Re: VMs: Research Note: f67v2

[Rene Zandbergen <r_zandbergen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Robert,

> I did indicate it was my opinion. Unfortunately my
> writing style is rather forceful, and comes across
> as indicating fact, when that's not really meant.

I understand, no problem there. I just wanted to
present a challenge, since if there is none,
it would seem to the majority of readers that 
your hypothesis should be accepted uncritically.

> > Consider:
> > - the suggestion that the page shows a supernova
> >   is just a hypothesis, not based on any
> observation.
> >   It is not deduced from anything. The page could
> >   with equal likelihood represent a long
> >   list of other things
> 
> Deduced from what it looks like to me. The other
> thing it looks like is an M5V flare star. But I'd be
> curious to know what you think it is...

Well, I couldn't think of one single specific 
thing, and that's the whole problem. It doesn't
even have to represent any physical celestial
object, given that it appears in the heart of 
a flower. (I hope we're looking at the same page: 
f68v2).
So, since I should give at least one example,
it could signify the bond between botany and
astronomy. The four sections with words referring
to the four seasons, and the four sections with
stars just being decorative filling.
Also this can easily be challenged, even if only
by the fact that it could mean so many other things.

> > - the suggestion that it is the 1604 supernova
> >   is equally unfounded. It is also very unlikely,
> >   since this is something that could not have been
> >   predicted. I won't say that the MS cannot be
> from
> >   after 1604, but it is a possibility which has a 
> >   very low probability
> 
> Experts have been known to be wrong before. I have
> an example ready, if needed.

Certainly, and I cannot prove anything - just hint
at probabilities. How many MSs were written on 
parchment after 1604? The chronology of Rudolf's
purchase also becomes very tight. But all that 
is completly secondary to the difficulty in
maintaining that the starry thing in the centre
represents one specific celestial event, that
the three green stars near the bottom represent
three specific named planets, and since they
did appear near each other in the sky in 1604
this is therefore what the page represents.

> And I say the 1604 supernova since the one in 1572
> was covered by another folio. In my opinion.

Yes, but that is again an opinion which is not
supported by any evidence. I'm sorry, but the 
identification of the central face with that of
Tycho, while ingenious, can hardly be maintained.

> > The fact that there are three planets near the
> 1604
> > supernova does not in my opinion make all above
> > hypothesis the truth. It shows that you can find
> > celestial phenomena to match just about anything.
> 
> Not when you can find words that seem to be dates,
> and the phenomenon depicted on the folio can be
> found in that year. 

Now, if the year 1604 or something shortly after
that were written anywhere on that page, or even 
anywhere in the MS, we would be talking business.

Let's look at a far more interesting (IMHO)
identification. You suggest that the wavy line
connecting the Pleiades with the moon indicates
that the moon occults the Pleiades. This is
an excellent suggestion. It could very well be.
But as we discussed some time ago, this is a
type of event that happens several times every
hundred years. Even more frequently if one
includes also conjunctions. It will be hard
to pick the right event, but it will be useful to
have a list of such events from, say, 1300 to the
death of Sinapius (1622). 

> > In general, though, the effort of trying to match
> > the cosmo and astro illustrations to facts and
> > theories of the time is one that I find both
> > very interesting and hopeful.
> 
> So long as it doesn't conflict with 'expert'
> opinions.

It all depends, e.g. on which opinion it is and
whose. Take R.Brumbaugh for example. He was a
scholar, but his opinion about the VMs (from the
hand of R.Bacon) shouldn't weigh very heavily, even
if he had a proposed decipherment of the top line
of f116v to confirm it.
However, the opinions of people like Panofsky and
Toresella have much more weight (they both date
the MS to the second half of the 15th C). It 
takes relatively more evidence for people to
accept that they were wrong...

> Sorry, Rene, but I try to go where the data takes
> me. 

But one has to distinguish between data and 
interpretation. I have been under the impression
that for the particular page we're talking about,
the interpretation (identification of the picture
with a supernova) came first. That's where the
year 1604 comes from....

Now, I don't mean to say that anything you're
doing is wrong. I am also still convinced that
looking for interpretations and precedents for
the astro/cosmo pages has a great potential.
I also think that identifying numbers (and years)
could be the key to the solution eventually.
However, I am not convinced at all about either of 
these two supernovae, which was really the essence
of my previous message.

Best wishes,
         Rene


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list