The Voynich Ninja

(21-05-2017, 02:24 PM)Diane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If the Vms botanical folios were a Latin herbal - which they're not IMO - [...]

I am unclear about what is meant with "Latin herbal".
Latin is a language and the language of the Voynich MS (if there is any) is unknown, so in this sense the Voynich MS is most certainly not a Latin herbal.

Munich clm 337 is a herbal in Latin, but it is a translation of a Greek herbal.
Does it qualify as a "Latin herbal"?

The Voynich MS was penned down in the first half of the 15th century (this is almost certain).
This was done in (larger) central Europe. That includes northern (but not southern) Italy.
This is not certain, of course, but it is very likely, and therefore it makes complete sense to compare the Voynich MS with other manuscripts that were written in preceding centuries.

The meaning of the frog on f102r2 remains an open question. It is so unusual that it's worth looking into.

I'm sorry, but the reference to the "peacock tree frog" is certainly wrong, for several reasons.
It's not a frog that likes to climb up a "peacock tree" but a tree frog that sounds like a peacock.

At least, I think it is agreed that the not very well drawn animal is a frog. Rather similar frog drawings may be found in Megenberg's "Buch der Natur".

Hi!
Can it be Ranunculus Asiaticus (Persian Buttercup)? (ranunculus - a little frog)
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

 

Rather than concentrating on herbals, I'm wondering if the depiction can be linked to an earlier imagery.

The reason being, it's not often that frogs are depicted from this vertical viewpoint. Most of the ones I have seen today are depicted side-on. After all, this vertical depiction must be the most difficult way to draw a frog!

In fact, the only vertically drawn ones I have come across today are either being eaten or stepped on, both allegorical in nature (as I discussed above). In all cases, they are being interacted with.

So why draw a frog in this strange fashion? Maybe it's important?

(21-05-2017, 02:24 PM)Diane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If the Vms botanical folios were a Latin herbal - which they're not IMO - and if frog pictures were generics - which they're not necessarily - then all pictures of all frogs with all plants would have similar meaning (significance). Which I don't think the case here.

So frog A in a Latin herbal may not be meant to convey the same as frog (B) carved in a misericord or frog © in a mural from Ephesus or frog (D) in the Voynich manuscript.

IMO the frog meant here is one that is renowed for its climbing to the heights of the 'peacock tree' ... where it sings.

But that's just my opinion, of course. Due mainly to first identifying the associated tree with (as you see) its 'peacock' -evoking root.

...

Animal images in Latin-, Italian-, German-, French-, Spanish- and English-language herbals are not generic, so I don't see why frogs would be. Snakes are usually the most common and they have many meanings:

• Snakes sometimes indicate the use of the plant (e.g., for snakebite).
  
• Snakes sometimes indicate the name of the plant (e.g., snake-root).
  
• Snakes sometimes are included as part bestiary in the alphabetical listing of the plant (e.g., in an English MS, a viper might follow the plant Verbena).
  
• Snakes sometimes indicate the shape of a part of the plant (like the root resembling the whole snake or the flower stalk resembling the tongue).
  
• Snakes sometimes indicate the habitat of the plant (grows where there are snakes, as in fields).
  
• Snakes sometimes indicate that the plant can be used to repel snakes or to protect from snakes.
  

There's nothing whatsoever generic about them. One has to go through most of the herbal to read the text and check the patterns to figure out specifically what they mean in that document (they sometimes have several meanings in the same manuscript, which is why reading the text is important) and since this is true of other animals besides snakes, I'm sure it would also be true of frogs.

Are frogs really that rare? I've come across a few, but since I thought they were common I didn't take notice. I'll keep an eye out.

The VM frog, it always struck me as kind of "lost" there, like it's not even connected to the plant. But I agree, at least it's clearly a frog, despite its mandibles.

(21-05-2017, 08:02 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Are frogs really that rare? I've come across a few, but since I thought they were common I didn't take notice. I'll keep an eye out.

The VM frog, it always struck me as kind of "lost" there, like it's not even connected to the plant. But I agree, at least it's clearly a frog, despite its mandibles.

They're becoming rare. They are very sensitive to environmental toxins and habitat loss. I used to see many, now I hardly see them at all.


The VMS frog might not be directly connected to the surrounding plants. If it's intended to be used similarly to  "castorum" (an animal-based entry that stands by itself in herbal manuscripts), then it might be an ingredient rather than a mnemonic.

Haha JKP I mean rare in manuscripts  
I do see a few frogs in real life sometimes but they are good at hiding. The most common ones here are tiny brown ones, about the size of a finger nail.

I mean I've seen a few in manuscripts but I never payed much attention. Not sure if it was in herbals though.

Haha, ok.   : )

I've seen many in alchemical manuscripts (and bestiaries, of course, from all parts of the world), but not so many in regular herbal manuscripts.

Last week I was in the Parkabdij Heverlee, and the sound of frogs was (almost) deafening...

Plague of frogs, Pamplona Bible, Navarre 1197 (Amiens, Bibliothèque municipale, ms. 108, fol. 42v)
Just similar