28-04-2016, 12:10 PM
(This post was last modified: 28-04-2016, 03:59 PM by MarcoP.
Edit Reason: date of Old St.Peter drawing corrected: thanks Rene!
)
In the paper I mentioned above (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.), Lehmann writes (p.11): “...from an early period, we meet a different development which also continue in Christian art. This is based on the pseudo-illusionistic representation of a canopy spread out in the center of ceilings or of other supposed openings. In this variety, the points where the tent-like velum is fastened to the edges of the opening are marked by projecting angles between concave sides.”
This “umbrella-like” canopy was typically used in the decoration of ceilings and vaults. The motif was known through the Middle Ages and had a huge revival in the Renaissance, after the Domus Aurea frescoes were re-discovered at the end of the XV Century (the Torrechiara ceiling is an example).
When comparing the visual examples and Lehmann's description with the Voynich illustration, I see two major differences:
Should we conclude that the Voynich objects are independent from this well-documented “canopy” visual tradition?
![[Image: attachment.php?aid=305]](http://www.voynich.ninja/attachment.php?aid=305)
This “umbrella-like” canopy was typically used in the decoration of ceilings and vaults. The motif was known through the Middle Ages and had a huge revival in the Renaissance, after the Domus Aurea frescoes were re-discovered at the end of the XV Century (the Torrechiara ceiling is an example).
When comparing the visual examples and Lehmann's description with the Voynich illustration, I see two major differences:
- the central pole that appears in the Voynich ms and is absent in all other cases;
- the fact that the curves on the border are convex in the VMS, while they are concave in all other cases.
Should we conclude that the Voynich objects are independent from this well-documented “canopy” visual tradition?