25-11-2022, 11:45 AM
(This post was last modified: 25-11-2022, 11:10 PM by Mark Knowles.)
(25-11-2022, 08:01 AM)ReneZ wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(24-11-2022, 05:15 PM)Mark Knowles wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.1) The Zodiac Drawings appear to be exact copies
Just to be sure: is this saying that the Voynich MS zodiac drawings appear to be exact copies of some original?
Yes, attempted exact copies.
(25-11-2022, 08:01 AM)ReneZ wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This is true for the biological section, the herbal drawings (for which there is an enormous amount of example/comparison material) and indeed the zodiac.
I am not talking about the biological section, the herbal drawings, only the central Zodiac drawings as I think I have made clear.
(25-11-2022, 08:01 AM)ReneZ wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I would be interested to understand better where this opinion is coming from.
Links and details to follow.
(25-11-2022, 08:01 AM)ReneZ wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(24-11-2022, 05:15 PM)Mark Knowles wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.2) Diebold Lauber drawings are the most like those of in the Voynich ...
I am equally incredulous about this statement.
The drawings in the Voynich MS have nothing to do with the quality output of a workhop like his. That is not just my personal opinion.
Again, as I think I made very clear, I am referring to the central Zodiac drawings not all drawings in the Voynich manuscript.
I am not talking about the "quality" of the drawings, but rather their nature. I am not suggesting that the Voynich Zodiac images were produced by Lauber's workshop, but rather they were copied manually by a scribe from one of Lauber's works just rather poorly.