Re: VMs: RE: Voynich as Divine Comedy

[<elillie@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Elmar

The other day, you wrote:

> Erni -- doesn't it occur to you that you commit hefty acts of circular 
> reasoning here?
I don't consider it circular reasoning when I'm extrapolating the identity
of an image against a framework that I feel I've already established
beyond a doubt.
>
> You start with the premise of the VM being related to the Divine Comedy,
>  then search around until you find _any_ person, understand that the
> person  is "awaking", identify him with Dante because "that's his place
> to be in the  DC", and then use this for proof of your primary theory.
> (Regardless of the  fact that the person on 66R seems to be dead rather
> than awaking, and female  rather than a dude, and that f84R features a
> dozen chicks, all of the female  kind.)


The "premise" that the VMs is related to Divine Comedy is very clearly
laid out by folios such as this one:
              http://www.voynich.com/folios/f86v4.jpg

This is the folio that I identified as the Mystic White Rose, spoken of
all through the end of the book Paradise. A simple enough image: that of
God surrounded by nine rings representing the nine hierarchies of angels
but at the same time an image that is unmistakably straight out of Divine
Comedy.
Here's an example of the same image depicted by another famous Divine
Comedy illustrator, Gustave Dore:
          http://dante.ilt.columbia.edu/images/dore/par_31.jpeg

It is a series of images such as this that point to the VMs being related
to the Divine Comedy, not the secondary identifications I've attempted
after I felt I'd already established the connection.
Also, in examining the person at the bottom of 66R on the SIDfile, "He"
appears to quite alive and staring straight at the viewer. As to the
gender of many of the other "nymphs", I believe that there was a recent
discussion on the vms-list as to the possibility of a lot of retouching of
the figures. I also put forward the idea in my own paper that the Voynich
Illustrator drew most of the characters as "nymphs" because in his mind
"they" were the ones portraying the characters to him.
In rereading my paper, I realize that I should have done a better job
pointing out my primary images. In response to comments about the
"vagueness" and long-winded tendency of my descriptions, I have begun work
on a shorter and more to-the-point version of my theory that I will post
when ready.
>
> I don't mean to sound overly negative, but I am tempted to quote from 
> "Murder by Death":>
> Sidney Wang : Very interesting theory, Mr. Charleston. However, leave
> out  one important point. Dick Charleston : What's that?> Sidney Wang : Is stupid. Is stupidest theory I ever heard.
>
> Don't worry, I'll come up with a new theory of mine one of these days;
> feel  free to shred it to pieces then!>

I don't feel that you've "shredded" my "stupid" theory at all Elmar, only
pointed out where I need to clarify it.
Until later,

Erni



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