Mark Knowles > 06-09-2019, 01:31 PM
-JKP- > 06-09-2019, 02:10 PM
Koen G > 06-09-2019, 08:26 PM
(06-09-2019, 01:31 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I have noticed a behaviour that is easy to succumb to and quite common and that is the practice of scouring manuscripts for images that look very loosely similar to the image in the Voynich that one is interested in and then postulating a relationship. It is perfectly reasonable to look for a correspondence to images in the Voynich amongst other sources and sometimes this can be very productive, but it should not be pursued to the extent of the man spotting Jesus's face in a pizza. I think, as with Nick Pelling's block-paradigm idea, we should not doubt the extent to which the output of the author's work was original and that a given drawing in the Voynich may not have a parallel in another manuscript.
Mark Knowles > 06-09-2019, 10:39 PM
(06-09-2019, 08:26 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(06-09-2019, 01:31 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I have noticed a behaviour that is easy to succumb to and quite common and that is the practice of scouring manuscripts for images that look very loosely similar to the image in the Voynich that one is interested in and then postulating a relationship. It is perfectly reasonable to look for a correspondence to images in the Voynich amongst other sources and sometimes this can be very productive, but it should not be pursued to the extent of the man spotting Jesus's face in a pizza. I think, as with Nick Pelling's block-paradigm idea, we should not doubt the extent to which the output of the author's work was original and that a given drawing in the Voynich may not have a parallel in another manuscript.
The persons who made the VM were not hermits who existed in complete ignorance of external society. We know that they were familiar with Zodiac images (whether from churches or manuscripts or both).
Medieval culture was one of images. And the makers of those images would often assume that the viewer was illiterate, and should be able to "read" the image without any text. And indeed, even in manuscripts where image and text go hand in hand, we often see that the images have a programme of their own.
When I look for images of a certain thing (for example most recently, the Beasts of Revelation), the question I want to answer is: how did medieval artists picture this thing? Are there any trends? Difference between time periods? Regional differences? Differences between various traditions?
I can understand that the VM is a unique creation (or if it wasn't, its other versions are gone). But to know the visual vocabulary of the environment in which is was made, is one of the best weapons we have at our disposal.
Koen G > 06-09-2019, 10:46 PM
-JKP- > 07-09-2019, 07:20 AM
Mark Knowles > 12-09-2019, 04:16 PM
(06-09-2019, 10:46 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.How do you know the current document was not an exact copy of one made, say, in 1410?
Or copy of one made in 1350, updated to the style of the early 15th century?
How do you know it is not a unifying copy of several earlier sources?
How do you know there was just one author?
I'm not saying any of those statements must be right or wrong, but you seem to be convinced about these matters. Why?
(I'm going to split the last few posts after adding this one).
Searcher > 12-09-2019, 09:32 PM
(12-09-2019, 04:16 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The nature and structure of the text points to me of an imaginative individual it therefore seems very likely that the drawings are correspondingly imaginative rather than duplicates. If it is a copy of an existing manuscript, but written with enciphered or meaningless text then why do that when the viewer could look at the original?Here I absolutely agree. The cipher (the unknown script of the unknown content) is the main diifference between the VMs and usual medieval manuscripts. The most of known ciphered manuscripts don't contain any illustration at all, obviously, by the reason to keep their secret which could be revealed due to some details of pictures. If I would be encryptor I'd like to put images that confuse readers, lead away from a matter of a text, or, in another case, I'd make realated and meaningful but quite incomprehensible images.
It seems that if choose to encipher something, if it is enciphered, then you do so to protect some original or unique content.
Similarly if you are trying to produce a mysterious object for sale then it makes sense to produce content that is more mysterious.
...
Of course, I think the manuscript is one of it's time and therefore influenced by other manuscripts from that time or before, such as alchemical herbals, but I do think there is an underemphasis on the author's inventiveness and far too much emphasis on illustrations from other manuscripts that if one squints loosely resemble what we see in the Voynich.
Koen G > 12-09-2019, 09:44 PM
(12-09-2019, 04:16 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I do not know there was just one author I intend to refer to one author, where it is not important to the argument, for simplicity rather than writing "author(s)". Similarly I often find myself writing "he" instead of "he/she" for simplicity and brevity. Though it is true I think there was essentially one author, who may have had some assistance from those working for him, and that the author was Male, but that is a completely argument and subject.
Mark Knowles > 12-09-2019, 10:29 PM
(12-09-2019, 09:44 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(12-09-2019, 04:16 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I do not know there was just one author I intend to refer to one author, where it is not important to the argument, for simplicity rather than writing "author(s)". Similarly I often find myself writing "he" instead of "he/she" for simplicity and brevity. Though it is true I think there was essentially one author, who may have had some assistance from those working for him, and that the author was Male, but that is a completely argument and subject.
I personally like to say "makers" and "they". There is agreement about two different hands. Additionally, someone left color annotations. In normal manuscripts, we know that this is done by person a for person b, and most likely this is the same in the VM. So it is safe to say that at least two people were involved (or three if the painter is a different person than the scribes), and we don't know the exact division of labor between them.
Anyway, back to methodology. I personally welcome a multitude of approaches. At the end of the day we want to see this thing solved, so if someone wants to do his research in a way you personally think is not the best, why not let them?
I often see people conducting "research" that I think won't lead to anything, but I don't mind, they might just uncover something useful along the way.
(It's a different scenario when a ridiculous theory gets disproportional exposure, as we've seen earlier this year...)