08-11-2018, 07:27 AM
Sorry for the late response, JKP
You say you don't understand my response. I was speaking about stylistics - the form in which an image is enunciated - not any assumed or presumed intention for the image.
I have not found the evidence so far presented to support the instinctive expectation that images attached to names of the months should be in some sense 'astrological'.
For that reason, I do not repeat the idea that the series has anything to do with that branch of mathematics (as astrology was considered in medieval Europe). I accept that when the month-names were added to the series of images - which do not constitute a zodiac of any known form - then the series was being seen and treated as some form of calendar, or calendar related reference.
I have, as it happens, looked into the various forms of calendar and calendar-related charts known in the greater Mediterranean before 1492, and in my opinion those in the Vms best accord with a style of mariner's calendar/chart, which accords quite well with the attitude to recording information in the map's late-added north roundel. I'm sorry to say all this as a series of statements, but the documentation for the research behind each of those statements take up between two and four A-4 pages, double-spaced.
This may seem 'O.T.' but in general I need many reasons to reject the opinion of another researcher: lack of corroborative evidence in non-Voynich-related scholarship, and lack of documentation in the Voynich-related writings are things on which I place a lot of weight. But then again, if it were forbidden to critique others' research for fear of being said to be unkind to their author, we might as well close down altogether because nothing would ever advance. IMO.
You say you don't understand my response. I was speaking about stylistics - the form in which an image is enunciated - not any assumed or presumed intention for the image.
I have not found the evidence so far presented to support the instinctive expectation that images attached to names of the months should be in some sense 'astrological'.
For that reason, I do not repeat the idea that the series has anything to do with that branch of mathematics (as astrology was considered in medieval Europe). I accept that when the month-names were added to the series of images - which do not constitute a zodiac of any known form - then the series was being seen and treated as some form of calendar, or calendar related reference.
I have, as it happens, looked into the various forms of calendar and calendar-related charts known in the greater Mediterranean before 1492, and in my opinion those in the Vms best accord with a style of mariner's calendar/chart, which accords quite well with the attitude to recording information in the map's late-added north roundel. I'm sorry to say all this as a series of statements, but the documentation for the research behind each of those statements take up between two and four A-4 pages, double-spaced.
This may seem 'O.T.' but in general I need many reasons to reject the opinion of another researcher: lack of corroborative evidence in non-Voynich-related scholarship, and lack of documentation in the Voynich-related writings are things on which I place a lot of weight. But then again, if it were forbidden to critique others' research for fear of being said to be unkind to their author, we might as well close down altogether because nothing would ever advance. IMO.