02-01-2025, 12:27 AM
I have been reading Koen's important and relevant posts relating to the Zodiac illustrations as I am curious as to whether the Voynich zodiac pages were copied wholesale from an astrological manuscript produced by or linked indirectly to Diebold Lauber. If such a source really existed then it would constitute what Nick Pelling has called a block-paradigm and would therefore be invaluable in decipherment, if such a source has survived to the present day, which given how much has been lost may be doubtful.
Koen says: "Nick prefers a model where the VM images were copied from an unknown Alsatian calendar or similar document." This seems to be the most likely scenario.
As part of reading Koen's research it has also brought me back to the pre-1430 dating claim that Koen has made for the Voynich zodiac drawings with I have been doubtful of.
In Koen's post entitled "Gemini: type, Alsace or Willehalm?"
He says "What this suggests is that the VM painter was trying to faithfully follow an example, even though the required techniques surpassed his skill."
Koen quotes Nick Pelling who says "what I’ve said for more than a decade is that the Voynich’s zodiac roundel drawings appear to me to have been copied (albeit fairly ineptly) en masse from a single (probably German) calendar of the late fourteenth or early fifteenth century."
Koen says "Nick has been early to notice that the Zodiac figures are somewhat different than the other human figures in the manuscript. In my own research as well, they always surfaced as the odd ones out. Hence, it is very, very likely that they were copied from a different source than whatever the rest of the VM is."
He says "compare the VM 'dark Aries' bottom right with Hartlieb’s version. Once again, an indication that the VM painter attempted to imitate a style of shading above his skill level."
He also says "If you want it to have been made after 1430, then this also implies that the Archer figure was copied without much thought, in an extremely specific dress type which would have been obsolete and old fashioned by then."
It seems very likely to me that the Zodiac illustrations were copied without much thought or care. I don't think the author cared greatly for pretty illustrations and was more interested in the practical use of the document. I seems unlikely to me that they cared greatly that the illustrations were consistent with contemporary fashion.
If the VM painter was trying to faithfully follow an example then that would mean that he was copying an earlier illustration. If the Voynich author(s) did that with all the zodiac illustrations then any Voynich dating based on the zodiac clothing could be potentially irrelevant. If we say that the Voynich author(s) copied the zodiac drawings from a source exactly without altering them then we may be able to argue about the date of the source on the basis of clothing, however this tells us nothing about the date at which the illustrations were copied. In addition it is worth noting that if we used the pre-1430 dating of the clothing claim when dating all manuscripts then we would have incorrectly dated the later Lauber manuscripts. So, whilst it may be nice to narrow down the dating range for the illustrations it doesn't seem that we can really do so.
Koen says: "Nick prefers a model where the VM images were copied from an unknown Alsatian calendar or similar document." This seems to be the most likely scenario.
As part of reading Koen's research it has also brought me back to the pre-1430 dating claim that Koen has made for the Voynich zodiac drawings with I have been doubtful of.
In Koen's post entitled "Gemini: type, Alsace or Willehalm?"
He says "What this suggests is that the VM painter was trying to faithfully follow an example, even though the required techniques surpassed his skill."
Koen quotes Nick Pelling who says "what I’ve said for more than a decade is that the Voynich’s zodiac roundel drawings appear to me to have been copied (albeit fairly ineptly) en masse from a single (probably German) calendar of the late fourteenth or early fifteenth century."
Koen says "Nick has been early to notice that the Zodiac figures are somewhat different than the other human figures in the manuscript. In my own research as well, they always surfaced as the odd ones out. Hence, it is very, very likely that they were copied from a different source than whatever the rest of the VM is."
He says "compare the VM 'dark Aries' bottom right with Hartlieb’s version. Once again, an indication that the VM painter attempted to imitate a style of shading above his skill level."
He also says "If you want it to have been made after 1430, then this also implies that the Archer figure was copied without much thought, in an extremely specific dress type which would have been obsolete and old fashioned by then."
It seems very likely to me that the Zodiac illustrations were copied without much thought or care. I don't think the author cared greatly for pretty illustrations and was more interested in the practical use of the document. I seems unlikely to me that they cared greatly that the illustrations were consistent with contemporary fashion.
If the VM painter was trying to faithfully follow an example then that would mean that he was copying an earlier illustration. If the Voynich author(s) did that with all the zodiac illustrations then any Voynich dating based on the zodiac clothing could be potentially irrelevant. If we say that the Voynich author(s) copied the zodiac drawings from a source exactly without altering them then we may be able to argue about the date of the source on the basis of clothing, however this tells us nothing about the date at which the illustrations were copied. In addition it is worth noting that if we used the pre-1430 dating of the clothing claim when dating all manuscripts then we would have incorrectly dated the later Lauber manuscripts. So, whilst it may be nice to narrow down the dating range for the illustrations it doesn't seem that we can really do so.