Wladimir D > 05-09-2016, 09:48 AM
Koen G > 05-09-2016, 11:38 AM
Diane > 05-09-2016, 11:48 AM
-JKP- > 05-09-2016, 02:22 PM
(05-09-2016, 11:48 AM)Diane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Hi All,
I have to say that the argument - which is awfully confused about what "German" is supposed to mean - seems to be an argument that because the Voynich manuscript includes an image of a crossbowman which is inscribed with the name of a month in Occitan or Judeo-Spanish, therefore the entire manuscript is German.
The examples adduced never make clear whether the argument is the Beinecke MS 408 was *made* within the borders of what is now Germany, or whether it is an argument for uniquely "Germanic" cultural character, or whether we are supposed to believe the written part of the text is actually German..
But it seems to me a very muddled sort of argument, more aimed at the 'German' bit than the 'provenancing the manuscript' bit.
The fact is that the earliest instance which I've found of the word 'sagitario' and variants being applied to a crossbowman (or more exactly an archer handed a crossbow to use) occurs in the Rolls of Calais, and that linguistic connection is the only logical reason to depict Sagittarius in this form.
Secondly, the month inscriptions *are* Occitan or Judeo-Spanish, and probably the former. The same orthography has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt by Don Hoffmann, and his examples also come from that same region, Picardy adjacent to Calais, and within Occitania. Dated to around 1400 AD.
It is quite important to make a time-line of positied comparisons. In our manuscript, whatever sources or exemplars were used should - logically - be dated to before 1438. I know the arguments about the radiocarbon dating.. but the thing is that it's pointless to adduce examples from later than that.
Sure crossbowmen-for-Sagittarius became a fad in Germany... so what?
The crossbow is not a German crossbow. Even Sensfelder, who used the standard excuses to cover things he couldn't explain said plainly that he knew no crossbows of that design in wood. I do. He also knew no way to explain the position of the archer's hand. I do. And the sum of inscribed language, bow-design, costume and *all the other evidence in the manuscript* doesn't even remotely add up to 'German'.
In any case, where a medieval manuscript was made isn't terribly relevant to what it contains, or where the material it contains was first enunciated or inscribed.
What exactly is the purpose of this endless, circular, meaningless argument?
If someone really wants to argue that the whole manuscript's content is German, I suggest:
1. Define "german"
2. Find comparisons for every image, and every section in the manuscript. Then you have an argument.
3. Since Occitan inscriptions in the manuscript certainly outnumber any that might be German, so why isn't there more balance here? Are we discussing a manuscript or a theory?
Anton > 05-09-2016, 03:31 PM
Diane > 05-09-2016, 11:52 PM
Quote:there isn't enough DATA
-JKP- > 06-09-2016, 04:52 AM
davidjackson > 06-09-2016, 08:52 AM
Koen G > 06-09-2016, 09:02 AM
MarcoP > 06-09-2016, 10:01 AM