28-11-2022, 12:48 PM
This is apparently what I wrote 4 years ago about the selection of the dresses. I took people's remarks into account and eliminated a number of my initial examples to zoom in even closer on the VM style:
So when we were collecting these images, there grew an understanding that "being clearly separated from the dress" and "not extending to the ground" are important qualities. In the Lauber example above, we cannot even make out the other sleeve. Also interestingly, he continues the scallop pattern all the way to the ground. My guess would be that he may have been altering an older image to make it match more "modern" fashion, but this is just a guess.
The two examples you picked from the blog post are different. I admit that the one on the right isn't very clear since she is riding a horse, so this may be a bad example. The one on the left has sleeves that are clearly separate from the dress, and don't touch the floor.
The bottom line is that our best examples are earlier. So far, the only argument that actually comes from you to defend a later date is "but Lauber...". This shows that sure, images can be copied at later dates (that's nothing new), but also that we only see this fashion after 1430 in rare circumstances. There is not a single reason to assume the VM is part of this. Either way, anyone defending a 1430's-1440's date must also take into account that the clothing was old fashioned by then. This may not be a problem, but it is something to take into account.
If we assume the VM artist followed the common practice of drawing figures in contemporary clothing, we can also say a 1420's date is more likely than a 1430's date. This is what curators would do, so it doesn't seem bad practice for us to do the same.
Quote:One justified remark that was made about some of my proposals was: is this really a sleeve or more like a cape or the edge of the dress? The Voynich women wear sleeves that are clearly separated from the dress; they don’t touch the ground and aren’t folded back. This eliminates a large amount of my initial contributions, but we are left with the most certain parallels.
So when we were collecting these images, there grew an understanding that "being clearly separated from the dress" and "not extending to the ground" are important qualities. In the Lauber example above, we cannot even make out the other sleeve. Also interestingly, he continues the scallop pattern all the way to the ground. My guess would be that he may have been altering an older image to make it match more "modern" fashion, but this is just a guess.
The two examples you picked from the blog post are different. I admit that the one on the right isn't very clear since she is riding a horse, so this may be a bad example. The one on the left has sleeves that are clearly separate from the dress, and don't touch the floor.
The bottom line is that our best examples are earlier. So far, the only argument that actually comes from you to defend a later date is "but Lauber...". This shows that sure, images can be copied at later dates (that's nothing new), but also that we only see this fashion after 1430 in rare circumstances. There is not a single reason to assume the VM is part of this. Either way, anyone defending a 1430's-1440's date must also take into account that the clothing was old fashioned by then. This may not be a problem, but it is something to take into account.
If we assume the VM artist followed the common practice of drawing figures in contemporary clothing, we can also say a 1420's date is more likely than a 1430's date. This is what curators would do, so it doesn't seem bad practice for us to do the same.