- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
[split] f85r2
- [split] f85r2
-
RE: [split] f85r2
Koen G > 13-02-2025, 08:09 PM
(13-02-2025, 05:00 PM)eggyk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Regardless, my point generally is that someone may speculate "I believe that this image depicts "X" ", leading them or others to research such speculation and perhaps find something.
I believe this is what drives many people to share their speculations: they feel that they are on the right track, but also lack the evidence to back everything up. But they genuinely hope that someone might be helped by it and take it further. Examples of this happening are rare though. Either an idea is so common that it is already kind of an established thought without a clear source (swallowtail merlons are Italian and Alpine). Or a theory is so personal that it's hard for others to work with (the Rosettes page describes a specific journey). When you find someone building upon previous imagery research, you'll see that it's usually of the first kind.
Coming up with research questions is hard, and the research can be tedious. But it can be shared with collaborators and is likely to lead to actual results.
Here's an example (I'm not planning to research this myself, so feel free to steal it):
In the astro section (fols 67 to 70r), there are a number of large faces on heavenly bodies, like this one:
Questions:
* How widespread was the practice of drawing faces on heavenly bodies before ca. 1450?
* Where do we find heavenly bodies with whole "heads", with hair and even items of headgear like in the VM example above? It's much more than just your standard eyes, nose and a mouth. Does anything comparable exist? Any geographical or chronological range?
I'm not saying anyone has to pick this up - it requires focus on a tiny aspect of the MS, research into what has previously been written etc. But any results will be clear and useful. Because you asked a relevant question that can be answered. -
RE: [split] f85r2
Searcher > 13-02-2025, 10:32 PM
I consider my post an assumption, not a speculation. I don't think I'm distorting the facts and I don't deny the obvious things. My research is not a proof of anything, but a reflection. My observations are based on what images prevail in the manuscript as a whole. In my opinion, these are herbs, astrology and some liquids (whether it is water or something else). What is your general impression?
Regarding the directions of the figures of people in the circular diagrams, do you think they are random? Starting with the sign of Pisces. Why? Randomness? Why does the sign of Pisces have only 29 points, when the other circles have 30? Do you hope that we will ever be able to find correspondences to these unusual things in other sources?
There are a lot of questions in general. Does this mean that, having not found a good enough comparison, we can't make assumptions about what does not fit into what is already known?
And most importantly. I don't impose my opinion, my theory on anyone. I share my thoughts, which everyone has the right to perceive as they wish, to approve or reject, to perceive as something interesting or as nonsense.
As I wrote, I like your search for the closer source, and I will follow the development of events with admiration, but my observations are no less important to me. I hope I'll have time to continue studying these observations. -
RE: [split] f85r2
Aga Tentakulus > 14-02-2025, 08:29 AM
As an example, I have seen the pictures as the 4 stands. Especially with the stick as a colourist.
The stick, the wool rings, this is how they were dyed and later dried.
Today, I see the 4 seasons as more likely than the estates of Science, Nobility, Crafts and Farmer.
This is how perspectives change and help with the text.
If, for example, an alleged translation of the text is too far removed from the picture, I don't need to worry too much.
Translated with DeepL.com (free version) -
RE: [split] f85r2
Barbrey > 06-03-2025, 03:26 AM
@Searcher , let me just say how much I’ve always enjoyed your posts and the insights I’ve gained from them. Moreover, we are frequently on the same page and it is so agreeable to read others who are thinking along the same lines! For instance, I just visited ninja today after being off for some time, saw and read Koen’s post without realizing there was a split, and what do you think I posted upon? At least partially, the direction of the airy things from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. ! Take a look, we came to similar conclusions!
I’m not sure people realize there is a required rigour in interpretive analysis. My mind will jump from one thing to another, making connections and sometimes getting excited. But I always rein it in at the end. What I’m really looking for is a preponderance of evidence to uphold my hypotheses. I’m okay if I’m wrong in detail. That’s the risk we take. But so far, both your and my theory that much of the ms is about the water of life has never had any valid contradictions. Until that happens, I will continue my analyses using that framework. I sincerely hope you do too! -
RE: [split] f85r2
Barbrey > 06-03-2025, 03:37 AM
Duplicate