Re: VMs: RE: Voynich as Divine Comedy

[elvogt@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Zitat von elillie@xxxxxxxxxxxx:

> Hello to the list.
> 
> Hi Elmar. You responded:
> 
> >
> > It's the moon in the center of the VM illustration, not God. And it's
> > not  nine rings of angels, it's exactly four creatures (angels or not)
> > in one of  the rings.
> 
> 1)Actually, it looks more like an eclipse to me. Dante couldn't look
> directly at God in the Empyrean without going blind so the image has been
> screened.

Well, it's the same image as appears in several instances in the VM, and in all
the other instances it seems to fairly clearly point to the moon.

> 2)If you count the rings, you'll see that there are 9 of them.

9 rings of something. Four humanoid shapes. Not 9 rings of souls/angels.

> 3)By reading my paper, you'd understand that the small lozenges that make
> up the rings are souls and that this imagery is maintained all through the
> Rosette/Paradise foldout.4)The four creatures that you count in one of the
> rings are talked about
> quite plainly in Paradise: ...

You've just pointed out four clear distinctions between the VM image, and the
Dore illustration you have given as a reference. (Dore eg puts a blinding image
of God on the center, rather than the moon.)

This seems to show that even you consider a great deal of artistic license to be
in the display of this particular scene, and the DC in general: One can depict
the happenings in the DC in many different ways. Which in turn raises the
question: How could you ever be sure any one picture would _not_ refer to the DC?

_Can_ your theory be falsified? If not, it's worthless.*)

> ...
> > Straightforward unanimous clues, huh? In the scientific community, your
> >  process would probably be called "tweaking".
> 
> Am I not allowed to offer explanations?

Well, of course you are, but you specifically invited criticism. I feel your
opinion is indeed "informed", though wrong, IMHO.

And I feel you're having a methodical problem with your approach: You constantly
keep showing that the VM is _consistent_ with being interpreted as a treatise on
the DC, ie you show how the images could relate to the DC's contents.

But none of your correspondences are very straightforward. You have already
admitted to large differences in relative emphasis (forests, Vergil), your
"awaking Dante" shows up in the middle of the VM, not at the beginning, your
"nine circles" only show these funky ornaments, rather than souls... you have to
compensate (or use more or less far-fetched explanations) in virtually _every_ case.

That'd be tolerable if your matches were unambiguous, but they are not. It is
not "Dante waking up" -- it is a human shape of questionable gender, clining on
the ground. It _may_ be the Aries sign at the beginning of the VM -- this is not
the same as "Here begins my comment on the DC". Thousands of times the Aries
sign has been used, and thousands of clining figures have been painted with no
relation to the DC.

> 
> Until later,
> 
> Erni
> 

Cheers,

   Elmar

*) Don't misunderstand me. I don't mean that a theory is worthless unless it's
proven wrong. My point is that a theory is only any good if it can be put to the
test, and if you could give an example of what might convince you of the
invalidity of your theory.


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