+- 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? - nablator - 25-11-2022
(25-11-2022, 08:25 PM)R. Sale Wrote: 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.
Baggy sleeves, 1437?
Jahr/Datierung
Mitte 15. Jhdt.; 1437
Ten seconds of research.
RE: Are the 1430s the most likely date range for the Zodiac drawings? - Mark Knowles - 25-11-2022
(25-11-2022, 10:26 PM)nablator Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(25-11-2022, 08:25 PM)R. Sale Wrote: 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.
Baggy sleeves, 1437?
Jahr/Datierung
Mitte 15. Jhdt.; 1437
Ten seconds of research.
Well that doesn't appear to be one on Koen's list->
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
If the date is correct then it is in the late 1430s which would seem to further support a later dating of the crossbowman drawing.
RE: Are the 1430s the most likely date range for the Zodiac drawings? - Mark Knowles - 25-11-2022
I do think statements like
"it must pre-date 1430"
or
"it definitely wasn't copied from a work of Diebold Lauber"
are very problematic in their certainty. One could argue that statement like these might be highly likely to be true, but to say it is certain seems quite unjustified.
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.In fact, until now, the one often repeated comment about Voynich MS drawings is that they appear to be original, if not unique.Many of the drawings in the Voynich may appear unique and may be unique. I certainly am of the view that some drawings are unique and some other drawings I don't know.
However in the specific case of the central Zodiac drawings in the Voynich they appear clearly to be far from unique. In fact they seem at least highly derivative and I suspect complete copies without any originality at all. It is semantic question perhaps, but I use the term exact copy even if the copy is very badly executed.
RE: Are the 1430s the most likely date range for the Zodiac drawings? - R. Sale - 25-11-2022
Here's another(?) Hagenau example dated 1442-1444. There are three illustrations.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
UBH Cod. Pal. germ. 362 Flore und Blanscheflur
The question is whether the VMs has to come after the Lauber works, or could both VMs and Lauber come from an earlier proto-Lauber of from someone's real-life experience? What evidence can show how the timeline fits together?
RE: Are the 1430s the most likely date range for the Zodiac drawings? - Mark Knowles - 25-11-2022
(25-11-2022, 11:20 PM)R. Sale Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Here's another(?) Hagenau example dated 1442-1444. There are three illustrations.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
UBH Cod. Pal. germ. 362 Flore und Blanscheflur
The question is whether the VMs has to come after the Lauber works, or could both VMs and Lauber come from an earlier proto-Lauber of from someone's real-life experience? What evidence can show how the timeline fits together?
On his list Koen does include:
"Werkstatt von 1418, Haguenau (Alsace), 1418 ca., many manuscripts.
Werkstatt Diebold Lauber, Haguenau (Alsace), 1450 ca., many manuscripts."
However unfortunately that is very non-specific and numbers would have been quite useful, especially when calculating means, variances and confidence intervals.
So I don't know if Koen was aware of the example that you cite.
RE: Are the 1430s the most likely date range for the Zodiac drawings? - R. Sale - 26-11-2022
A search for "Hagenau" will now bring up the first illustration for the five different manuscripts found there. They start at 1430 and only go to 1450. Lots of men in armor, but other things as well.
A general search of Germany in the 1400 shows clothing illustrations from other specified locations as well.
PS: Four more mss listed under "Hagenau, France".
RE: Are the 1430s the most likely date range for the Zodiac drawings? - ReneZ - 26-11-2022
(25-11-2022, 11:19 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Many of the drawings in the Voynich may appear unique and may be unique. I certainly am of the view that some drawings are unique and some other drawings I don't know.
However in the specific case of the central Zodiac drawings in the Voynich they appear clearly to be far from unique. In fact they seem at least highly derivative and I suspect complete copies without any originality at all. It is semantic question perhaps, but I use the term exact copy even if the copy is very badly executed.
The appear clearly... they seem at least...
Some evidence is needed here. Opinions are just opinions. If it were the opinion of someone with training and experience in the matter, it would be a different story already.
More generally, if the Voynich MS zodiac is suspected to be a copy of a Lauber work, while Lauber is known to have used older sources and copied them accurately, that effectively removes the post-1430 argument, because the Voynich MS could equally well have been copied from these older sources.
RE: Are the 1430s the most likely date range for the Zodiac drawings? - davidjackson - 26-11-2022
Quote: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.
We only know about Diebold Lauber because he was, by the standards of the time, a masterful self-publicist. I'm sure you could cherry pick a dozen images from another workshop and then convince yourself in six months time to write the same sentence, with a different name.
There are two different arguments being conflated here:
a) Is the VM a derivate work of the Lauber style?
b) Can the VM illustrative style be used to attempt to date the period which they represent?
I fail to see why attempts are being made to link one to the other.
Quote:In fact they seem at least highly derivative and I suspect complete copies without any originality at all. It is semantic question perhaps, but I use the term exact copy even if the copy is very badly executed.That approach is problematic, at best, unless you can prove they were tracing the lines or something.
RE: Are the 1430s the most likely date range for the Zodiac drawings? - Koen G - 26-11-2022
(26-11-2022, 08:51 AM)davidjackson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There are two different arguments being conflated here:
a) Is the VM a derivate work of the Lauber style?
b) Can the VM illustrative style be used to attempt to date the period which they represent?
I fail to see why attempts are being made to link one to the other.
The whole problem with this thread is that Mark isn't motivated by curiosity, he is motivated by getting the assessment as close to his preferred date as he can. Not content with my repeated assurance that "sure, it can be as late as you want", he now wants the "most likely date range" to be later, and he is muddying the waters in the process by conflating all kinds of different arguments.
Lauber has a very specific style, and the VM does not have that style.
Lauber does use a "family" (this is not the ideal word) of images which the VM also seems to have used, but everything suggests that the VM tapped into that stock (or a distant branch from it) earlier than Lauber did.
Now looking for baggy sleeves in Lauber (which I already marked as an exception, an easy to spot separate case) is redundant. For every one of those examples, there are several dozens in pre-1430 manuscripts! And this is why I find this thread annoying, because Mark said "let's pick some cherries", and like that we lose track of the bigger picture. What I did in the original thread was ask everyone to give me all the examples they could find. And then a clear picture emerges: this style belongs to 1400-1430. This was confirmed by expert opinions. What Lauber did was pointed out by me, but it is irrelevant, since the VM does not use any of the post-1430 fashion Lauber does use. And again, Lauber is a very special case with an easy to recognize style (just like De Grassi is an easy to recognize case pre-1400).
Note that in the original post I also cross-checked with the exact style of the female dress, which turned out to be even more centered in the 1400-1430 period (although people were struggling to find a ton of examples). I don't recall we found any in Lauber.
So my assessment was made after I set up an experiment to prevent myself from cherry picking and I tried to take in several variables. This is the opposite of what's happening here.