- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
Quire9-10 pattern
- Quire9-10 pattern
-
RE: Quire9-10 pattern
Anton > 08-06-2022, 01:40 PM
(07-06-2022, 12:48 PM)Ruby Novacna Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Let me rephrase: is there any guarantee that this is Ptolemy's system?
Would depend on the context, I think. If European, Byzantian or Arabic, the system would be Ptolemy's. If Indian or Chinese, would be the system adopted by those civilizations. But I guess it would not differ in the number of planets, since indeed, as noted above, those are the celestial bodies visible with naked eye. Might well differ in the number of stars, though. -
RE: Quire9-10 pattern
Anton > 08-06-2022, 01:52 PM
(07-06-2022, 12:57 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I'm not sure if any of the central faces can be argued to represent a moon (some of the non-central faces clearly do). I do agree with Anton's sentiment that the majority of them appear to represent suns.
Koen, look at the patterns: what I consider to be the Sun is always with rays (that's the distinguishing feature). Also worth noting that it's always with one-sided nose. The nose mostly looks to the right, although in one place (70r2) it looks to the left.
The distinguishing feature of what I consider to be the Moon is the crescent. Interestingly, whenever the crescent is single, like in 68r2, the Moon has a one-sided nose. Whenever the crescent is double, as in 68r1 or 68r3, the nose is double sided. The only occasion when there is no cresent is the diagram on 67v2, where there clearly are two suns, so by way of opposition the two other bodies have to be moons, but there are no crescents (and they are single-nosed).
EDIT: 67r1 is a single-nosed double-crescent exception, and it's also with rays, so maybe this is some combination of Sun and Moon. -
RE: Quire9-10 pattern
Koen G > 08-06-2022, 04:00 PM
All of the cases where we are certain that it is a moon have just one crescent though. Why would there be two? Doesn't the moon have at most one crescent?
And indeed, there is the ray situation, although these rays are different from the others in the MS.
-
RE: Quire9-10 pattern
MarcoP > 08-06-2022, 04:58 PM
(08-06-2022, 04:00 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.All of the cases where we are certain that it is a moon have just one crescent though. Why would there be two? Doesn't the moon have at most one crescent?
And indeed, there is the ray situation, although these rays are different from the others in the MS.
Hi Koen, the double crescent is not unique to the Voynich ms, but I doubt it has any specific meaning.
I posted a couple of examples in the past:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. has two crescents to represent the full moon, here meaning "night". If there is a face (I am not sure I can see one), it could be a later addition? It certainly is less clear than the sun's face.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Siena Intronati You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.: here both the Sun and the Moon have two crescents with rays. -
RE: Quire9-10 pattern
Koen G > 08-06-2022, 05:49 PM
Thanks, Marco! The fact that this border is found in both Sun and moon might suggest that the reason is artistic rather than astronomically meaningful. -
RE: Quire9-10 pattern
R. Sale > 08-06-2022, 06:03 PM
Not to overstate the obvious, but couldn't this represent the Moon: waxing crescent, full Moon, waning crescent - all combined in one image???
Do the triangular, red rays indicate something other than light??
Light presents a real problem in Pythagorean systems. Where does *light* come from? Isn't that the purpose of the "central fire"? A problematic and erroneous set of hypotheses.
If the red areas are an indicator of the presence of light, are the blue areas an indication of the recognition that the Moon's light is reflective? Isn't that recognition basically universal across all early astronomical systems? -
RE: Quire9-10 pattern
R. Sale > 08-06-2022, 06:43 PM
As to why the Moon is represented so lavishly, perhaps the answer is becoming more obvious. The answer is not on this page, but elsewhere. It is the association of the Moon and the Virgin Mary. It is in VMs Virgo with subtle hints of the crescent moon beneath her feet. It is in the little Moon found in the center of the Wreath of the Virgin. It's in the tricky "rho-chi" of f67v1. Medieval Christian imagery is playing a part in the VMs illustrations. And though subtle in appearance, it need not be insignificant in content. -
RE: Quire9-10 pattern
Aga Tentakulus > 17-10-2022, 07:40 PM
Take a closer look at the division.
24 fields in the circle, of which only every second one is described.
So we have a division of 24 or 12. Now the question is what makes sense. Hours or months.
Should I include the moon here? Here the cycle is 28 days or 4x7. I can also actually rule out the number 19 for the lunar turn.
Looking at the picture, with a little imagination I see a sun between two halves of the moon. Two times a half now also makes a whole.
I think here the moon and the sun are equally opposite each other. With 12 months, the equinox immediately comes to mind.
It also makes sense to me if he doesn't write in the night fields.
What should one write about the sun at night. -
RE: Quire9-10 pattern
Hermes777 > 17-10-2022, 09:40 PM
(05-06-2022, 11:07 AM)Ruby Novacna Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(04-06-2022, 04:36 PM)RobGea Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.No doubt other folks have suggested similar things but i cannot find any information.
Indeed, it is better to search directly on a website or blog, it is faster.
(05-06-2022, 10:13 AM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I think the faces-as-planets idea (or something similar) is discussed in Nick's book.
Also on his blog
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
*****
On this topic I have to raise an objection to Nick Pelling’s account of this intellectual history, although it is not exclusive to Nick but rather a very common general view. He write’s, regarding Theoria Planetarum:
"In the pre-Copernican time period we’re interested in, the dominant belief (because all the rest was heresy) was that the celestial spheres rotated around the Earth in a perfectly circular manner." (Nick's emphasis in bold.)
And yet Nicholas of Cusa proposed that heavenly movements were not circular and promoted a cosmology that held such positions as:
The universe is infinite and therefore has no centre
The earth is therefore not the centre of the universe
The earth is not perfectly spherical
Among many other supposed astronomical heresies. (He also proposed that there was life on other planets.)
Cusanus, of course, was a cardinal of the Roman Church and while he had his opponents and detractors, political and theological, his orthodoxy was beyond reproach. Not a single work or utterance by Cusanus was ever investigated or marked for heresy by the Church.
His scientific views were grounded in the entirely orthodox (Platonic) theology that says only God is perfect and there are no perfect circles in this world.
So the blanket assertion “In the pre-Copernican time period… the dominant belief (because all the rest was heresy) was that the celestial spheres rotated around the Earth in a perfectly circular manner” is not quite true. No doubt it was the dominant belief, but it is was not unquestioned and to question it wouldn’t necessarily get you burnt at the stake.