+- 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: Are the 1430s the most likely date range for the Zodiac drawings? (/thread-3903.html)
Are the 1430s the most likely date range for the Zodiac drawings? - Mark Knowles - 24-11-2022
This was not a topic that I intended to look into at all a few weeks ago, but a claim that the Voynich pre-dates 1430 drew me in, so I have found myself looking at the Zodiac roundels and Koen Gheuens' excellent work on them. I tend to research only a few specific areas of the Voynich and this topic was not on my agenda. In fact it does feel like a bit of a distraction from my cryptographic researches. Nevertheless once I start something I tend to continue with it until when or if I feel I have reached an appropriate point to end. I am a little reluctant to raise this topic again as it got somewhat tense before, but it is an important topic and so I think should be raised given that I have given it some more thought.
I want to reiterate that Koen and others have clearly done a good job researching this topic, so that if I disagree with other people's conclusions it is not out of malice or lack of respect for their efforts, but purely determined by my thoughts on the evidence as presented.
As previously discussed and as Koen agrees there is no reason on the basis of the Zodiac clothing fashion to say that the Voynich manuscript could not date from the 1430s.
On his blog, Koen writes:
"Combining this information with the knowledge that the clothing of the VM Gemini, Virgo and archer were typical for the period 1400-1430"
Now if 1430 is not the end of the possible date range for the Voynich Illustrations then the logical implications of statements like this need to be re-examined.
This made me wonder whether the evidence in fact makes the Zodiac drawings more likely to date from the 1430s than other decades.
Having read Koen and Nick Pelling's posts on their blogs on the subject it got me thinking.
There were a few specific details that struck me.
1) The Zodiac Drawings appear to be exact copies
Koen points out how the Voynich Illustrator tries poorly to copy the shadings in a blue dress exactly indicating that the Illustrator was copying from drawings detail for detail.
Koen writes:
"What this suggests is that the VM painter was trying to faithfully follow an example, even though the required techniques surpassed his skill."
This would indicate that the Zodiac drawings were faithful and not altered copies of the source Illustrations.
On that basis it seems reasonable to think that the Voynich Illustrator would have copied the fashion exactly from the original manuscript and not updated it to fit contemporary fashion.
So why would someone alter the crossbowman's elbows? This certainly pushes the dating forward.
Of course if the central Zodiac drawings are exact copies from an earlier manuscript then those Voynich drawings could really date from any time after the inception of that fashion.
In fact given the central Zodiac drawings are copied whilst the other smaller Zodiac drawings around appear invented, it would seem that the central drawings reflect earlier fashion whilst the smaller ones may reflect contemporary fashion. This would imply that the smaller ones fashion are better suited to providing a contemporary dating.
However then one has to ask how much the original manuscript is most likely to pre-date the Voynich copies by 1 year, 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, 50 years. That is not an easy question to answer. Was this a culture of wanting to read the latest best selling manuscript or a culture where people happily pored over old manuscripts? Was someone more likely to be looking at a manuscript 1 year old or 10 years old? In theory one could calculate the estimated mean age of manuscripts consulted at that time. However in practice this would be very hard to do and not necessarily of much use.
2) Diebold Lauber drawings are the most like those of in the Voynich and Lauber's work dates from around 1427 onward.
From what I understand Diebold Lauber's manuscript of Buch der Natur(ca. 1440) is the closest known parallel to the Voynich Zodiac Illustrations; please correct me if I am wrong Koen. I have read that the workshop of Diebold Lauber produced manuscripts between 1427 and around 1467.
Now the obvious thing I wonder is if one of Diebold Lauber's works is where the Voynich Illustrator copied his drawings.
If the Diebold Lauber drawings are the most similar to the central Zodiac drawings then why not assume the date of the Voynich drawings is close to the date of the most similar Diebold Lauber drawings and why assume the original source is not a work of Diebold Lauber himself?
Lauber himself appears to have been known to copy older drawings in his manuscripts without making alterations for reasons of contemporary fashion. This allows plenty of scope for a later dating of the original Lauber manuscript from which the Voynich Zodiac drawings were copied.
Given that Diebold Lauber works date from 1427 to 1467 and given our carbon dating, does that not place the Voynich mostly likely in the 1430s?
It has been argued that Lauber and the Voynich author may have copied from a common source rather than the Voynich author direct from Lauber. However is that likely?
Are the similarities between Lauber and the Voynich too great to have been filtered through a previous author?
Why should an unknown earlier source be a preferable link to that of a known later producer with the greatest degree of similarity to the Voynich drawings?
One assumes the unnecessary complexity of this second source when the simpler option of the Voynich Illustrations being derived direct from Lauber seems the most obvious.
To quote Nick Pelling:
"the Voynich’s zodiac roundel drawings appear to me to have been copied (albeit fairly ineptly) en masse from a single (probably German) calendar of the late fourteenth or early fifteenth century. What’s different here is that it now seems quite likely to me that the particular calendar was from Diebold Lauber’s workshop."
After all this might suggest that the 1430s is the most likely range for the dating of the Zodiac Illustrations rather than being excluded, given the carbon dating pushes the date to before 1438.
Having looked more into this I wonder why it was ever thought the Voynich pre-dates 1430 based on the Zodiac fashion, that position seems to make little sense to me on closer inspection. I suppose it comes from the interpretation of quotes from a specialist or specialists as well as the mean date on the basis of Koen's collected of examples being 1415. It should be noted that specialists gave their estimate of the dates from which they believe the fashion originates not the date on which a manuscript containing such illustrations might have been copied.
As anyone who knows my research will know that for many years I have believed the author(s) spent a significant length of time in Basel at the Papal Council. This of course is not so far south of Haguenau, so a not unlikely place to find Diebold Lauber manuscripts. Note I made this association with Basel prior to any awareness of any kind of connection in the Voynich to North of the Alps, though I was of course aware of possible Northern Italian links. Obviously my narrative of a journey from North Italy, the Duchy of Milan, to Basel and backs accounts for both Italian and German influences on the Voynich.
So I naturally wonder if this theory is true then did the author see a copy of one of Lauber's manuscript whilst in Basel?
If one is claiming that the Voynich Zodiac drawings come from Lauber then the search for the earliest "surviving" Lauber manuscript with the most in common Illustrations with the Voynich seems a sensible one.
Has anyone made a list of Diebold Lauber's manuscripts that are known to survive and those that don't appear to have?
I saw a list that Nick Pelling mentions and I will probably discuss it with him, though I don't know how complete it is or what efforts have been made to systematically trace all of these manuscripts.
RE: Are the 1430s the most likely date range for the Zodiac drawings? - Mark Knowles - 24-11-2022
This is the link that Nick Pelling refers to:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
RE: Are the 1430s the most likely date range for the Zodiac drawings? - R. Sale - 25-11-2022
I'm no expert, but in the interests of conversation I would not disagree with that. However, there are some assumptions that may be problematic. Pretty much all of the VMs can be considered problematic. Firstly, there is dating. When is "contemporary"? We have parchment dates. Is the written and artistic dating contemporary, remembered, or copied from some other source - at some unspecified time? Those are all possibilities - more or less. The interesting thing is the number of different investigations that seem to be relevant and compatible within the C-14 dates - and particularly within the latter part of those dates.
The 1404-1438 date range is a statistical average for the four parchment samples. So, 1438 is just a number, not a "cut-off year". 1439 is just a little less likely, or 1440. The margin of error is at least +/- 30 years on the original samples.
The thing about the VMs is its ambiguity. No single thing is conclusive on its own. It is the combination of different investigations that brings the "contemporary" perspective of the VMs into focus. The VMs Zodiac, and the clothing; Lauber is also connected to the VMs through the mermaid / Melusine investigation, which included Harley 334, which is then connected to the investigations of the uncommon VMs cosmos and the use of a nebuly line as a cosmic boundary.
The matter of the Golden Fleece is an example of something highly ambiguous, difficult to recognize, easily dismissed, and yet very specific in its historical chronology. On its own, it cannot stand. With the support of all the other ambiguous information, it fits right in as an essential part of the interpretation.
RE: Are the 1430s the most likely date range for the Zodiac drawings? - Aga Tentakulus - 25-11-2022
To sum it up.
Diepold Lauber (draughtsman Diepold Schilling) copied the Book of Nature by Konrad Megenberg. Book of Nature written 1348-1350.
Konrad Megenberg used the book "Liber de natura rerum" and translated the Latin into German.
"Liber de natura" is written by Thomas of Cantimpré around 1240.
It is certain that the book has been around for 200 years. The question is how far was the clothing copied and what is self-interpretation.
There were others who copied the book.
Example: Michael Baumann (monk).
It is not possible to estimate before or after 1430. Probably before, since the book was apparently very well known and was certainly taught at some universities.
Translated with You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (free version)
RE: Are the 1430s the most likely date range for the Zodiac drawings? - ReneZ - 25-11-2022
(24-11-2022, 05:15 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.1) The Zodiac Drawings appear to be exact copies
Just to be sure: is this saying that the Voynich MS zodiac drawings appear to be exact copies of some original?
That is new to me. In fact, until now, the one often repeated comment about Voynich MS drawings is that they appear to be original, if not unique. This is true for the biological section, the herbal drawings (for which there is an enormous amount of example/comparison material) and indeed the zodiac.
I would be interested to understand better where this opinion is coming from.
(24-11-2022, 05:15 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.2) Diebold Lauber drawings are the most like those of in the Voynich ...
I am equally incredulous about this statement.
The drawings in the Voynich MS have nothing to do with the quality output of a workhop like his. That is not just my personal opinion.
I am not trying to argue that the Voynich MS cannot date from after 1430.
Just that these two arguments appear invalid to me.
RE: Are the 1430s the most likely date range for the Zodiac drawings? - Koen G - 25-11-2022
I really have no interest in this conversation. Manuscript images and specialist agree on a 1400-1430 date range being most likely. Pre-1400 is almost impossible, since the rare 1390's examples we have show a somewhat different intermediate style (as if the wide open sleeves have been tied with a band at the wrist). Besides, this would be in conflict with the carbon dating. Later than 1430 is possible, but less likely.
This thread reads to me like "let me see if I can find and twist things people once said so I can make it fit my preferred date range". You are cherry-picking what fits your narrative and ignoring everything else I said. When I said that they were trying to follow an example, I meant "for the material of the dress", not for the whole image. So to "shade" the dress, they tried to paint it like textiles are painted in other manuscripts, but they did not quite pull this off given the poor quality of the VM painting.
I do think they may have followed an example for the whole image (I think it is the most likely), but I am absolutely certain, and have often written, that this must pre-date Lauber. There is absolutely no way the VM images can have been copied from Lauber or any of the Gemini images I found. What makes this problem so interesting is that these images show later fashion styles, suggesting that an older model exists. This all fits within the Lauber context, because his workshop copied a lot of material (in order to be able to produce manuscripts more efficiently) and an older workshop existed in Haguenau. Lauber seems to have absorbed this earlier workshop and probably aquired their materials (I don't actually remember if this is what literally happened, or if this is even known, the earlier workshop is more enigmatic and it doesn't have a prominent figure's name attached to it).
My whole work has been an effort to carefully reconstruct the timeline and show that Lauber postdates the VM. (If I ever wrote anything to the contrary, this must have been a mistake). It's rather unpleasant to see my arguments misused in this way.
RE: Are the 1430s the most likely date range for the Zodiac drawings? - Mark Knowles - 25-11-2022
(25-11-2022, 08:01 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(24-11-2022, 05:15 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.1) The Zodiac Drawings appear to be exact copies
Just to be sure: is this saying that the Voynich MS zodiac drawings appear to be exact copies of some original?
Yes, attempted exact copies.
(25-11-2022, 08:01 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This is true for the biological section, the herbal drawings (for which there is an enormous amount of example/comparison material) and indeed the zodiac.
I am not talking about the biological section, the herbal drawings, only the central Zodiac drawings as I think I have made clear.
(25-11-2022, 08:01 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I would be interested to understand better where this opinion is coming from.
Links and details to follow.
(25-11-2022, 08:01 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(24-11-2022, 05:15 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.2) Diebold Lauber drawings are the most like those of in the Voynich ...
I am equally incredulous about this statement.
The drawings in the Voynich MS have nothing to do with the quality output of a workhop like his. That is not just my personal opinion.
Again, as I think I made very clear, I am referring to the central Zodiac drawings not all drawings in the Voynich manuscript.
I am not talking about the "quality" of the drawings, but rather their nature. I am not suggesting that the Voynich Zodiac images were produced by Lauber's workshop, but rather they were copied manually by a scribe from one of Lauber's works just rather poorly.
RE: Are the 1430s the most likely date range for the Zodiac drawings? - Mark Knowles - 25-11-2022
(25-11-2022, 08:32 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I really have no interest in this conversation.Well you were and are not obliged to comment. I didn't write this thread specifically for you.
RE: Are the 1430s the most likely date range for the Zodiac drawings? - Mark Knowles - 25-11-2022
(25-11-2022, 08:32 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This thread reads to me like "let me see if I can find and twist things people once said so I can make it fit my preferred date range".Well, then that sadly completely misrepresents my motives. I have been very careful to be respectful to you and not to impune your motives.
RE: Are the 1430s the most likely date range for the Zodiac drawings? - Mark Knowles - 25-11-2022
(25-11-2022, 08:32 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There is absolutely no way the VM images can have been copied from Lauber.I don't understand this statement at all. It seems to state that there is "absolutely no way" makes little sense. I have seen no justification for this.