There are now, courtesy of Koen Gheuens and others, numerous web pages exploring possible / probable connections between the Voynich Manuscript’s zodiac roundels and 15th century scribal workshops in German Alsace (most notably that of Diebold Lauber).
In one of my own contributions to this (small) canon, I discussed the McKell calendar, an astrological / medical calendar made in Hagenau between 1430 and 1450 by Lauber’s workshop (it has more recently been dated as c. 1445). Though I only knew of black and white scans online, commenter Helmut Winkler very kindly posted up a link to a webpage from BNU Strasbourg, the institution that recently bought it.
This included colour scans of the pages, including the gold-leaf sun/moon framing device at the top of the medical pages, which surely makes it clear what a top-end manuscript this must have been:
The colours too turn out to be remarkably vibrant, notably the red and blue clothes and gold wings on the calendar’s page for August (Virgo):
The McKell Aries
Though the McKell Aries page scan is now (apparently) missing from the website, I found a copy of it online that Darren Worley had posted in a comment to Stephen Bax’s website. Note that the Aries page’s tree is drawn and coloured very similarly to the Virgo page’s tree (above):
Can you spot anything wrong with this image? Having once lived next door to a goat for a few months (who would happily eat your washing given half a chance), I have to say that this looks to me less like a sheep or a ram than a greedy goat with a goatee doing what goats do best (i.e. climbing up to eat anything it can sink its teeth into).
But to be clear, the three simplest ways to tell a sheep from a goat are:
- tail direction (goats’ tails go up, while sheep’s tails go down)
- what they’re doing (sheep usually graze grass, while goats tend to prefer munching everything else)
- goats stereotypically have goatees (the clue’s in the name)
So even though the McKell Aries illustrator got the tail direction right for sheep, I’m still happily scoring this 2-1 in favour of the goats.
The Voynich Aries
As Prof. Ewa Sniezynska-Stolot wrote to Rafal Prinke in 2001, having examined the Voynich Manuscript: “The genre scenes, eg. Aries eating a bush, suggest that the signs were redrawn from a calendar”. And just as with the McKell calendar’s Aries, it has long been argued that the animal depicted is less like a ram or sheep than, as Albert Howard Carter seems to have first pointed out back in 1946, a goat.
Moreover, there are two of the same animals on consecutive pages, firstly a dark Aries…
…followed by a light Aries…
Incidentally, on the VMS list in 2004 Pamela Richards argued that this must be a goat because “[s]heep don’t have dew claws, those tiny hard horns above the hooves; goats do. And those dew claws are very clearly depicted on each foot.”. However, as Rene Zandbergen pointed out much later, sheep actually have dew claws too (though horses and giraffes don’t, so please be reassured that we can at least rule them out), so this isn’t a great argument.
So… is this actually a goat? By my (albeit simplified) scoring system in the preceding section (tail down, no goatee, but grazing), I ought really to instead score this 2-1 to Sheep United. But it’s a game of two halves, I’m sick as a parrot, the seagulls follow the trawler, etc etc.
Model Books and Calendars
In many ways, though, I think it doesn’t greatly matter if either/both is/are a sheep or a goat, because I think we can tell broadly what happened here.
The McKell Aries was (I believe) most likely copied from a previously made goat drawing exemplar, probably from a model book. And perhaps the artist straightened the tail to make it better resemble a sheep, who knows? I also think that the McKell Virgo tree was copied from the same goat picture (the tree was surely integral to the goat design).
Similarly, I think the Voynich Aries was almost certainly copied from an Aries roundel in an existing calendar. Perhaps the score in that original illustration would have been scored 2-1 to the goats or 1-2 to the sheep after extra time, it’s almost futile to try to say.
Incidentally, I have a recollection of Rene Zandbergen once pointing to an Aries calendar roundel where there was a tree in the background that was almost like an optical illusion of something being eaten by the animal in the foreground. But I am unable to dig that up from anywhere, sorry. 🙁
Goats in the Buch der Natur
Finally, Ulrike Spyra’s book might once again be an interesting resource here, because her Synoptic Table of Illustrations lists (on p.384) a number of drawings of goats (“Gaiz / Capra“):
- M590 – 61rb (Munchen, BSB, Cgm 590)
- A497 – 115va (Augsburg, SuStB, 2o Cod. 497)
- GW – 66ra (Gottweig, Stiftsbibl., Cod. 389 rot)
- SG – 69rb (Strasbourg BNU Cod. 2264)
- HD311 – 79v (Heidelberg UB Cpg 311)
- M684 – 84r (Michelstadt, Nic.-Matz-Bibl. Cod D 684)
- WU – 67r Wurzburg, UB M ch f 265
As an example, here’s Strasbourg BNU Cod. 2264’s goat, which I’d say scores a comfortable 2-0 win:
The small point I’m making here is that 15th century artists were clearly more than capable of drawing goats in a semi-realistic way if they so chose.
The McKell image shows a goat with a ram’s horns.
I rather think that the provision of ram’s horns for a goat, like the depiction of Aries with goat-like horns (like some in a compilation of images made by JK Petersen), is some peculiar result of early efforts to absorb into the Roman year (which began with the moveable feast of Easter), the eastern Greeks’ “ancient” custom of beginning the year in December. I’m still looking into this, and whether the conflation of sheep and goat imagery was intentional, or accidental.
Thanks, too, for adding Rene Zandbergen’s name to the list of those who’ve mentioned that an early suggestion that sheep have no dewclaws was an error.
Regards
A nicely goat-like Capricorn is seen as early as the eleventh-century in an Anglo-Saxon mss.
https://blogs.bl.uk/digitisedmanuscripts/2018/01/a-calendar-page-for-january-2018.html
Aries, too on folio 4v (Brit.Lib. Cotton MS Julius A VI)
http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=cotton_ms_julius_a_vi_fs001r
From a German children’s poem (14th century): ‘And a ram is a sheep, and a sheep is a ram, and a (female) goat is a goat, and a goat is a (female) goat.’ https://books.google.de/books?id=OLHb0eOgQAIC&pg=PA14&lpg=PA14.
Nick, as Diane says the ram’s horns are a crucial part as well, and indeed the McKell goat appears to be wearing the wrong hat.
What I currently consider the best parallel for the VM animals is Hartlieb’s goat, discussed in the middle of this post: https://herculeaf.wordpress.com/2018/10/23/bonsai-perspective/
It has the same background/foreground illusion going on, and in my opinion it’s impossible to deny that this image is in some way related to the ones in the VM.
Instead of a calendar for source I’d rather look towards bestiaries and books of nature. Those often feature differently coloured versions of the same animal, notably bulls and goats.
Koen: good job I already listed all the Buch der Natur goats mentioned by Spyra at the end of the post, or you might think I was slacking. 😉
And yes, thanks very much for the Hartlieb reference, that was exactly the image I was trying to recall. I knew it was connected with Rene Zandbergen somehow. 😉
Capra ibex females don’t appear to have goatees, whereas they do have short tails and straight horns. A 3-0 winner?
I don’t quite understand the green paint on the dark Aries. Seems to mean something. The mcKell has blue but it seems like artful shading. The resulting vms greenishbrown shape reminds me somewhat of the ‘deer head’ look of some portolan alps depictions. Perhaps this could explain the sheep vs goat issue, proximity to mountains limits the range of sheeplike animal types in the area, perhaps the closest is the ibex with its thicker fur.
There is also the red dot, which could be related to being female. However these traits are lacking in the light aries, where also the face is drawn in a different manner.
Linda: yes, it could be 3-0 indeed, though given that even short goat tails are generally a bit sticky-uppy, some referees may be more comfortable blowing their whistle on a 2-1 win. 🙂 All the same, the search is on for more 15th century goat model book drawings being passed off as sheep. 😉
Incidentally, if you haven’t already seen JKP’s view of what the two Aries noses might be telling us about the artist(s), I’d head over to his Aries by a Nose page. 🙂
Thanks Nick, i had missed that one. In my interpretation of the zodiac, we are talking ages, not months. I wonder if the more primitive drawings of the lighter months coincide with the same idea.
With regard to Capra posing as Ovis aries, or Aries, the San Zeno Astrolabe of Verona 1455 has a definite goat or ibex depicting Aries in its zodiac. I think this happens in mountainous areas, the local animal which most looks like the drawing will be understood and will stand in for the original not only because that artist saw it that way, but everyone else in the community would as well.
Also there was another pair of light and dark goatlike animals in a manuscript, that i now cannot find but was in the ninja forum, could be the vms versions are not both goats, but rather ibex and goat. A hint at the location of creation?
I found out the Sumerians knew the differences, at least!
http://sumerianshakespeare.com/mediac/450_0/media/DIR_904301/508a38b88af41eeaffff88aeffffe415.jpg
The intensity of this scholarly discussion, which may end in a definite decision, in relation to the identity of an animal drawn by an artist from the days of pre-enlightenment; seems rather beyond the worth of the proverbial candle….
is there a point to this? Is someone trying to say the drawing has been faked?
Or am I missing a serious point?
Dan,
I can’t speak for anyone else, but for me the point is twofold:
first that habitual assumptions about these figures may be wrong, and if wrong then the work done on the basis of those assumptions may be misdirected.
And secondly, that the habit has been to push on with a theory considering only such details as support an existing view and ignoring any details which might oppose it.
So you see most take the angle that ‘of course it must be’ an image for Aries; when I pointed out the reasons it isn’t a Latin form for a sheep, the response is not to look into the discrepancy offered by the primary source, but to hunt within the limits of the theory (material originating in… or ….) to find some way to excuse, or to blame the maker, or otherwise kiss it better without disturbing the theoretical narrative preferred.
Of course if it’s accepted that neither these emblems, or their assigned months, are in keeping with the old ideas (and they’re not), it will be a major nuisance, like muddy shoes walking through a newly-mopped floor. So what you’re seeing is someone saying ‘it’s raining outside’ and others saying ‘don’t bring it in here’.
🙂
Diane, I think many of us are taking the angle that, “It’s probably Aries until we can find evidence to say otherwise.”
To assume we are stupid and that we are saying, “It must be Aries,” is to misinterpret our assumptions and our words.
I’ve seen a lot of medieval sheep drawings that look like goats (and vice versa). I’ve seen sheep drawings that look like dogs. I’ve even seen a couple that look like horses (including Agnus dei that looks more like a horse than a sheep).
The figure in question is in between Pisces and Taurus, plus Gemini, Cancer, Leo, Virgo, and Scorpius are completely consistent with other 15th-century zodiac figures and are in the traditional order, so arguing that it’s not Aries (even if badly drawn) is going to be harder and require a lot more evidence than those of us who are saying, “For now, until I see evidence to the contrary, I’m working with the idea that it is Aries.”
One argument that sidesteps the perils of looking at these roundel pages with overly modern eyes is to point out that the (probably late 15th century) person who added the month names clearly also thought that these were zodiac roundels.
Nick: I like your point a lot.
.. maybe.
but in which tradition?
I’ve raised the question, and some problems, in a post just published (we’re across the dateline from you)
https://voynichannotatednews.wordpress.com/2019/07/30/goat-as-sheep-iii/
Dan, sorry. I was thinking in terms of the study since 1912, not of the current revisiting.
The series is not inscribed with the names of constellations, but of months. That’s the key to the issues arising from taking the long-traditional assumptions as if they had ever been proven true.. or false. There’s a lot more to reading imagery of that time than talking about what it seems to ‘look like’ to us today, or even identifying an object by which we, now, tend to define any picture. The distinction was often described as the difference between ‘pictures of..’ and ‘pictures about..’. In general terms, the imagery created in pre-modern times i.e. before c.1440 was of the second type. Printing brought a huge change, compounded by re-discovery of Latin and Greek classical works which presented as ‘realism’ – more interested in beautiful forms than beautiful messages to be read from them.
It’s a long story.. .but again, very sorry if you thought it a personal criticism.
My mistake; I had been speaking to Dan, so went straight to what I supposed was his reply to me. It wasn’t.
Diane wrote: “The series is not inscribed with the names of constellations, but of months. That’s the key to the issues arising from taking the long-traditional assumptions as if they had ever been proven true.. or false.”
I don’t see that as being particularly “key”.
For one thing, the person who added those labels was probably guessing as to the meaning of the text. I strongly suspect it’s a failed attempt at decipherment.
The style of the script for the added month names was common between about 1420 and 1510, so they might have been added as much as half a century after the VMS was originally written, and the writer may not have had any knowledge of their contents.
For another, one of the most popular manuscripts at the time was the Book of Hours, and the majority of zodiac figures are found as embellishments and mnemonics in Books of Hours (calendars arranged according to months), not in books of astronomy (which were comparatively rare).
So, the average person who was exposed to manuscripts saw zodiac figures associated with months (and with months’ labors) much less than with constellations, and the average illiterate person saw them associated with month’s labors in carvings on church portals (which rarely included pictures of constellations).
The VMS designer probably also associated them with months on some level (and perhaps with other things), but there’s a lot of text around those figures. If the months are in there (and there’s no guarantee that they are), no one has been able to identify them yet.
I forgot to add. Each sign of the zodiac is associated with the ecliptic, which is divided into 30° segments.
If you want arguments for or against the information around the zodiac figures being months rather than something else, there are thirty nymphs for each sign, which is not the number of days in a month in most medieval calendars. Even lunar months were not exactly 30 days.
There are systems where bloodletting was divided into “months” that were grouped by 30 days, but these were less common. It might be a blood-letting calendar, but once again, no one has been able to decipher any blood-letting info from the text around the zodiac figures, so this is as speculative as anything else.
JKP Much of what you say is present in the post to which I linked.
I do think that one has to distinguish between month-names and constellations, as also between depiction of a constellations and more specifically astrological uses.
There is no necessary implication in a ‘Labours’ series of the astrologer’s use of the constellations, any more than a depiction of sun or more implies that use.
Astrology was a branch of higher mathematics in medieval times where as the publicly-displayed ‘Labours and Months’ imagery, in which the constellation for each month was included, was hardly intended to assist astrologers. It spoke to the knowledge of ordinary men, even if later certain of those lavish secular counterparts for the Breviary might have more sophisticated readings.
There is also the point that we are trying to discern the origin of the images, and their original intention; whether or not this agrees with the perception of the person who inscribed them… and other such basic questions for which, I’m afraid, too many begin by assuming the answer known.
But perhaps you might like to read the posts about the goat and sheep at ‘Voynich annotated News’; I publish that sort of information to assist others’ efforts.
Diane wrote: “Astrology was a branch of higher mathematics in medieval times where as the publicly-displayed ‘Labours and Months’ imagery, in which the constellation for each month was included, was hardly intended to assist astrologers.”
You are basically repeating what I said when I pointed out zodiacs are mostly found in Books of Hours as embellishments and mnemonics. These were obviously not designed to assist astrologers. They were designed to keep track of events, saints, and prayers. I have more than 560 zodiac series that document where they are typically found.
As for astrology being a branch of higher mathematics, that is not entirely true.
Mathematics as we know it barely existed in the Middle Ages, and one only sees it on rare occasions in math texts (mostly geometry) and to some extent astronomy texts (and yes, scientists did make a distinction between astronomy and astrology—even in the Middle Ages some of them referred to astrology as “bunk”).
Math of any kind (especially higher Math) was not prevalent in astrology texts. What one sees is pictures of constellations (sometimes with star names and sometimes not), pages and pages of star locations (simple coordinates, not mathematical functions), moon tables, and a few simple tables of easter calculations (which is basic math that most middle school kids can master).
Genuine astronomy texts had some higher math and would sometimes explain the creation of an astrolabe and its proper use, but these texts are quite rare compared to the others.
Astrology was, however, integral to the medical curriculum (vein man, zodiac man, bloodletting days, best signs under which to use certain plants, best days to operate on certain parts of the body, ruling planets for performing certain procedures), this is what I see regularly in medieval texts.
Medieval doctors generally did not study higher mathematics except for a minority who had a particular interest in that area. In some regions, they were expected to cast a horoscope before treating a patient, but this isn’t higher math either. It’s simply a matter of determining star locations at the time of birth from existing charts.
JKP –
First “You are basically repeating what I said …”
I am sure you will not realise it, but in fact you are repeating what had already been said about the ‘Labours’ not only by me but by other Voynich writers and more importantly by almost a hundred years of scholarship.
Secondly, I’m not sure where you get your information, but to calculate the positions of stars and planets isn’t easy, and if you consider the curriculum for medieval schools and universities you will find that (as I said) astrology was a a branch of higher mathematics. It is true, I might have better phrased that as ‘a higher branch of mathematics’.
For this sort of thing, and precise historical information on any technical matter I find I lack much knowledge of, I’ve always found the first step to consult some general but up-to-date compendium such as the Cambridge History of Science.
That provides a basic ‘ground plan’ which can then be expanded by reading books on the subject, but when you need to get right down to the fine details there’s little alternative save articles in the learned journals.
Although wiki articles are of very uneven quality, some actually have fair bibliographies.
Nick, if you will forgive .. it occurs to me this might save some time for others among your readers…
John’s and Nicholas’ calendars were different from their predecessors in two
important respects. First, both calendars contained a surprisingly large amount of well integrated astrological information. In itself, the presence of astrological material in a calendar was not new. Many astronomical calendars produced in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries had contained astrological data. This was hardly surprising considering that nearly all medieval scholars of astronomy were also practising astrologers…
information from Cornelius O’Boyle, ‘ Astrology and Medicine in Later Medieval England: The Calendars of John Somer and Nicholas of Lynn’,
: Sudhoffs Archiv, Bd. 89, H. 1 (2005), pp. 1-22.
as regards the curriculum for medicine by the early 15thC
Schools had existed for centuries, as had academies of higher learning, but formalized, structured organizations created for the express purpose of education a group of scholars in selected disciplines did not come into being until the 13th century.
The course of study was as follows:
Students enter the university at the age of 14.
The trivium and quadrivium formed what we’d call a primary education, and the early university years when lectures were delivered on them should be seen as a ‘refresher’ course in the pre-requisites.
“First part of schooling includes liberal arts (about 6 years of lectures). These are divided into two parts:
trivium – “three ways”, consisting of grammar dialectic, and rhetoric
quadrivium – “four ways”, consisting of arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music.
Two years of debate or disputations – upon the completion of this stage with satisfying results on the examinations, the students would be awarded a bachelor of arts degrees.
In order to pursue a master’s degree, further studies were necessary. This usually meant another year of study.
Finally, students who held master’s degrees were allowed to study such disciplines as law, medicine, or theology. Depending on one’s course of study, this could mean up to 12 more years of education.
In other words, to be a formally qualified doctor, you had to have studies maths to the highest level offered, and to have studied ‘the sciences of the stars’.
On the other hand, if one is speaking about the Jewish physicians who were considered the best in Europe so long as social and religious bigotry wasn’t operating, were also regarded (not always accurately) as highly skilled astrologers.
Diane wrote: “Secondly, I’m not sure where you get your information, but to calculate the positions of stars and planets isn’t easy, and if you consider the curriculum for medieval schools and universities you will find that (as I said) astrology was a a branch of higher mathematics. It is true, I might have better phrased that as ‘a higher branch of mathematics’.”
Astrologers didn’t calculate the positions of stars and planets unless they themselves were also astronomers (and astronomers were very few and far between). That was my point. They looked them up.
The calculations were already done for them. Just as logarithm charts existed in earlier centuries for others to consult, star-positions were written up, as well. Most of those doing astrology looked up the positions of stars and planets in existing references that were created by those who understood it better, most of them did not calculate it themselves (and probably wouldn’t have known how).
As for astrology being a branch of higher mathematics, I suppose if you were to give it to some department to handle, the math/astronomy professors would do a better job than the English literature or history professors but as I said, many of the math and astronomy scientists of the day outrightly spoke of astrology as nonsense (I know this from reading their comments) and did not consider it a science even though it was part of the medical curriculum. And I KNOW from sourcing more than 500 medieval astronomy, compotus, astrology books and books of hours that astrology books did NOT focus (and usually didn’t include) any higher mathematics other than maybe a brief description of how to look up this information in books that included actual astronomical information.
Astronomy books had higher mathematics to a limited degree (usually geometry). Astronomers were calculating star positions and designing and using labes. It was a nascent discipline, less distinct from astrology than it is today, but there were knowledgeable people who understood it as it existed at the time and their books are distinctly different from astrology books. You just have to look through a few hundred of them to know that astronomy and astrology were different disciplines to those who really understood astronomy.
Alphonsine tables existed to aid with star coordinates (along with a lot of moon charts and Easter charts and eclipse tables), but even the Alphonsine tables were based on the false premise that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Higher math would have alerted them to the fact that their data (orbital patterns of the Sun) didn’t match reality.
Those doing astrology were referencing works done by real astronomers and mathematicians. The accurate calculation of star positions is astronomy, not astrology. Most astrologers were not using any higher math or directly calculating star positions. You just have to look at astrology and astronomy manuscripts to see how different they are in content and conception to know this.
Most medieval astrology texts have very inaccurate placement of stars in their constellation diagrams (sometimes wildly inaccurate). They didn’t even match what you can see by simply looking up at the sky, and they typically did not include star coordinates to correct the inaccuracies. They were nothing more than mnemonics to help readers remember the names of the constellations. They did not include higher math.
JKP I can see we are talking at cross-purposes and that to correct that situation one would have to start by talking definitions and sematics which would be o.t. here and sure to bore those among Nick’s 600+ readers who know far more on the subjects involved than you or I do. So with thanks to Nick for his patience, I’ll leave it there.
Diane, my comments are based on looking at several thousand medieval astronomy, math, astrology, and calendars that include constellations, geometry, and zodiacs. I did not read all of them, but I read many of them.
There is no need to denigrate my knowledge or to pretend I know nothing about this subject.
JKP: please don’t take any notice of Diane when she posts such foolish comments. You have put plenty of genuinely open-minded work into your research (which you keep publishing), and that is something to be applauded and celebrated.
Nick, I’m sorry to see you revert to ad.hominem and the slick dismissal of the whole issue by such means.
The point is this: that what the series shows is a series of emblems inscribed with month-names.
That is not enough to define the series as ‘astrological’ in the careless way so often done.
It is not enough to argue that the original intention of the series was even to depict the 12 constellations of the Greco-Roman zodiac in the form known to Latin Europe.
However, even if for argument’s sake one were to posit the latter, it still bears no necessary connection to the calculations of astrology.
This is where JKP’s thinking – like pretty much everyone’s – became a little casual. What exactly does he – or do you – supposed implied by ‘astrological’?
While astrological calculations are applied to sun, moon, stars and planets, neither reference to those luminaries, nor their representation in imagery is the preserve of the astrologer.
The Labours of the Months are not to be imagined ‘astrological’ by definition. And all we see in this series of emblems is a correlation with months. So not necessarily astrological here.
Then there’s the question of what is being meant by an ‘astrologer’? In the strict sense it is someone who has the knowledge needed to perform the non-trivial computations and that meant formal education in mathematics.
As for ‘medical astrology’ – that’s another term being used very carelessly. It implies a lot more than looking at picture of the ‘zodiac man’.
And, as I say, it is yet to be proven that the series of emblems filling the centres of these diagrams was originally meant for a zodiac.
Using your position as blog-owner to re-inforce the impression that it’s ok to dismiss critical question about this manuscript by denigrating the person who raises them is certainly a tried-and-true method for supporting a preferred theory but it’s not the most intelligent way to do so, and in the end if the subject of study is the manuscript, not your theory, then it’s counter-productive.
If JKP is mistaken in his theory, or his assertions, then you are compounding his errors. If he’s right in everything then he should be able to respond to others’ doubts and comments from the evidence of his own research, without your needing to apply the ‘dear, dear don’t worry about that silly person’ band-aid which no person genuinely interested in this manuscript should need, and none deserves. Shame.
Diane: you seem to be the only person here who is unaware that the #1 person making ad hominem attacks by far is you. You seem in particular to have developed a recent taste for attacking J.K.P., which I find objectionable but instructive (and not at all for the reasons you would suppose, but because of the harsh raking light it casts across your own thinking and theorizing).
In the present case, the straw man argument you have been building relies on the (entirely false, naturally) premise that JKP (and, by extension, other commenters) is blithely unaware of the different types of astrology, the different types of zodiac, medieval education, etc. This, to my moderatorial ears, sounds like you are somehow trying to assert some academic dominance: which, all things considered, seems like an ill-considered plan at best.
We don’t know what the meaning of the roundels is, whether calendrical, zodiacal, astrological, astronomical, medical, or whatever: and so perhaps you can agree we should remain mentally lithe.
Hi. Termite and ants.
MS – 408 is not astrology, astronomy, herbarium ….etc.
You must read what is written in the text.
Then it will be good.
[……….]
I think people could do with putting more emphasis on what they don’t know rather than on what they do know, as I am suspicious that people overstate what they have studied and have knowledge of and understate what they don’t.
I try not to refer to the VMS sequence as astrological or as constellations (most of the time I call them zodiac figures), but I don’t think there’s enough evidence to assume it is a calendar either. If it is, it’s very unconventional.
The sequence of pages has almost nothing in common with medieval calendars in terms of format, content, or numbers of items. Even the very small number of calendars represented as roundels do not have concentric layers of figures like the VMS and usually have drawings related to labors. In fact, the majority of medieval calendars do not include zodiac figures at all.
I agree with Nick. We don’t know what they represent, so calling this a calendar (or anything else) might be premature.
Nick, I thought you and your readers might enjoy this link…
It’s a breed of sheep called Jacob sheep and it often has a short tail and extremely variable horns—sometimes short, sometimes very curved, sometimes very long and straight like an antelope, and sometimes FOUR horns! Some variants would resemble goats if drawn by an inexpert illustrator.
I don’t know how old the breed is. It was mentioned in manuscripts by the 1500s, so it probably goes back at least a while before that,.
So for a fun diversion (check out the horns) and general interest:
link
[If that link doesn’t work, a search of “Jacob sheep” on google images will get you there.]
Nick,
“We don’t know what the meaning of the roundels is, whether calendrical, zodiacal, astrological, astronomical, medical, or whatever: and so perhaps you can agree we should remain mentally lithe.”
I do agree, absolutely that those things are not known.
And as I said, myself, before you stepped in, I am sure a number of your readers know quite enough and better than either JKP or I do on those topics. Only with regard to the techniques and methods of iconographic analysis and matters associated with comparative studies of non-mathematical astronomies, their history and associated imagery (excluding the meso-american) can I not honestly say that. The first has been my field since the early 1980s and the latter since 1985.
But as I said, I do think it’s important to remain aware of what is not known and on that we can certainly agree.
Diane: maybe you’re the best-informed specialist on those areas who is also a commenter here, maybe not – Cipher Mysteries does now have an awful lot of commenters.
Perhaps you would like to rephrase that claim in a way that doesn’t sound like you’re mistakenly trying to assert some kind of academic dominance? I noted that before to try to help you avoid such online foolishness, but clearly it made no practical difference. 🙁
Bücher erzählen Geschichten. Manchmal sind es Worte, und manchmal sind es eben auch Bilder. Wer sich im Comic nur ein oder zwei Bilder ansieht, egal wie genau er sie ansieht, wird er die Geschichte doch nie verstehen. So ist es eben auch im VM. Sehen wir uns die einzelnen Sternzeichen an, wird das gerade dazu führen, „ es ist vielleicht ein Kalender „
Sehen wir uns die ganze Folge an, muss man sich fragen:
Warum stehen die Personen nackt am Anfang des Jahres in Behältern. ( Körbe, Tonnen, Gläser oder was auch immer ). Mit der Zeit nimmt die Kleidung zu, auch bekommen sie eine Kopfbedeckung. Weiter in der Zeit werden die Behälter weniger, und auch langsam nimmt die Kleidung ab.
Plötzlich sind alle nackt, und die wenigsten stehen in Körben oder mit Kleidung da.
Diese Abfolge des Jahres lässt nicht gerade ein menge Möglichkeiten zu was einen Sinn der Geschichte ergibt. Aber sie erzählt ganz klar, was es eben nicht ist.
Das gleiche gilt für das ganze Quire 13. Auch hier ist eine Geschichte, und eigentlich hat sie einen ziemlich genauen Ablauf.
Die meisten Hinweise beziehen sich immer auf eine Nymphe. So ist auch ( was auch immer ) nennen wir es mal Gürteltier, schwebend über dem Haupt der Nymphe. Wie wahrscheinlich ist ist den das ? Ein Tier höher gestellt als der Geist einer Person, macht einfach keinen Sinn. Und Lämmer sind es auch nicht, Lämmer schweben nicht sie schweigen !
Nach kirchlicher Ansicht ist es der Sitz der Seele, zumindest seit sie aus dem Herz ins Penthouse umgezogen ist. Aus medizinischer Sicht ist es nichts weiter als ein Gehirn. Genau da wo es schmerzt wenn man scheisse liest.
I basically agree with you, Peter.
I wrote up a blog (maybe two) in which I described the drawings around the central zodiac figures as illustrating cycles—cycles of life.
If you start at the start marker on the outside and work around clockwise toward the inside, the nymphs go through a progression and the progression tells a story, for example, from youth to old age, in another are cycles of menstruation, another goes from youth to pregnancy and childbirth (she has water by her feet, water breaking is the baby about to be born), and so on…
I am fairly sure one has to go inside-to-outside.
This can be seen in Pisces. Inside tubs are lying flat and outside tubs are open at the top, which is continued in Aries.
Then again in dark Taurus, inside are still tubs, and outside nymphs are standing free, which is continued in Gemini.
And what about the male persons. Although they are fewer, they are still in the same positions. Therefore, pure women’s problems are more likely to be excluded. There are still tons in the late months, but few are there. A nymph is even running on grass.
And why 2x May and April?
I also think that you should look at it from the inside out. there are hints and it would fit the logic.
Diane: Do you mind sharing your qualifications? I went to your website and was unable to find a cv. You can be vague of course, but I’m curious about what you teach, and what areas in which you have published peer reviewed works.
You mention your expertise frequently, and I would just like to have some context. Thanks in advance!
There is a man in the cycle that illustrates stages of pregnancy, so that is appropriate.
Rene,
Ich denke im Quire 13 gibt es einen Bindungsfehler. Die Reihenfolge wurde nicht eingehalten. Anhand der Logik dürfte f75r+v erst bei f78 auftauchen.
Hast Du schon einmal darüber berichtet oder nachgedacht ?
I think in Quire 13 there is a binding error. The order was not kept. On the basis of logic f75r + v should appear only at f78.
Have you ever talked or thought about it?
Peter, I have not given it much thought, but then Nick has, and also the late GC. They favour the possibility that this is a combination of two original quires, which I think is entirely possible.
There is a similar question about the pharmaceutical pages. The most logical order, based on the progression of the design of the containers, would be achieved if they were not nested, but single bifolios:
100+101 before 99+102 before 88+89.
Both for the biological part and the pharmaceutical part, there could be missing folios.
Rene/Peter: it seems close to certain that Q13’s folios were bound in the wrong order, painted in the wrong order, and quirated in the wrong order. Furthermore, it seems extremely likely to me that it was originally formed of two separate gatherings, which I have covered quite a bit here (search for Q13A and Q13B).
The container bifolio order is also, as Rene points out, almost certainly back to front. I suspect that this was written as a separate ‘book’, where the first part was marked ‘1-9′, which was later misinterpreted as ’19’, removed, and then added in again in the wrong place.
There is also good reason to suspect Q20 was formed from two parts, but that’s another story. 🙂
Ich will mal Erklären was ich denke.
Jetzt ist auf 75r ein Bild mit Wasser. 75v Ein Bild mit Wasser. 76r ein Text. 76v so etwas wie Anpflanzung und Ernte.
Nehme ich diese Seite heraus, und falte sie auf die andere Seite, erhalte ich Vorwort, Anbau, und danach die Verarbeitung mit dem Wasser. Und es stimmen sogar die Abfolge der Abflüsse.
Frage, ist das anhand der Bindung so überhaupt möglich.
Denn das ist nach meiner Meinung die richtige Abfolge.
I want to explain what I think.
Now on 75r is a picture with water. 75v A picture with water. 76r a text. 76v something like planting and harvesting.
If I take this page out, and fold it to the other side, I get foreword, cultivation, and then the processing with the water. And even the sequence of outflows is right.
Question, is that possible on the basis of the binding.
Because that’s the right sequence in my opinion.
Hi Peter,
I felt compelled to answer your earlier post wherein my main response was that you are asking excellent questions, and you are right in terms of looking at the whole to understand the whole. I wanted to give you some possible answers to consider. Firstly on your newest question, my quire ordering is 76, 80, 84, 77, 78, 81, 82, 75, 79, 83, which for me forms a tour around the ecumene, being all of Europe, then Asia to the extent of Gujarat to the east and equatorial Africa, including all the seas and largest lakes to be found, with particular attention to those in Italy. With regard to the animal on f80v, i see it as an ibex, which was historically drawn with head down, albeit not as realistically, but which further evokes its range, the Alps, which it also resembles in shape, with the scales reminiscent of those of mountain cartography, showing the general direction if water flow. In this manner it being above the head of the nymph, which i see as standing on the top of Lake Como pointing the way to Lake Constance via the Alpine Rhine makes far more sense to me than floating armadillos, as you say. I find it to be a more realistic representation than many of the maps to that date and might contain enough mnemonic imagery to duplicate a portolan chart, especially if seen in conjunction with the rosettes. With regard to the zodiac, to me it is representative not of months, but ages of the great year, the time it takes for precession through the constellations. It starts with Pisces because it is and was the current age. It appears to show flooding, a loss of architecture and culture due to displacement, but seems to be optimistic about rebuilding the architecture at least, i agree with Rene that the timing appears to go from center to edge. This disaster may be more allegorical or political, given some of the goings on at the time, but i think i see various flood myths referred to in quire 13 also. The next two are halved to show more detail, in that most of known history of civilization occurs in these ages. Beyond that, most architecture disappears or is archeological, and everyone is nomadic and generally unembellished. The nymphs in quire 13 stand for the same things, not for individuals but for civilizations or communities thereof. The tour can even be seen as the result of human migration over these millenia. I also see the so-called mermaid as portraying Anaximander’s story of human evolution, combined perhaps with other related concepts of changes with regard to world waters. The Persian Gulf on the flip side is shown to have once been only a river.
Back to topic, i was mistaken re my San Zeno Astrolabe comment above, the Aries there is clearly a sheep. However, i do have a silver charm bracelet i received as a child that has the word Aries, but the figure is clearly that of a goat, complete with beard and upward tail, the horns are short and sort of lost in the bezel. It has a turquoise stone, which i have also never again seen associated, ever after was diamond or quartz that i had come across. It either came from the Netherlands or from Canada, if the latter, no telling what tradition it came from, could just be some mass produced nonsense that wasn’t based on anything (and could be the same if it came from the Netherlands). Regardless i guess that is why i never questioned the goats in the vms as Aries emblems, it matched my first introduction to the concept. If this mistake occurred for me, it could occur elsewhere in time and place, especially if the artist is not in everyday acquaintance with such animals or traditions and is just making something on the basis of someone telling them to do so, or doing so out of their best knowledge and example. If it is not a mistake and is tradition-based, there should exist other examples thereof. This image, although modern, to me includes a male ibex and a goat, no sheep are shown, although the goat figure is clearly meant to be a sheep from the wording. It could be as simple as what pictures they had to go by, (ie available text art in this example) or the best of faulty memory. https://www.suzannewhite.com/images/new-astrology-chapter-covers/The-New-Astrology-Chapter-Aries-Sheep-Goat.png
@Linda
To be honest, I did not understand much of what you wrote. It seems to me that you are somehow in the Old Testament or in the Book of Genesis. Maybe I’m just too stupid, but I do not have the words to answer.
I’ve looked at the sequence of binding with Rene. As I understand it, the pages are intertwined for binding, not for each other.
I’m sure Quire13 is about process engineering, but the whole process seems to be somehow twisted and not in the right order.
I think I have to print the individual sheets as they were drawn, and then put together again.
Incidentally, pharmaceutical process engineering has been my professional field for 30 years.
PS: Rene, you would probably also notice if someone has built a gear wrong. 🙂
@Nick
Whether Quire20 has changed the order I do not know. But there is only text available.
But will tell you if I read the pages. 🙂
Speaking of sheep and goats… In a Greek manuscript of bible stories in the Vatical Library, which has many drawings in the margins (which appear to be original to the manuscript) there is a very clear drawing of a goat (with a goatee) which is equally clearly labeled Aries (in Greek) in a script that matches the script in the main text in terms of general time-frame.
Correction, trying to go too fast… that was supposed to say “Vatican Library”.
The shelfmark is Barb.gr.372.
@Rene
ich habe es auf deiner Seite gefunden. Quire13, 5 Blätter ineinander und gefaltet und so gebunden. Die Lese- Reihenfolge wie abgebildet. Ist das korrekt ?
To Peter and all,
from the post that was time stamped “August 9, 2019 at 7:47 pm” it would appear as if Peter and I have been looking at something together, but this seems to be the result of a translation issue. We have never met.
The ordering of the folios and bifolios in this quire #13 is at present indeed exactly as shown on this page:
http://www.voynich.nu/layout.html
The folio ordering proposed by Linda is intriguing.
It is physically possible (all bifolios remain nested), it puts the text-only folio in front, and it puts the composite of f78v and f81r in the centre.
Apart from that, I did not check how it arranges all the other drawings.
Hi Peter,
Not Genesis or Old Testament, but writings from a different part of the world, and of a more scientific variety. The Great Year, also known as the Platonic Year, consists of about 25772 years, (Plato had thought 36000) wherein the constellations of the zodiac slowly pass behind the sun full circle. Pole stars change as this happens, which is why we must bear this in mind when considering old astronomical bearings and patterns. Such a time period puts it well beyond the typically accepted age of the earth for those who go by biblical timelines. But that is why each age lasts a couple of millenia, and why most of the architecture (tubs) and culture (clothing) are in the first three ages, this does fit to the biblical timeline somewhat.
But for instance, Hecateus of Melitus, about 500BC learned from the Egyptians that there had been hundreds of rulers documented, which caused him to abandon his idea that he had traced his own genealogical line back to the gods within 12 generations or so.
As for quire 13, again not the bible as a reference, but works such as Hecateus, Strabo, and Ptolemy’s respective Geographies, and world maps existing at the time, including Psalters and Beatus maps from Commentaries on the Apocalypse, so biblical content may yet be embedded therein.
Keep in mind that many such works were being translated into Latin in Florence and Rome at the time of the making of the vms, and that the Genoese and Venetians had long been making Portolan charts, although these were not generally common knowledge, as can be seen from later reversions in mapmaking that occur through time.
The page ordering i cited came from identifying the seven seas, which i saw hint of in the rosette attached to the TO map. Having found that many of the waterbody shapes sufficed, and placing them in order, it turns out it is all there and more, in that all of it is connected by shorelines or river routes, sometimes alternates are shown. i was able to identify the rest from their proximity to the ones i had already named, this was when i realized the blue ones were freshwater lakes.
However it is drawn in such a way that only someone who knew its meaning already would identify it as such, especially due to the nymphs, which would be huge if they were real. As i said they stand for the communities in the regions they are found in, and their poses are mnemonic to indicate historical info, geographical data, and interactions with other communities.
However some of the pool edges indicate not water depth but a lack of data for one side or the other, as was the case with many early portolan charts, which were more localized, having been out together from written sailing directions. For instance f84r shows the Italian peninsula, but it is first the Tyrrhenian sea shore, starting with the Arno river tube going from Pisa to Florence, then the Adriatic west side is shown in the second pool, where we see Venice to the far left. These seas are followed by a lake that fits in the middle of the peninsula, not to scale. The next page has two more lakes and in comparing with current maps, correlations will tell you that the bottom of that page would be the location of Rome. Genoa was on f80r, from her we go to Lake Garda, again, not to scale, as shown by the nymph with the calipers, she is Malcesine. She is within sight of the other nymph, Riva del Garda, which gives us the scale for lakes. If you check, all the lakes drawn are the largest in the regions, and many had to do with changing political borders. That is why the Alps and other large lakes are on f80v before going back to the peninsula shore exactly where we left off at Genoa/Liguria. The tour for Europe starts and ends at the westernmost edge, in Portugal. The tour of Asia starts on f75r at the Caspian Sea, follows rivers and lakes to the Persian Sea, east to Gujarat in India, across to the Red Sea, and through the canal to the Nile, which brings us to Africa.
Green is salt or mineralized water, blue is fresh. Rivers are tubes, and are basically literal, (and not without precedent in cartography) thin streams are not, but show that there is connection by water between two places, just not as shown. Squiggly streams are volcanically heated aquafers, small tubes are springs, tubs are river deltas, rainbows are river basins. Pinecones and the like are mountains and volcanoes, the latter generally dormant or extinct, but give a picture of the geological history of the areas.
My feeling is that quire 20 will prove to be historical in nature, the stars seem to echo those of the zodiac nymphs. I had also noted more commonality with words of quire 13 than those of the plants.
Hi Rene,
I understood Peter to mean “with Rene’s site”.
Thanks for your comments about the page order i proposed, i hope the above will help you or others in checking the content, if you should wish to look into the idea further. I have been meaning to update my take on all of it, as i have not revisited my original writeup in favour of having a fresh look, but in relooking at the imagery i have only found more and more detail that still fits with the original identifications, such as finding Sicily, complete with Etna in the crook of her elbow, hidden in plain sight within the Tyrrhenian Sea imagery, exactly where it belongs.
There is something about it all that strikes me as correcting defunct traditions, ie correcting shapes and positions on maps and such, but beyond that as well.
The sheep vs goat issue may be part of that, just as scorpio has been chosen to be one of the least scorpionlike beasts, crayfish replace crabs inland, the lines connecting Pisces go nowhere, and Gemini seems gender fluid; it seems to poke some fun at how traditions are followed at the expense of the original meaning behind them.
This is why i don’t think many actual precedents for the imagery will be found (other than the zodiac emblems, but i am not sure all of them will occur in one collection), as it all appears an attempt at improving upon the old traditions, or to satirize them. In doing so it makes us study the history of these topics and see these progressions as they occurred (and continue to occur) over time. I think it is a work of genius.
F76v once explained in my view, with pharmaceutical background.
When I look at this page it tells a story, even if I do not understand the text.
1st picture top right. A person, probably male, stands in a bin and scatters or receives something. I think he / she is sowing something. (The sowing).
2nd picture. It looks like a cap or tent. I call it the pike. This is the time to protect the plants from weeds, pests (snails, lice, birds). Today you would probably use nets, hothouse, chemistry, etc. Symbolically possible would also be a screen or a hand.
3rd picture. She is holding something in her hand, pointing upwards. It looks like corn. I call that the harvest.
4th picture. And again she holds something in her hand, but now it looks down. From experience I know that you dry herbs or even tobacco hanging down. Interestingly, she is in a kind of drain. As if she would say, here the water has to go. It is also in old pharmacies to see how the bundles of herbs are hung. I just call it drying.
5th picture. Here she is in a ???, I have no idea what it could be. The person, however, raises a leg, stretching his arms away from the body. It looks like she’s crushing something. That’s when the grapes and the wine come to my mind. It could be that she wants to crush something here. For grain, she would have to beat it to separate the wheat from the chaff.
6th picture. One person, possibly with two baskets. I see something fall out of the baskets, in three different sizes. Do you use baskets here as a kind of sieve? I think here is a separation instead. Example: seeds, leaves, roots. About in this direction.
Here, it should actually go with the processing, such as grinding, rubbing, cutting, chopping, etc. That is the reason why I think that the quire has a wrong order.
If I take another look at how he stands in his bin and sows something, and connects these with plants, the step towards the signs of the zodiac and the seasons with the symbolism is not far off. And when I think of it that he has even clearly defined the beginning of spring in the book, the whole VM has a harmonious process.
F76v einmal aus meiner Sicht erklärt, mit pharmazeutischen Hintergrund.
Wenn ich mir diese Seite ansehe erzählt es eine Geschichte, auch wenn ich den Text nicht verstehe.
1. Bild oben rechts. Eine Person, wahrscheinlich männlich, steht in einer Tonne und verstreut oder erhält etwas. Ich denke er/sie sät etwas aus. ( Die Aussaat ).
2. Bild. Es sieht aus wie eine Mütze oder Zelt. Ich bezeichne es als die Hege. Das ist die Zeit wo man die Pflanzen vor Unkraut, Schädlingen ( Schnecken, Läuse, Vögel ) schützt. Heute würde man wahrscheinlich Netze, Treibhaus, Chemie usw. Benützen. Symbolisch möglich wäre auch ein Schirm oder eine Hand.
3. Bild. Sie hält etwas in der Hand, nach oben gerichtet. Es sieht aus wie Getreide. Ich nenne das die Ernte.
4. Bild. Und wieder hält sie etwas in der Hand, aber jetzt schaut es nach unten. Aus Erfahrung weiss ich, dass man Kräuter oder auch Tabak nach unten hängend trocknet. Interessant ist auch, sie steht in einer Art Abfluss. Als würde sie sagen, hier muss das Wasser weg. Es ist auch in alten Apotheken schön zu sehen wie die Bündel der Kräuter aufgehängt sind. Ich nenne es einfach das trocknen.
5. Bild. Hier steht sie in einem ???, ich habe keine Ahnung was es sein könnte. Die Person aber hebt ein Bein, und streckt dabei die Arme weg vom Körper. Es sieht so aus als würde sie etwas zerstampfen. Da kommt mir gleich die Trauben und der Wein in den Sinn. Es könnte sein das sie hier etwas zerkleinern will. Bei Getreide müsste sie es schlagen um die Spreu vom Weizen zu trennen.
6. Bild. Eine Person, möglicherweise mit zwei Körben. Ich sehe etwas aus den Körben herausfallen, das in drei verschiedenen Grössen. Benutzt man hier Körbe als eine Art Sieb ? Ich denke hier findet eine Trennung statt. Beispiel: Samen, Blätter, Wurzel. Etwa in diese Richtung.
Hier müsste es eigentlich mit der Verarbeitung weiter gehen, wie zermahlen, reiben, schneiden hacken, usw. Das ist der Grund warum ich denke, dass das Quire eine falsche Reihenfolge hat.
Schaue ich mir Bild 1. noch einmal an, wie er so in seiner Tonne steht und etwas aussät, und diese mit Anpflanzen ( Pflanzen ) in Verbindung bringe, ist der Schritt zu den Sternzeichen und den Jahreszeiten mit der Symbolik nicht mehr weit. Und wenn ich daran denke, das er sogar den Frühlingsanfang im Buch klar definiert hat, hat das ganze VM einen harmonischen Ablauf.
Peter: it’s plausible enough, I guess. But there are at least a hundred other ‘plausible enough’ ways for modern eyes to read that same page. And so the nightmare of Voynich research goes on.
The difficult part of Voynich research is learning how to back off from questions that lead only to theory “beauty parades”, because that way only Occam’s Razor and madness both lie. 🙁 Devising questions that can be answered (and which help us learn genuinely new things about the manuscript) is a hard enough challenge, let alone actually answering them. :-/
Although have no specific expertise to bring to this discussion, I would observe that:
(a) some 15th century goats and sheep likely looked somewhat different to modern breeds;
(b) to this day there is a good deal of dispute between different languages and traditions of East Asia about whether, in the traditional Chinese and related calendars and astrologies, the sixth month of the year and the year between those of the Horse and Monkey is that of the Sheep or of the Goat.
When it comes to analysing, and then provenancing images, it isn’t too difficult to devise “questions that can be answered and which help us learn genuinely new things about the manuscript”.
At least, the basic order operations isn’t difficult; what is more difficult is to come to an unprovenanced image with enough prior study under your belt to recognise which details are significant, and rightly read their implications.
I speak from experience when I say that the work of gaining that sort of knowledge does not end.
As a simple fact, I know of no person formally trained in comparative historical studies of art, or in the techniques of iconographic analysis, who commented on the Voynich manuscript between 1932 and 2008. Since then I know of only one such person, a recent graduate whose ‘bitumen’ paper is a testament to her youth and enthusiasm for the subject, though unless she has since changed the focus of her studies, I expect that paper will now bring roses to her cheek.
Why would you want to embarrass this “recent graduate”, and on such an old thread too?
Tavi: Alex M is very active on Twitter (I follow her there), and I’m fairly sure she wouldn’t give a flying fig.
Tavi,
You miss the point. I was speaking of how few people with the necessary specialism have ever have been involved in Voynich research, but more particularly since the 1990s.
From my perspective, it is natural that a new graduate’s skills will not be those of a working professional four or five years’ on. This sort of work is a never-ending learning process, not one that ends after three or four years.
Reducing it to personal comment is not necessary at all. My point is that when you compare the number of suitably qualified and experienced people commenting on the drawings with those with backgrounds in computing, statistics, even comparative historical linguistics, the specialists in iconographic analysis have been very few. Perhaps that’s what has encouraged over-confidence on the part of so many Voynicheros, who have asserted the drawings reflect whichever theory, or cultural environment, suits their pet theory.
It’s really a bit tiresome to have a comment on the nature and history of this manuscript’s study, or on that of my own field, misdirected into the old effort to suggest that my the research I’ve contributed, and opinions offered, need not be considered because “she’s not nice”.
I’ve argued against confusing intellectual and academic qualities with personality traits ever since, some time ago now, I defended Nick’s opinions despite the fact that his antipathy towards academics led Nick to dropped his aim when speaking of opinions and methodology of the now-late Stephen Bax. Nick’s intellectual critique of Bax’ approach had its points and deserved to be considered without being muddied by his ad.hominem comments.
It is a curious fact, one of the tragedies of the human condition, that few people know who their true friends are, but the truest thing I ever learned from my mother is that a friend isn’t the most popular person in school, nor the ones who lead you to join sneering at the odd-one-out. Your friend is the person who will never allow another person to speak ill of you in their presence.
Luckily, personal friendship is rarely relevant when it comes to forming, or debating, matters of historical or art-historical studies.
I don’t expect I’ll be back here – joining the many who have left over the years.
Diane: for many people, Professor Bax proved a thoughtful, generous, supportive person, and that is how they remember him. On Cipher Mysteries, however, he put his time into relentlessly trolling me, which is why I barred him from the site and deleted every one of his comments.
Diane: you seem to be the only person here who is unaware that the #1 person making such accusory ad hominem attacks by far is you. You seem to have developed in particular an insatiable taste for attacking alternate theories to your own that most find objectionable and unconstructive, (and not at all for the reasons you might suppose, but because of the harsh breaking wind it casts across your off subject thinking and own theorizing)….with full credit to the original author.
I used to learn a lot from people.
Today I know their mistakes.
Peter M: One thing I’ve picked up from your mistakes be that you never seem to have learned from them.
@Sanders
Even nature sometimes makes mistakes.
She even made a joke with you.
@Peter M. or on you!