The Voynich Ninja

JKP wrote:

Sigh. It appears you didn't look at my links or you would never have posted that statement.

==========================================================

Alas. I did look at your drawings:

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

Where do you see a four-legged critter with elevated tail that curves around?



The previously posted 'dragon' of ca. 1250 comes closest and that falls within my time, not yours.

I think it was the Cathar astronomers who decided to depart from tradition on this one, basing the head of their scorpion on Antares, the brightest star of Scorpio and one of the brightest in the night sky, and then curved the tail around Shaula at the other end.

Justification for doing that can perhaps be found in their alleged sacred text allegedly extracted from the VMS recipes:

Kappa Thita Lambda mors …

Years ago, in an Old French to French dictionary, I noticed that one of the definitions of mors referred to the bite of a scorpion. Not until hundreds of years later would they begin using Greek letters to name stars but it was always easy enough to envision that those names referred to stars.

Meanwhile, another passage with Greek words refers to fish, which could explain why we also see stars on the VMS Pisces and nowhere else in their zodiac.

Well, I have given you my explanation of the VMS divergence from tradition on Scorpio. What is your explanation?

(17-03-2018, 11:37 PM)Morten St. George Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Years ago, in an Old French to French dictionary, I noticed that one of the definitions of mors referred to the bite of a scorpion. Not until hundreds of years later would they begin using Greek letters to name stars but it was always easy enough to envision that those names referred to stars.

In medieval manuscripts the words morsure, morsure, morsu, mors (and various other spellings) were used more generally. Most of the time they were referring to bite/sting (which could be dog bite, serpent's bite, scorpion sting, etc.), not specifically to scorpion sting. You will see these words very frequently in medieval herbals, where a plant is supposed to help treat a bite/sting.


Morten St. George: "Where do you see a four-legged critter with elevated tail that curves around?"


The curled tail in the VMS scorpion is similar to some of the lizard-style Scorpius sculptures in 12th to 15th-century church portals in northeastern France/Normandy that featured zodiac cycles. The tail was not always elevated (some were sculpted from the top rather than the side). The lizard-style Scorpius in manuscript art appears to have been derived from earlier sculptural art, since the sculptures precede the lizard-style Scorpius drawings by a couple of centuries.

(18-03-2018, 07:55 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(17-03-2018, 11:37 PM)Morten St. George Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Years ago, in an Old French to French dictionary, I noticed that one of the definitions of mors referred to the bite of a scorpion. Not until hundreds of years later would they begin using Greek letters to name stars but it was always easy enough to envision that those names referred to stars.

In medieval manuscripts the words morsure, morsure, morsu, mors (and various other spellings) were used more generally. Most of the time they were referring to bite/sting (which could be dog bite, serpent's bite, scorpion sting, etc.), not specifically to scorpion sting. You will see these words very frequently in medieval herbals, where a plant is supposed to help treat a bite/sting.


Morten St. George: "Where do you see a four-legged critter with elevated tail that curves around?"


The curled tail in the VMS scorpion is similar to some of the lizard-style Scorpius sculptures in 12th to 15th-century church portals in northeastern France/Normandy that featured zodiac cycles. The tail was not always elevated (some were sculpted from the top rather than the side). The lizard-style Scorpius in manuscript art appears to have been derived from earlier sculptural art, since the sculptures precede the lizard-style Scorpius  drawings by a couple of centuries.

On Scorpio, I do not think you have convinced me that the VMS depiction had to have been made after 1244 CE.

Lately, I have been looking at a book by d'Imperio. It was written years ago, at a time when experts were trying to date the VMS without the aid of radiocarbon.

Some experts made comments that would fully support your theory of original redaction in the 15th century, such as,

1. "Sagittarius wears a fifteenth-century Florentine archer's hat in his medallion (though it is retouched over the month name)"

Google images is unable to show me a depiction of a fifteenth-century Florentine archer's hat. Can you point me to one?

2. "A clock, tucked away in folio 85r, has a short hour and long minute hand, a style not developed until the fifteenth century."

Do you agree with this? What time of day does this clock indicate? It might help me to find it.

On the other hand, a few experts made comments that might support my 13th-century theory, such as,

"It is strange that the draftsman should have so completely escaped all medieval or Renaissance influence."

I think this alludes to the VMS overall, in the sense that it seems to bear little resemblance to other manuscripts of the late Middle Ages. Looking at "medieval manuscripts" on Google images, that certainly seems to be the case.

MSG wrote: "Some experts made comments that would fully support your theory of original redaction in the 15th century, such as,..."

You keep saying I have a theory of original redaction in the 15th century. I've already told you that is not the case.


Your use of the phrase "original redaction" is rather confusing, since a redaction is a copy and an "original" is not a copy and some manuscripts include both copied and original material. This terminology is too vague for us to discern what you mean.



A number of the people who say that the VMS has escaped medieval influence believe it to be a hoax, a later rather than earlier creation, so they do not all believe it to be an earlier manuscript.

(18-03-2018, 06:39 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.MSG wrote: "Some experts made comments that would fully support your theory of original redaction in the 15th century, such as,..."

You keep saying I have a theory of original redaction in the 15th century. I've already told you that is not the case.


Your use of the phrase "original redaction" is rather confusing, since a redaction is a copy and an "original" is not a copy and some manuscripts include both copied and original material. This terminology is too vague for us to discern what you mean.

Sorry about the confusion. I should have phrased it better. Everywhere in your posts you have given us (or me) the impression that you think the current VMS is the first and only writing of what we see in the manuscript, whereas I postulate that the current VMS is an exact copy of earlier writings. I hope that clarifies it.

The matter is important. The date of original composition (first writing) can be very helpful in determining where and by whom it was created. For example, it seems unlikely that any Europeans could have migrated to the Americas circa 1420 without our knowing about it, but not so circa 1244 when people had reason to flee being burned at the stake.

It also seems unlikely that any Europeans other than Cathars could have migrated to the Americas without our knowing about it: their unique adversity to procreation would explain why no one found them during the 16th century.

Do you have anything to say about 15th-century clocks and Florentine hats?

The fact that this thread is still open after 16 pages is an absolutely shameful indictment of this forum's moderation.

Quote: The fact that this thread is still open after 16 pages is an absolutely shmeful indictment of this forum's moderation.

Actually, the fact that this thread is still open -and contained within this thread - shows the inclusiveness of the forum, and the good behaviour of members who are eager to teach, and even more eager to learn.

(18-03-2018, 10:16 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The fact that this thread is still open after 16 pages is an absolutely shameful indictment of this forum's moderation.

Emma, if David were to close his forum to new or radical theories, it becomes unlikely that voynich.ninja would ever make a valuable contribution to resolving VMS mysteries, which, I imagine, has to be the underlying objective.

After a hundred years of VMS research and investigations by diverse scholars, it seems that today we cannot state categorically whether the VMS was initially written circa 1420 or if it mechanically copies an earlier manuscript or writings. That is what we are currently discussing in this thread. Your opinion on the matter is welcome.

(18-03-2018, 10:00 PM)Morten St. George Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Sorry about the confusion. I should have phrased it better. Everywhere in your posts you have given us (or me) the impression that you think the current VMS is the first and only writing of what we see in the manuscript, whereas I postulate that the current VMS is an exact copy of earlier writings. I hope that clarifies it.

No. I explicitly stated upthread that encyclopedic books, books of knowledge (and a book that is primarily plants certainly piggybacks on previous knowledge) are based to some extent on what has gone before. I've never said anything that indicates I think the VMS was a wholly original work created in a vacuum, without influence from the past.

Medieval custom was to copy and they were especially eager to look back to classical authors such as Galen, Pliny, Avicenna, Dioscorides, Ptolemy, or whoever was considered the "sage" for their culture or subject matter.


The method of interpretation or execution was sometimes original, but it was very rare for content to be original.

(18-03-2018, 10:16 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The fact that this thread is still open after 16 pages is an absolutely shameful indictment of this forum's moderation.

Are we going to ban people who are following the rules because we don't like their ideas?

I hope I never live in a society that would do that.