+- 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)
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.It's rather unpleasant to see my arguments misused in this way.I would say there are some arguments that you have made that I think are good. However I think to state that they are "your arguments" as though nobody is allowed to make the same or related arguments is problematic. Nobody owns any "argument".
RE: Are the 1430s the most likely date range for the Zodiac drawings? - Mark Knowles - 25-11-2022
(25-11-2022, 12:02 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.When trying to understand the reason for excluding Lauber the argument that presents itself is that:(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.
The VM drawings date from 1400-1430 therefore given that Lauber's earliest work dates from 1427 and the parallel images from later still then the VM drawings cannot have been copied from Lauber.
However if one now allows the possibility that the VM drawings date from the 1430s then it becomes possible that Lauber was the source.
Koen says:
"Lauber is a bit late, but he does seem to have had access to sources extremely close to those of the VM Gemini."
One is led to ask why "Lauber is a bit late"? I think it comes down to a significant extent due to the preexisting assumption about the dating.
RE: Are the 1430s the most likely date range for the Zodiac drawings? - Mark Knowles - 25-11-2022
These are links to Koen's most relevant blog posts:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
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? - tavie - 25-11-2022
Mark, I know you were confused when your motivations were questioned but this kind of flurry of posts all in a row is probably a reason why some (at least me) thought back in the other thread that you were approaching this issue through the lens of it posing a threat to your theory, rather than a more objective purpose of applying scrutiny to others' arguments. It doesn't often happen in this forum that someone posts seven times in a row to the same thread without any intervening comments from others, but this happened multiple times to similar degrees in the other thread.
Nothing wrong with approaching it through the lens of your own theory, as long as you are aware of that bias...
RE: Are the 1430s the most likely date range for the Zodiac drawings? - Mark Knowles - 25-11-2022
(25-11-2022, 03:59 PM)tavie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.this kind of flurry of posts all in a rowThe reason is simple. Just, because I have plenty to say on the subject. I often find it easier sometimes to break things up into smaller comments than one big comment, especially as a browser refresh or something similar can lead to one losing all that one has typed. All one needs to do is look at Nick Pelling's thread on Milanese ciphers to see page after page of comments by me with no intervening comments by anyone else. (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.) Maybe my approach of focusing on a small number of topics may seem myopic, but that is my preferred method. The reason I have devoted so much effort to cryptography in the early 15th century is not due to a perception of my theory being threatened on the cryptographic front, quite the opposite.
Clearly as Koen acknowledged before that there is no reason the Voynich could not date from the 1430s my theory is not under threat, if it ever was. The reason I have written about this more is simply, because I think it merits it.
This topic has piqued my interest.
(Antonio García Jiménez frequently has many comments in a row on his thread with no intervening comments from anyone else.)
RE: Are the 1430s the most likely date range for the Zodiac drawings? - Mark Knowles - 25-11-2022
(25-11-2022, 03:59 PM)tavie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Nothing wrong with approaching it through the lens of your own theory, as long as you are aware of that bias...There are two things: approaching something through the lens of my own theory(if I state that is what I am doing that should be fine) and giving what I see as my own objective assessment. I do both, each at different points.
Ultimately if you or anyone disagrees with me on any point they are welcome to tell me where and how I am wrong.
RE: Are the 1430s the most likely date range for the Zodiac drawings? - Mark Knowles - 25-11-2022
Nick Pelling's links:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
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? - Mark Knowles - 25-11-2022
Ultimately progress on this topic like so many will come from locating more relevant source material and I know full well how difficult archival research can be.
RE: Are the 1430s the most likely date range for the Zodiac drawings? - R. Sale - 25-11-2022
Go for it. And first off, as you say, we have the collection of available, relevant evidence.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Although this site is focused on armor pre-1450, it includes a lot more. Customized search, lots of tags already in place (tent, clothes, sleeves, wolkenband), the 'Manuscript' search box opens up a list of medieval text sources.
Mark has a lot to say. Let him say it. And it is a real bummer to have a long posting 'disappear'. If it turns out he has unfounded assumptions, he wouldn't be the first.
Improving the understanding of art history is always a worthy endeavor. My problem is trusting the "validity" of what the VMs artist has depicted. The VMs artist is a trickster. The VMs cosmos is one example. The trick is to create an 'improbable' pairing: "Oresme" and "Shirakatsi" in the VMs cosmos. The generic mermaid and Melusine. The Agnus Dei and the Golden Fleece. There are other tricks in the VMs Zodiac sequence.
Without knowing the nature of the parts, their interpretation will be flawed, but as more information accumulates, the understanding should improve. Discussion should help to facilitate that.
RE: Are the 1430s the most likely date range for the Zodiac drawings? - Mark Knowles - 25-11-2022
I suppose there is a point that I should clarify. I am suggesting that it seems very plausible to me that Voynich author(s) copied the central Zodiac drawings from a work of Diebold Lauber. I am not suggesting that that work and Lauber's workshop were not influenced by earlier works, that should be obvious. I have read Koen blog carefully and I see no reason for excluding Lauber as the source from which the Voynich author(s) poorly copied those drawings.