05-12-2016, 09:17 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-12-2016, 09:27 AM by Diane.
Edit Reason: add
)
I might mention - harking back to the manazil ('lunar mansions') that this is not the only folio where they appear.
I might also say that both Marco and Rene have neglected to mention that I've been speaking about various particular manzil, and the two systems for using them (in general, the '28' of the calendars and the formal '27' used for mathematical calculations) fairly regularly for the past eight years.
This omission seems a bit of a pity, and not because of any code of omerta, but because the failure to acknowledge that body of study means that anyone who now feels interested in a possible link between those systems andd the Voynich manuscript must waste time hunting sources already cited, re-doing the same research, though the work has already been done. In scholarship, the usual way is to read the original research, compare the opinions of those writers... and then move on. Pretending the work doesn't exist is counter-productive IMO
I guess one problem - for the many popular theories which begin by supposing the manuscript is entirely a Latin Christian cultural product, is that the system is not a European system and was not very widely known in the Latins' astronomical curriculum before the expulsions of 1492.
However, searching 'Voynich' and 'lunar mansions' and/or 'manazil' online should turn up a fair bit of the specific and detailed comment - from well before Stephen Bax became involved or the entry was added to Rene's site - it certainly wasn't there when I began treating the subject, myself.
With regard to astrononomical devices, too, Nick Pelling wrote up some very good material about instruments in posts he published in the early years of his blog (2008-2010) - and they are worth reading, and most certainly deserve proper citation and acknowledgement.
One reason I think that Voynich studies keeps running in the same old rut, re-discovering as "ideas" what were and are the conclusions of more detailed studies is that bad-old habit (now happily fading) of simply adopting and then parroting results and informed opinions, or the gist of original research, while failing to correctly attribute the original work to the right person.
It isn't easy, I know, but no purpose is served by getting it wrong, is it?
Thank god the bad-old habits are fading.
I might also say that both Marco and Rene have neglected to mention that I've been speaking about various particular manzil, and the two systems for using them (in general, the '28' of the calendars and the formal '27' used for mathematical calculations) fairly regularly for the past eight years.
This omission seems a bit of a pity, and not because of any code of omerta, but because the failure to acknowledge that body of study means that anyone who now feels interested in a possible link between those systems andd the Voynich manuscript must waste time hunting sources already cited, re-doing the same research, though the work has already been done. In scholarship, the usual way is to read the original research, compare the opinions of those writers... and then move on. Pretending the work doesn't exist is counter-productive IMO
I guess one problem - for the many popular theories which begin by supposing the manuscript is entirely a Latin Christian cultural product, is that the system is not a European system and was not very widely known in the Latins' astronomical curriculum before the expulsions of 1492.
However, searching 'Voynich' and 'lunar mansions' and/or 'manazil' online should turn up a fair bit of the specific and detailed comment - from well before Stephen Bax became involved or the entry was added to Rene's site - it certainly wasn't there when I began treating the subject, myself.
With regard to astrononomical devices, too, Nick Pelling wrote up some very good material about instruments in posts he published in the early years of his blog (2008-2010) - and they are worth reading, and most certainly deserve proper citation and acknowledgement.
One reason I think that Voynich studies keeps running in the same old rut, re-discovering as "ideas" what were and are the conclusions of more detailed studies is that bad-old habit (now happily fading) of simply adopting and then parroting results and informed opinions, or the gist of original research, while failing to correctly attribute the original work to the right person.
It isn't easy, I know, but no purpose is served by getting it wrong, is it?
Thank god the bad-old habits are fading.