Crossbowman

[-JKP-]

Hi All,

I have to say that the argument - which is awfully confused about what "German" is supposed to mean - seems to be an argument that because the Voynich manuscript includes an image of a crossbowman which is inscribed with the name of a month in Occitan or Judeo-Spanish, therefore the entire manuscript is German.

The examples adduced never make clear whether the argument is the Beinecke MS 408 was *made* within the borders of what is now Germany, or whether it is an argument for uniquely "Germanic" cultural character, or whether we are supposed to believe the written part of the text is actually German..

But it seems to me a very muddled sort of argument, more aimed at the 'German' bit than the 'provenancing the manuscript' bit.

The fact is that the earliest instance which I've found of the word 'sagitario' and variants being applied to a crossbowman (or more exactly an archer handed a crossbow to use) occurs in the Rolls of Calais, and that linguistic connection is the only logical reason to depict Sagittarius in this form. 

Secondly, the month inscriptions *are* Occitan or Judeo-Spanish, and probably the former.  The same orthography has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt by Don Hoffmann, and his examples also come from that same region, Picardy adjacent to Calais, and within Occitania. Dated to around 1400 AD.

It is quite important to make a time-line of positied comparisons.  In our manuscript, whatever sources or exemplars were used should - logically - be dated to before 1438.  I know the arguments about the radiocarbon dating.. but the thing is that it's pointless to adduce examples from later than that. 

Sure crossbowmen-for-Sagittarius became a fad in Germany... so what?

The crossbow is not a German crossbow.  Even Sensfelder, who used the standard excuses to cover things he couldn't explain said plainly that he knew no crossbows of that design in wood.  I do.  He also knew no way to explain the position of the archer's hand. I do.  And the sum of  inscribed language, bow-design, costume and *all the other evidence in the manuscript* doesn't even remotely add up to 'German'.

In any case, where a medieval manuscript was made isn't terribly relevant to what it contains, or where the material it contains was first enunciated or inscribed. 

What exactly is the purpose of this endless, circular, meaningless argument?

If someone really wants to argue that the whole manuscript's content is German, I suggest:
1. Define "german"
2. Find comparisons for every image, and every section in the manuscript.   Then you have an argument.


3. Since  Occitan  inscriptions in the manuscript certainly outnumber any that might be German, so why isn't there more balance here?  Are we discussing a manuscript or a theory?

Over and over and over and over, in post after post after post after post, and blog after blog, month after month, you talk about these phantom people who have "German theories", who say "the entire manuscript is in German".


I have never seen anyone say that. Several of us have discussed the fact that some of the marginalia is in German but that in no way means that the main text is also in German or that the document was created in Germany. It is simply an observation about the marginalia, which may have been added at the time the manuscript was made or perhaps 80 years later.

I have seen a few assert that it is all Latin, all Finnish, all Indian, all Arabic, etc., but those are mainly people who claim to have solved it and yet have not given a convincing translation. If there's someone who claims it's German in that bunch, they are no different from those who claim the other languages—their solutions are as yet not broadly accepted and there's no reason to specifically target them in all your posts.


I have also seen people say that certain parts of it are similar to German culture or that it MIGHT have been created in a germanic region. That is a far cry from claiming the entire manuscript is in German.


I have never seen anyone say the main text is German. Most of the time people mention Latin, English, Arabic, and sometimes Gaelic. I have seen a couple of people give a list of possibilities, saying that it MIGHT be language A or language B or language C or language D, with one of those maybe being German (in other words they are putting out several possibilities, not presenting a theory) but that is a far cry from claiming it is German.


Diane wrote: "The examples adduced never make clear whether the argument is the Beinecke MS 408 was *made* within the borders of what is now Germany, or whether it is an argument for uniquely "Germanic" cultural character, or whether we are supposed to believe the written part of the text is actually German.."

That is because WE DON'T KNOW YET. You CAN'T make it clear whether it's created within the borders of Germany because there isn't enough DATA yet. It would be jumping to conclusions.


I don't think there's anything "muddy" going on here, as you put it. Saying that most imagery with Sagittarius as a crossbowmen appears to have been created within the boundaries of germanic states in the 15th century is NOT a theory. It is NOT a conclusion. It is a piece of data—extrapolating a theory from one image on one "zodiac" wheel would be premature. You cannot assume that researchers presenting data are promoting a theory.



I think you're reading too much into people's statements and observations. Most of science is not about theories. It's about collecting data and testing observations. If you get enough good data, then sometimes a theory can be developed and more specific tests can be use to refute or confirm that line of study.



I'm the one who posted the Sagittarius-as-crossbowman map that points mostly to germanic regions to which you keep alluding, so I feel I have a right to respond to these constant insinuations.



I want to make something very clear...

I personally have no theories yet. I have about 50 pieces of a 2,000-piece jigsaw puzzle.

I don't know where Beinecke 408 was made. I don't know who made it. I don't know from which culture it arose or the cultural background of the scribes. I don't know if the primary scribes (there were at least two scribes) were the same as the illustrator(s) or different.

I look all over the world when I'm searching for examples and I usually search from about 2,000 BCE to about 1700 CE. It doesn't matter whether it's plants, zodiacs, or writing styles, I try to find everything I can from every corner of the globe and then I present my findings. You have posted many times that the theory influenced and limited the search to German regions. This is not true. If the results happen to cluster in a certain region or a certain time period, it's because examples from other parts of the world bore no similarity to the image in the manuscript.

I'm more interested in Asian and African culture than I am in European culture and was hoping the data would lead me there. It's incorrect to assume that I and others specifically looked for data in Germany simply because the RESULTS of certain investigations led to germanic regions. It also makes no sense to expect us to "make clear" where it came from when we don't yet know.

---

Diane wrote: "3. Since  Occitan  inscriptions in the manuscript certainly outnumber any that might be German, so why isn't there more balance here?  Are we discussing a manuscript or a theory?"

You say "might be German" but there is no "might be" regarding the marginalia on the last page and page with the prostrate figure with the lumpy belly. That's old German. It's not grammatically perfect German, which is why we're having trouble reading all of it, but the first and last lines include German.

So you are saying the 10 marginalia labels on the "zodiac" wheels outnumber the approximately 10+ German marginalia on the other pages?

Why is there not "more balance"? Because the labels on the "zodiac" wheels are obvious. They are the names of the months. What's to discuss? The marginalia on the last page is not so obvious. It's mixed with what appear to be Latin or other charm words, which makes it harder to decipher. There are potentially five languages on that page: German, Latin, Voynichese, and charm-words (and maybe some Spanish but these could either be charm words or based on old Arabic or Semitic incantation words—it's hard to tell). There's more to explore and talk about.


To answer your other question, we are discussing details of a manuscript, not a theory. Noting that the marginalia are in a particular language is not a theory, especially considering that those who wrote the marginalia may not have had any knowledge of the original scribes' or illustrators' intentions.