats, or shoes over the past few hundred years - people copy things over and over again and make minor changes to the same basic forms, and every so often someone makes a big change and starts a new sub-fashion, but they are still using the same basic shapes.
History of the book and history of art rely on people making comparisons in order to understand what is traditional and what is innovative about each piece. Medieval people had a visual lexicon and visual archetypes, and so it's interesting when the VMS scribe(s) draws from that visual lexicon and when he departs from it.
Yes, sometimes people come up with comparisons that are not particularly strong, or that others might reject entirely, but that's why this place exists so we can all start a thread with our favourite weird fish-people/crossbows/sunflowers drawn from only the most obscure of central European archives for the delight/derision of the rest of the forum.
RE: Voynich Stars - Mark Knowles - 16-10-2019
(15-10-2019, 11:59 PM)arca_libraria Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(14-10-2019, 12:48 AM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.When you say:Yes, sometimes people come up with comparisons that are not particularly strong, or that others might reject entirely, but that's why this place exists so we can all start a thread with our favourite weird fish-people/crossbows/sunflowers drawn from only the most obscure of central European archives for the delight/derision of the rest of the forum.
"They simply did not invent things."
Then I can only conclude that it is amazing that the wheel of history has moved forward at all.
I would say that medieval people like modern people were highly inventive, why make assumptions about what they were capable of or inclined towards that you wouldn't make of modern people.
What I was trying to communicate was that there is tendency to assume that there is not original content in the manuscript.
Koen argues that medieval people did not invent things and this is a modern phenomenon.
In fact the medieval world was responsible for significant inventions such as:
1) Clocks
2) Spectacles (i.e. Glasses)
3) Wind Mills and Tidal Mills
4) Castles
5) the Compass
6) Numerous developments in weaponry.
7) Advances in building techniques such as the flying buttress.
8) Overall many refinements/technical improvements to technology adopted from the classical world or arab world or the east.
There were also creative writers and thinkers during this period who I could list.
It is worth noting that carbon dating dates the Voynich to the early italian renaissance, a time of great creativity and inventiveness; given that there are strong reasons to associate the manuscript with Northern Italy this fits.
Given that in the opinion of some people the Voynich was written in cipher and given that this cipher has not been broken in hundreds of years this is indicative of a potentially highly creative mind that produced the manuscript. If the writing system of the manuscript is original and inventive, why assume the contents are merely reproductions of other sources?
I have a big problem with this way of approaching Voynich research. It seems to be that one sees a detail in the Voynich then frantically searches for a drawing in a manuscript that looks vaguely similar and if one can't find one then it must be as there is no surviving manuscript or we have not found the comparable manuscript yet. Sometimes we have to ask what and why a creative mind might have drawn a specific thing. Yes, manuscript comparisons can without a doubt be very valuable, but I think there is a tendency to lean on them like a crutch.