|
To answer and comment on a few of these points from
what I've observed...
1. There are marks dead center on some of the
astrological volvelle (hey, I'm using the Wiki!). They are most apparent
on f71v, f72r3, f72v1 and f73r. The remaining centers are obscured by the
drawings or are not apparent (not appear on f70v2 and f72r1). True,
there are many other explanations (dust on film, random dirt on folio, aberrant
pen mark, etc.), but it seems too coincidental. We would need someone to
physically look at the ms to determine for sure.
2. I like the string and rotating table
ideas. Both would show some of the drifts I see in the circles. To
me the rotating table idea seems to counter the Occam's Razor approach.
Drawing the rings on a long folio, even folded, could be unwieldy and
why not just rotate the vellum one maiden at a time when doing the
illustrations? Some maidens do show telltale signs of a slant (f73r and
f73v). In fact, f73 looks to be the most rushed of the Astrologicals - as
if the illustrator turned the vellum less often.
3. Yes, all the rings on all these volvelles are
concentric upon the same center.
My main point of this whole endeavor about the
circles is only this; Were the volvelles (what is the plural of volvelle?)
intended to be centered recto to verso and "aligned"? or is it just coincidence
or has no significance whatsoever? If it was intentional, what was the
intention? That leads me to my original question about the translucency of
the VMS vellum.
I have no predilection anyway when it comes to a
method or possibility of VMS decodification (I'm still in the coded or gibberish
or transcribed or psychosis or 15th century hoax camp of thought). I just
have the "feeling" that there is something to the Astrological section which
makes it stand out from the rest of the manuscript. It is the
only clearly identifiable and culturally referential section. If the VMS
is truly encoded then, I believe the Astrological volvelles are either a key of
some sort or a big red herring.
Ken
|