+- 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: Crossbowman (/thread-695.html)
RE: Crossbowman - Wladimir D - 05-09-2016
Some considerations.
1. On the basis of the proportions of the crossbow, the stirrup and the arrow, in figure illustrates wooden "one-foot" crossbow.
2. In my view, the arrow in the figure added later.
3. For the image of a crossbow is used, as well as on other pages, the connection of the top view and axonometry. The trigger (3) must not be visible.
There is other errors in the image.
4. The bowstring can not be is stretched further than the location of the input of trigger in the butt (L). The trigger must be as shown in red. It is clear from the mechanics of the trigger. In the first figure wedge (fuse) (4) plays the role of the tighter that the spring-loaded bracket (5) in the second picture.
5. The arrow should be located in the groove onto the symmetry axis passing through the stirrup and the butt. Red arrow.
6. Plumage (stabilizer) must not touch bowstring.
7. For a tension of the bowstring (not to injure your fingers) been used gloves (leather lining) with holes for the protruding finger. Crossbowman - left-handed. I believe that the vagueness of the left hand is due to the fact that the pad is dressed on her. Four fingers hold the trigger and are collected in a fist. The thumb holds the butt.
8. Into the right hand there is no pad (already removed) because it interferes with the installation of dart into the guide slot. Thumb, index and middle finger, put together like a hand holds boom.
RE: Crossbowman - Koen G - 05-09-2016
Those are some very good points, Wladimir. I think we have to conclude that:
- Either the arrow was added later, or the drawing is inaccurate.
- Either the trigger mechanism is drawn in the wrong place compared to the string, or it is a different type of crossbow (?)
Also, the fact that bow strings can injure fingers may account for the state of the archer's hands
RE: Crossbowman - Diane - 05-09-2016
Hi All,
I have to say that the argument - which is awfully confused about what "German" is supposed to mean - seems to be an argument that because the Voynich manuscript includes an image of a crossbowman which is inscribed with the name of a month in Occitan or Judeo-Spanish, therefore the entire manuscript is German.
The examples adduced never make clear whether the argument is the Beinecke MS 408 was *made* within the borders of what is now Germany, or whether it is an argument for uniquely "Germanic" cultural character, or whether we are supposed to believe the written part of the text is actually German..
But it seems to me a very muddled sort of argument, more aimed at the 'German' bit than the 'provenancing the manuscript' bit.
The fact is that the earliest instance which I've found of the word 'sagitario' and variants being applied to a crossbowman (or more exactly an archer handed a crossbow to use) occurs in the Rolls of Calais, and that linguistic connection is the only logical reason to depict Sagittarius in this form.
Secondly, the month inscriptions *are* Occitan or Judeo-Spanish, and probably the former. The same orthography has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt by Don Hoffmann, and his examples also come from that same region, Picardy adjacent to Calais, and within Occitania. Dated to around 1400 AD.
It is quite important to make a time-line of positied comparisons. In our manuscript, whatever sources or exemplars were used should - logically - be dated to before 1438. I know the arguments about the radiocarbon dating.. but the thing is that it's pointless to adduce examples from later than that.
Sure crossbowmen-for-Sagittarius became a fad in Germany... so what?
The crossbow is not a German crossbow. Even Sensfelder, who used the standard excuses to cover things he couldn't explain said plainly that he knew no crossbows of that design in wood. I do. He also knew no way to explain the position of the archer's hand. I do. And the sum of inscribed language, bow-design, costume and *all the other evidence in the manuscript* doesn't even remotely add up to 'German'.
In any case, where a medieval manuscript was made isn't terribly relevant to what it contains, or where the material it contains was first enunciated or inscribed.
What exactly is the purpose of this endless, circular, meaningless argument?
If someone really wants to argue that the whole manuscript's content is German, I suggest:
1. Define "german"
2. Find comparisons for every image, and every section in the manuscript. Then you have an argument.
3. Since Occitan inscriptions in the manuscript certainly outnumber any that might be German, so why isn't there more balance here? Are we discussing a manuscript or a theory?
RE: Crossbowman - -JKP- - 05-09-2016
(05-09-2016, 11:48 AM)Diane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Hi All,
I have to say that the argument - which is awfully confused about what "German" is supposed to mean - seems to be an argument that because the Voynich manuscript includes an image of a crossbowman which is inscribed with the name of a month in Occitan or Judeo-Spanish, therefore the entire manuscript is German.
The examples adduced never make clear whether the argument is the Beinecke MS 408 was *made* within the borders of what is now Germany, or whether it is an argument for uniquely "Germanic" cultural character, or whether we are supposed to believe the written part of the text is actually German..
But it seems to me a very muddled sort of argument, more aimed at the 'German' bit than the 'provenancing the manuscript' bit.
The fact is that the earliest instance which I've found of the word 'sagitario' and variants being applied to a crossbowman (or more exactly an archer handed a crossbow to use) occurs in the Rolls of Calais, and that linguistic connection is the only logical reason to depict Sagittarius in this form.
Secondly, the month inscriptions *are* Occitan or Judeo-Spanish, and probably the former. The same orthography has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt by Don Hoffmann, and his examples also come from that same region, Picardy adjacent to Calais, and within Occitania. Dated to around 1400 AD.
It is quite important to make a time-line of positied comparisons. In our manuscript, whatever sources or exemplars were used should - logically - be dated to before 1438. I know the arguments about the radiocarbon dating.. but the thing is that it's pointless to adduce examples from later than that.
Sure crossbowmen-for-Sagittarius became a fad in Germany... so what?
The crossbow is not a German crossbow. Even Sensfelder, who used the standard excuses to cover things he couldn't explain said plainly that he knew no crossbows of that design in wood. I do. He also knew no way to explain the position of the archer's hand. I do. And the sum of inscribed language, bow-design, costume and *all the other evidence in the manuscript* doesn't even remotely add up to 'German'.
In any case, where a medieval manuscript was made isn't terribly relevant to what it contains, or where the material it contains was first enunciated or inscribed.
What exactly is the purpose of this endless, circular, meaningless argument?
If someone really wants to argue that the whole manuscript's content is German, I suggest:
1. Define "german"
2. Find comparisons for every image, and every section in the manuscript. Then you have an argument.
3. Since Occitan inscriptions in the manuscript certainly outnumber any that might be German, so why isn't there more balance here? Are we discussing a manuscript or a theory?
Over and over and over and over, in post after post after post after post, and blog after blog, month after month, you talk about these phantom people who have "German theories", who say "the entire manuscript is in German".
I have never seen anyone say that. Several of us have discussed the fact that some of the marginalia is in German but that in no way means that the main text is also in German or that the document was created in Germany. It is simply an observation about the marginalia, which may have been added at the time the manuscript was made or perhaps 80 years later.
I have seen a few assert that it is all Latin, all Finnish, all Indian, all Arabic, etc., but those are mainly people who claim to have solved it and yet have not given a convincing translation. If there's someone who claims it's German in that bunch, they are no different from those who claim the other languages—their solutions are as yet not broadly accepted and there's no reason to specifically target them in all your posts.
I have also seen people say that certain parts of it are similar to German culture or that it MIGHT have been created in a germanic region. That is a far cry from claiming the entire manuscript is in German.
I have never seen anyone say the main text is German. Most of the time people mention Latin, English, Arabic, and sometimes Gaelic. I have seen a couple of people give a list of possibilities, saying that it MIGHT be language A or language B or language C or language D, with one of those maybe being German (in other words they are putting out several possibilities, not presenting a theory) but that is a far cry from claiming it is German.
Diane wrote: "The examples adduced never make clear whether the argument is the Beinecke MS 408 was *made* within the borders of what is now Germany, or whether it is an argument for uniquely "Germanic" cultural character, or whether we are supposed to believe the written part of the text is actually German.."
That is because WE DON'T KNOW YET. You CAN'T make it clear whether it's created within the borders of Germany because there isn't enough DATA yet. It would be jumping to conclusions.
I don't think there's anything "muddy" going on here, as you put it. Saying that most imagery with Sagittarius as a crossbowmen appears to have been created within the boundaries of germanic states in the 15th century is NOT a theory. It is NOT a conclusion. It is a piece of data—extrapolating a theory from one image on one "zodiac" wheel would be premature. You cannot assume that researchers presenting data are promoting a theory.
I think you're reading too much into people's statements and observations. Most of science is not about theories. It's about collecting data and testing observations. If you get enough good data, then sometimes a theory can be developed and more specific tests can be use to refute or confirm that line of study.
I'm the one who posted the Sagittarius-as-crossbowman map that points mostly to germanic regions to which you keep alluding, so I feel I have a right to respond to these constant insinuations.
I want to make something very clear...
I personally have no theories yet. I have about 50 pieces of a 2,000-piece jigsaw puzzle.
I don't know where Beinecke 408 was made. I don't know who made it. I don't know from which culture it arose or the cultural background of the scribes. I don't know if the primary scribes (there were at least two scribes) were the same as the illustrator(s) or different.
I look all over the world when I'm searching for examples and I usually search from about 2,000 BCE to about 1700 CE. It doesn't matter whether it's plants, zodiacs, or writing styles, I try to find everything I can from every corner of the globe and then I present my findings. You have posted many times that the theory influenced and limited the search to German regions. This is not true. If the results happen to cluster in a certain region or a certain time period, it's because examples from other parts of the world bore no similarity to the image in the manuscript.
I'm more interested in Asian and African culture than I am in European culture and was hoping the data would lead me there. It's incorrect to assume that I and others specifically looked for data in Germany simply because the RESULTS of certain investigations led to germanic regions. It also makes no sense to expect us to "make clear" where it came from when we don't yet know.
Diane wrote: "3. Since Occitan inscriptions in the manuscript certainly outnumber any that might be German, so why isn't there more balance here? Are we discussing a manuscript or a theory?"
You say "might be German" but there is no "might be" regarding the marginalia on the last page and page with the prostrate figure with the lumpy belly. That's old German. It's not grammatically perfect German, which is why we're having trouble reading all of it, but the first and last lines include German.
So you are saying the 10 marginalia labels on the "zodiac" wheels outnumber the approximately 10+ German marginalia on the other pages?
Why is there not "more balance"? Because the labels on the "zodiac" wheels are obvious. They are the names of the months. What's to discuss? The marginalia on the last page is not so obvious. It's mixed with what appear to be Latin or other charm words, which makes it harder to decipher. There are potentially five languages on that page: German, Latin, Voynichese, and charm-words (and maybe some Spanish but these could either be charm words or based on old Arabic or Semitic incantation words—it's hard to tell). There's more to explore and talk about.
To answer your other question, we are discussing details of a manuscript, not a theory. Noting that the marginalia are in a particular language is not a theory, especially considering that those who wrote the marginalia may not have had any knowledge of the original scribes' or illustrators' intentions.
RE: Crossbowman - Anton - 05-09-2016
Regarding the term "German" for the epoch in question: it looks like that it is well-established jargon even in academia. I am currently reading "White Magic, Black Magic in the European renaissance" by Paola Zambelli (most interesting book!), and she consistently uses words such as "German" and "Germany". She even calls Paracelsus a "German" author.
But I'd suggest the participants to this discussion to focus on the crossbowman. Any dispute arising out of, or in connection with, the "German theory", including any question regarding its existence, validity or termination, shall be referred to and finally resolved by a separate thread.
RE: Crossbowman - Diane - 05-09-2016
Anton,
Of course, what you say makes complete sense from your perspective, and reminds me that most people haven't been around all that long, haven't yet become so jaded by the sight of the same-old, same-old pictures produced in support.
Anyway - thank you to the moderators for an environment where alternatives can be raised and even discussed reasonably, even if for a little while. There has been no such place, since c.2002 or so, where this was able to happen without unpleasantness.
D.
JKP.
My point is that one can either research the manuscript to learn more about what it contains, and implies. OR one can devote one's efforts to hunting endlessly for matter likely to support an idea that the individual wants to see believed widely.
If the aim is to determine where the manuscript was manufactured (to use as neutral a term as possible) the way to address that question is through codicology and palaeography.
If the aim is to clarify the culture, place and time(s) from which precedents were gained, then the enquiry and research has to be pursued without a sub-text of trying to limit the range of examples adduced, the media which may be considered, or by blanking research and evidence which happens to stand against a favoured theory.
Attempting to find enough evidence to support a notion that the manuscript was made in Germany, or by German-speakers, or that it expresses a 'germanic' culture has been around now for two full decades. Everything which can be adduced in its favour and is still being produced here is stuff that has already been chewed over.. and over... and over.. endlessly ...
in THAT context your true statement has to be understood:
Quote:there isn't enough DATA
RE: Crossbowman - -JKP- - 06-09-2016
I just tried posting a response to the thread with 22 images related to crossbows and apparently only 10 are permitted and I've run out of time, so I guess I can't post it. I have to go now, duty calls.
RE: Crossbowman - davidjackson - 06-09-2016
Can we not wander off-topic away from the crossbowman and into the realms of linguistic analysis please.
JKP-
I've increased the number of image attachments per post (and also made the thumbnails a tad bigger). Limit is now 25, FYI.
Wladamir -
Good points. A left handed crossbowman? Why depict such a thing - was it intentional or unintentional?
RE: Crossbowman - Koen G - 06-09-2016
I have had the impression on other occasions that the images had been mirrored. This would easily explain the left handedness. Though it would raise another problem: why mirror images?
RE: Crossbowman - MarcoP - 06-09-2016
Mirror-images often occurred when woodcuts and engravings in general where copied from drawings. So a possible explanation would be that the Voynich illustration was copied from the print of an engraving (that was mirror imaged). Given that the Voynich zodiac illustrations are so original, I think it is not very likely that they were directly copied from anything, still this would explain the mirror-image / reversing.
I attach examples by Albrecht Durer.