Linda,
Thanks for your detailed response. I do see there are a few areas of agreement. Let's start there. Ellie Velinska posted her discussion of the VMs cosmos back in 2014, with comparisons to the c. 1410 (Paris) Oresme' illustration (BNF Fr. 565) and the 1425-1449 (Paris) de Metz illustration (Harley 334).
Starting with the central Earth, the basis of comparative similarity is that all three examples consist of an inverted T-O structure. Both the Oresme and the de Metz representations are pictorial. If the VMs was intended as a copy, it would also be pictorial, at whatever skill level the artist could manage. The VMs is not pictorial; it is linguistic. The assumption would be that it is descriptive. The change from one method of communication (pictorial) to another (linguistic) is called a code shift. There is no way that *any* similarity of appearance can be maintained even if the objects being represented were intended to be identical. This is one trick of disguise.
The second area of comparison is the field of stars. The Oresme and de Metz illustrations are very similar: blue background, golden stars of an asterisk-style construction, scattered about and surrounding the Earth. The VMs background is different, the stars are polygonal; they have internal space between the construction lines, even though asterisk-type stars are found in many VMs illustrations. And the stars occur in several linear segments that encircle the Earth, rather than appearing to be randomly placed.
Latin has two words, cingere and circumdare, either of which can be used to denote either 'to surround' or 'to encircle'. The Oresme and de Metz images lean toward the "surround" depiction. The VMs clearly leans more toward the "encircle" depiction. This is a play on words. This is another trick. It doesn't significantly alter the structure - compared with with the other Oresme illustration (BNF Fr. 1082) which has no stars at all. It does clearly alter the appearance.
Then there is the cosmic boundary. The Oresme depiction is a scallop-shell patterned version of a cloud -band. The de Metz version just uses 'plain' lines. The VMs has a nebuly line. The Berry Apocalypse has a good example of a nebuly line as a cosmic boundary. Other illustrations, the Bedford Hours, use indented and rayonny lines to create flaming / solar representations of a cosmic boundary. The recovery of traditional terminology derived from heraldry reveals the cloud-based origins of the term 'nebuly' in Latin (or 'gewolkt' in German). The underlying equivalence is confirmed by the etymology and by the structure (43 undulations), not by the appearance. This is another trick: no etymology - no comprende. It has worked for a long time. The cloud-band in the VMs central Rosette would match the Oresme illustration much better, but it has been placed elsewhere. This is another trick. It's not that the artist couldn't do better, it's that it wasn't done properly. As if the investigator creates the rules with no acknowledgement of the artist's history and tradition.
I believe the underlying structures of the cosmic representations in the VMs and the Oresme illustrations are the same. They sure don't look he same, but they are built on the same cosmological structure. This is significant because this is a very uncommon type of structure, in comparison with the poly-concentric planetary structures <poly-concentric elemental and planetary structures> that were typical at that time. And both examples come from Paris. At the same time as maintaining this uncommon structure, I believe the VMs artist has done as much as possible to create differences in visual appearance. The point and purpose of this is to disguise traditional content, so that those who rely solely on appearance will fail, and only those who comprehend the 'true' reality of tradition, based on structure will have a chance of success in understanding the VMs. [[Of course, the manuscript has been mutilated, so who knows if that is still possible.]]
Interesting that you mention Geoffroy de Thoisy, caught playing pirate in the Black Sea in the 1440s, and bailed out by the ruler of Trebizond - just one of a number of potential conduits for Armenian information coming into the Duchy of Burgundy.
Unrecognized comparisons are things that occur in the VMs where the investigator has no clue what they are or what to do with them, e.g. 'wobbly lines, scaly patterns on tubs, large circles like wheels with eight curved spokes, double rainbows. They do look the same, but the traditions have been forgotten. The bell is there - it just doesn't ring by itself.
The flimsy connection is there. it performs its function as a connection. Those who fault its weakness, are, in essence, denying its existence. This is another trick that thwarts recognition and investigation. Verification is determined by whether further investigation leads to new discoveries of historical traditions. The nature of the situation is not for things to be obvious and undeniable. The nature of the situation is that connections are subtle and disguised for people who were immersed in their own relevant traditions, which causes all kinds of problems for investigators who have 'never heard of such a thing' (e.g. papelonny).
Thanks for your detailed response. I do see there are a few areas of agreement. Let's start there. Ellie Velinska posted her discussion of the VMs cosmos back in 2014, with comparisons to the c. 1410 (Paris) Oresme' illustration (BNF Fr. 565) and the 1425-1449 (Paris) de Metz illustration (Harley 334).
Starting with the central Earth, the basis of comparative similarity is that all three examples consist of an inverted T-O structure. Both the Oresme and the de Metz representations are pictorial. If the VMs was intended as a copy, it would also be pictorial, at whatever skill level the artist could manage. The VMs is not pictorial; it is linguistic. The assumption would be that it is descriptive. The change from one method of communication (pictorial) to another (linguistic) is called a code shift. There is no way that *any* similarity of appearance can be maintained even if the objects being represented were intended to be identical. This is one trick of disguise.
The second area of comparison is the field of stars. The Oresme and de Metz illustrations are very similar: blue background, golden stars of an asterisk-style construction, scattered about and surrounding the Earth. The VMs background is different, the stars are polygonal; they have internal space between the construction lines, even though asterisk-type stars are found in many VMs illustrations. And the stars occur in several linear segments that encircle the Earth, rather than appearing to be randomly placed.
Latin has two words, cingere and circumdare, either of which can be used to denote either 'to surround' or 'to encircle'. The Oresme and de Metz images lean toward the "surround" depiction. The VMs clearly leans more toward the "encircle" depiction. This is a play on words. This is another trick. It doesn't significantly alter the structure - compared with with the other Oresme illustration (BNF Fr. 1082) which has no stars at all. It does clearly alter the appearance.
Then there is the cosmic boundary. The Oresme depiction is a scallop-shell patterned version of a cloud -band. The de Metz version just uses 'plain' lines. The VMs has a nebuly line. The Berry Apocalypse has a good example of a nebuly line as a cosmic boundary. Other illustrations, the Bedford Hours, use indented and rayonny lines to create flaming / solar representations of a cosmic boundary. The recovery of traditional terminology derived from heraldry reveals the cloud-based origins of the term 'nebuly' in Latin (or 'gewolkt' in German). The underlying equivalence is confirmed by the etymology and by the structure (43 undulations), not by the appearance. This is another trick: no etymology - no comprende. It has worked for a long time. The cloud-band in the VMs central Rosette would match the Oresme illustration much better, but it has been placed elsewhere. This is another trick. It's not that the artist couldn't do better, it's that it wasn't done properly. As if the investigator creates the rules with no acknowledgement of the artist's history and tradition.
I believe the underlying structures of the cosmic representations in the VMs and the Oresme illustrations are the same. They sure don't look he same, but they are built on the same cosmological structure. This is significant because this is a very uncommon type of structure, in comparison with the poly-concentric planetary structures <poly-concentric elemental and planetary structures> that were typical at that time. And both examples come from Paris. At the same time as maintaining this uncommon structure, I believe the VMs artist has done as much as possible to create differences in visual appearance. The point and purpose of this is to disguise traditional content, so that those who rely solely on appearance will fail, and only those who comprehend the 'true' reality of tradition, based on structure will have a chance of success in understanding the VMs. [[Of course, the manuscript has been mutilated, so who knows if that is still possible.]]
Interesting that you mention Geoffroy de Thoisy, caught playing pirate in the Black Sea in the 1440s, and bailed out by the ruler of Trebizond - just one of a number of potential conduits for Armenian information coming into the Duchy of Burgundy.
Unrecognized comparisons are things that occur in the VMs where the investigator has no clue what they are or what to do with them, e.g. 'wobbly lines, scaly patterns on tubs, large circles like wheels with eight curved spokes, double rainbows. They do look the same, but the traditions have been forgotten. The bell is there - it just doesn't ring by itself.
The flimsy connection is there. it performs its function as a connection. Those who fault its weakness, are, in essence, denying its existence. This is another trick that thwarts recognition and investigation. Verification is determined by whether further investigation leads to new discoveries of historical traditions. The nature of the situation is not for things to be obvious and undeniable. The nature of the situation is that connections are subtle and disguised for people who were immersed in their own relevant traditions, which causes all kinds of problems for investigators who have 'never heard of such a thing' (e.g. papelonny).
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)