Re: VMs: Trotula di Salerno - tracing her influence on the VMS

[Jorge Stolfi <stolfi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

  > [Rene:] The idea that the VMs author has tried to monkey existing
  > diagrams also fits with the herbal section of the VMs, and with
  > the zodiac section. It is a worrying thought, since it is a good
  > argument for the VMs being quite possible without meaningful
  > content in our modern sense of the word. (It could have contained
  > quite meaningful 'mystical' text for the author).

Well, I never expected the VMS to have more "meaningful" contents than
the average astrological manuscript. Please note that the center
diagram in HM64 f.17 is "nonsense" too -- its only redeeming feature
is that it is "classical Medieval European collective nonsense" rather
than "original Medieval European(?) personal nonsense"...

Perhaps we must be more careful when we use the word "meaningful".
There is a world of difference between Gordon Rugg's pseudo-Voynichese
and (say) Francis Dec's rants. For the purposes of the "Voynich
project", the latter would be just as "meaningful" as Euclid's
Elements: there would exist a single "correct solution", which 
would be easily recognized as such.

I remain convinced that the VMS is "meaningful" in this sense, and so
the "non-standard" symbolism of the illustrations does not worry me
too much. I believe that when we decode it we will find its contents
to be a mix of valid information (e.g. firsthand plant descriptions in
the pharma section, or star rising data in the zodiac section),
nonsense copied from other sources, possibly with errors and
misunderstandings (like the T-O map and the overall design of the big
fold-out), and original fantastic speculation or charlatanism (like
the weird details in the big fold-out and in the herbal section).

All the best,

--stolfi
______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list