The Voynich Ninja

This is the pairing paradigm. But first, by way of definition, a paradigm is a pattern, and for VMs purposes. an investigative theme. And the replication of pattern in the manuscript serves as a sort of guide to the investigation. As opposed to those investigations based on a singular instance of a solo example.

Pairing is a sort of pattern. Certainly it is one of the simplest of patterns. Is there another pattern that is simpler? So it shouldn't be too hard to find for those who are searching for complex patterns of various types in the VMs to follow something so simple. Remember Deuteronomy 19:15.

The VMs Zodiac medallions contain three 'natural' pairings. Pisces, the first VMs sign, is a pair of fish. Gemini is a pair of twins. And Cancer is a pair of crayfish. Cancer as a pairing seems uncommon, as we expect a single crab, but some other paired examples do pertain, so it is a viable possibility. Now, if there were just some way to turn Aries and Taurus into pairs, there would be a series of these first five houses of the zodiac with each of them paired in one way or another.

Yet strangely, for some reason, what has been set forth in the VMs Zodiac is so disruptive that it is quite difficult to recognize what has actually been done. Each of the first five houses in the VMs Zodiac is a pair. Each is a pair in a sequence created by the author. That is the pairing paradigm - the start of the pairing paradigm. Among these pairs, there are various pairings. Further examples of pairing to verify the paradigm. And after the paradigm is formed in VMs Zodiac astrology, it is then carried on with the quasi-heraldic tub patterns on the first three pages of the VMz Zodiac.

Examples of pairing are found with varying degrees of difficulty, but the first and easiest is most readily found at the beginning of the VMs Zodiac. In VMs astrology, Pisces is a pair of fish, can't be any plainer - first thing. The splitting of Aries and Taurus is more difficult to reconcile. The combinations among the pairs are a third level of difficulty. In the tub patterns, the number of pairings of the four examples at the top of the outer ring of Pisces, sets this part of the paradigm on its way with a multitude of examples. Split pairs are exemplified by the semy of roundels and papelonney patterns found on separate pages. The third level of difficulty is finding the pairing that has been hidden within an optical illusion in White Aries, where a connection with history might be made.

All that is necessary to discover a means to understanding the VMs is to follow the simplest of paradigms on a pathway that is clearly marked by pairs. Those familiar with the origins of a certain event in the history of ecclesiastical heraldry will be at particular advantage in further investigation. Unless, of course, the author was a joker or something essential was cut out of the VMs and lost. Nevertheless, anything of this complexity can only be something that is the author's intentional construction. How far will the pairing paradigm take a VMs investigation? To Stolfi's 'start here' markers and beyond!
.

It's interesting that there are at least two other manuscripts with "doubles" in the first five signs of the Zodiac:

Pierpont Morgan M.511 (Bologna, 1310 ca):
* Aquarius (two persons, each one with a jar, very uncommon)
* Pisces (the usual two fish)
* Aries (two rams, very uncommon)
* Taurus (two bulls, very uncommon)
* Gemini (two couples: four people, very uncommon)
- Cancer is a single crab

Pierpont Morgan M.700 (Du Bois Hours, England, 1325-1330):
* Aquarius (the duplication of the jars is uncommon, but less so than that in M.511)
* Pisces (the usual two fish)
* Aries (two goats: both the duplication and the goats, instead of a ram, are uncommon)
* Gemini (two people as usual, but Taurus should be here)
* Cancer (the duplication is uncommon)
- Leo is a single lion

The two cycles are discussed in  "Two Unusual Calendar Cycles of the Fourteenth Century", Olga Koseleff Gordon, 1963
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Thanks, very interesting!

Morgan MS M 511 can be seen here:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

and MS M 700 here:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

MarcoP,

Most excellent!

Rene,

Thanks for the color shots, and the full page layouts. They help put things in their proper place.

The idea of the paring paradigm as seen in the VMs certainly has some interesting comparisons, both similarities and differences, when considering the medallion seen in these two calendars.

From London to Bologna, in the early part of the 1300's, this sort of illustrative pairing can be found as part of an established tradition, as I read it.  And the VMs parchment dates are a century later. So the VMs author is clearly not breaking new ground in that respect. What is different is that instead of having two rams in Aries and two bulls in Taurus, the VMs author has split these months into halves on separate pages. Instead of pairs *in* medallions, these are pairs *of* medallions. It produces a totally different effect, but has the same results.

Even if the medallions were considered comparable, there are other differences in the medallion sequence, in page layout and what is happening outside the medallion. Both calendars are described as occupational calendars, as each month is accompanied by other illustrations showing the tasks appropriate to the season. The VMs is not much of an occupational calendar, unless nymph is considered an occupation. I guess pope and cardinal are occupations.

In the examples of the calendar medallions, the figures are confined to the medallions, in the VMs there are figures displayed outside in concentric circles around the medallion. Where the VMs has concentric rings of nymphs surrounding the medallion, the calendars have nothing - in the way of comparable illustration. No nymphs in tubs, no tubs with patterns that can be compared to medieval heraldry. Nothing to take the pairing paradigm beyond the internal confines of the medallions and on to anything further. In contrast, he VMs moves subtly on to the topic of pairing in heraldry.

There is a heraldic shield in one of the calendar Gemini medallions. Still need to work on that one. But the MS 700 number one illustration clearly shows a heraldic armorial insignia and identifies the bearer as the du Bois family of Lincoln.  So here are further examples of heraldry in the illustrations of zodiacs and calendars. Only the VMs author has decided to be a bit more deceptive, something less than obvious. The clues are sometimes hidden and separated, but the pairing paradigm exists there in VMs Zodiac's astrological and heraldic patterns. It is validated by historical grounding. This is an intentional, deliberate construction.

These manuscripts are very interesting and may indeed prove relevant.

One remark though: the duplicated animals in these manuscripts are a pair within the same roundel. The author of the paper tentatively suggests that they may have been copied from bestiaries, where depictions of headbutting animals could be found. In the Voynich, however, entire roundels are duplicate, and a whole different kind of solution must be found.

Still these manuscripts are fascinating. I must share this gem from Olga Koseleff Gordon's paper:
"Pig slaughtering is a quite common theme, but it is strange that it occurs in October before the pig fattening in November".

Koen,
On the months' activities, and in connection with later activities in the Sicilian kingdom, early in the fourteenth century, I found the mosaic calendar of Otrano particularly interesting.

It is all beautifully illustrated at Paradox Place (use your search engine for Otranto AND mosaic and it should turn up.  P.P. doesn't want to be hot-linked, and I respect that preference on their part.

The comment about the bestiaries is perfectly true, but the pairing of animals and of animal heads is common in earlier works - from which, of course, the bestiary tradition came - from North Africa, actually, while some of it was still under Byzantine rule.

The paired *beardless* goats which I used when explaining that the "Aries" weren't sheep, as they were always said to be before that was written, came from a mosaic in Antioch. I also referred to the bestiaries, and to Isidore's Etymologies (all its matter taken from classical sources and early patristic literature) to explain why the identification as goats [in the VMS distinguished as the "wild" and the "tame"] would have been as immediately evident to Latin speakers as to the original makers.

Need I say that none of this alters my conclusion that what we have in this section of the manuscript was plainly meant to relate to the series of months by the time the month-names' inscriptions were added, but that we do not have a series of zodiac figures, doubled or otherwise.

It's nice to see that so many of my observations are now becoming common currency - that Marco should be re-visiting the matter of 'doubling' isn't so surprising, either. I believe that Rene long ago referred to doubled zodiacs, as others probably also did before him - though the original research and who did it is not part of the current record.

(21-08-2016, 01:40 AM)Diane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The paired *beardless* goats which I used when explaining that the "Aries" weren't sheep, as they were always said to be before that was written....

Wrong: the Aries animals weren't always said to be sheep. 

Google allows searching this kind of stuff to those genuinely interested in it. It's a boring activity, but it would be better to do a search before attributing an opinion to everybody who studied the manuscript before you. Or you could skip the tedious searching and just state your own opinion, without feeling the need to gratuitously revile everybody else's ideas.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Jorge Stolfi (2004) quoted this passage, written by Pamela Richards, I think.

 > [Pam:] I think it was Dana Scott who called the two young
 > animals, light and dark "goats".  I am very inclined
 > to agree.  Sheep don't have dew claws....

Stolfi replied: "No dispute about them being goats."

I know of a voynichera who believes that you should take care about re-treading paths taken earlier by others. I think that re-treading the goat path is OK. If it is not abandoned, it could well be because it leads somewhere.

---

PS: I just tried David Jackson's "ML Archive" search here on voynich.ninja (thanks, David!).

Jorge Stolfi 1998:

the quality of the women drawings in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (Aries light) is *much* worse than that of the sheep (goat?) at the center of the diagram. 

Back to the concept of pairing. The VMs medallions, for the most part, do not have unique or unexpected pairings *within* the medallions. The VMs does not have two or three animals in the Aries or Taurus medallions. The VMs does not have four persons in the Gemini medallion. The only quibble here is the use of two crayfish in the VMs Cancer medallion. And while this is uncommon, it is not unique, as I recall. Instead of pairing *within* the Aries and Taurus medallions, the VMs makes use of the pairing *of* medallions. I guess it depends on the investigator as to whether these split / duplicate examples make the presence of these pairs more obvious or more obscure.