02-01-2022, 10:26 PM
Here's how I see it. We know that the sympathetic 'sidereal-botanical' connection was presumed to be a "fact", even though it is a load of bunk. The fact is that these assumptions were presumed to be valid.
We also have these quotes from early experts, commenting on the apparent presence of the presumed 'sidereal-botanical' connections as being represented in the VMs. Other investigators have agreed with this interpretation of the VMs. The VMs presents that "appearance". The VMs is a masquerade. This is the mask that it wears. There is a facade of false appearance, behind which a few glimpses of a C-14 relevant history can be found.
One of the first indications of trickery is the written text. The fact that VMs text remains unintelligible is seriously problematic to the assumption that the VMs is 'genuine'. Genuine meaning that it is an authentic product of some historical culture or civilization. It's not! So being "genuine" is out. Being something other, is in. Being genuine here is to be considered as an 'ordinary' text with no ulterior purpose. And in being "something other", please note that the current condition of the VMs is in a severely wounded and otherwise rearranged version of its original state.
There is no access to intelligible language through the written text, but there is information potentially available in the VMs illustrations. A long history of investigations has not produced very many worthy examples. Consider Newbold's interpretation of the VMs cosmos. This is not useful investigation. The devil is in the details, and so is the relevant information. Which of the important early investigators took an adequate look at the VMs cosmos? It is generally agreed to represent the medieval cosmos, yet it has none of the standard structure of the planetary spheres that was typical of that time. The VMs cosmos is something other. And the investigation of the cosmic details turns up an inverted T-O Earth, a nebuly line as a 'wolkenband' / cosmic boundary and much more.
The use of disguise is problematic in two ways. Important information is not shown plainly. Historical connections are more subtle and ambiguous. That makes them harder to find. But significantly, the greatest difficulty occurs if the image represented is unknown to the investigator.
Passing the VMs off as a gloss, produces very little. Digging into the details that show a relevance to history opens the possibility of further discovery. And the best of those discoveries, IMHO, are those that would seem to match and cluster with the C-14 dating.
We also have these quotes from early experts, commenting on the apparent presence of the presumed 'sidereal-botanical' connections as being represented in the VMs. Other investigators have agreed with this interpretation of the VMs. The VMs presents that "appearance". The VMs is a masquerade. This is the mask that it wears. There is a facade of false appearance, behind which a few glimpses of a C-14 relevant history can be found.
One of the first indications of trickery is the written text. The fact that VMs text remains unintelligible is seriously problematic to the assumption that the VMs is 'genuine'. Genuine meaning that it is an authentic product of some historical culture or civilization. It's not! So being "genuine" is out. Being something other, is in. Being genuine here is to be considered as an 'ordinary' text with no ulterior purpose. And in being "something other", please note that the current condition of the VMs is in a severely wounded and otherwise rearranged version of its original state.
There is no access to intelligible language through the written text, but there is information potentially available in the VMs illustrations. A long history of investigations has not produced very many worthy examples. Consider Newbold's interpretation of the VMs cosmos. This is not useful investigation. The devil is in the details, and so is the relevant information. Which of the important early investigators took an adequate look at the VMs cosmos? It is generally agreed to represent the medieval cosmos, yet it has none of the standard structure of the planetary spheres that was typical of that time. The VMs cosmos is something other. And the investigation of the cosmic details turns up an inverted T-O Earth, a nebuly line as a 'wolkenband' / cosmic boundary and much more.
The use of disguise is problematic in two ways. Important information is not shown plainly. Historical connections are more subtle and ambiguous. That makes them harder to find. But significantly, the greatest difficulty occurs if the image represented is unknown to the investigator.
Passing the VMs off as a gloss, produces very little. Digging into the details that show a relevance to history opens the possibility of further discovery. And the best of those discoveries, IMHO, are those that would seem to match and cluster with the C-14 dating.