The Voynich Ninja

(01-06-2019, 02:17 AM)Monica Yokubinas Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....

I have been consistent in my methodology for example You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is a pitcher plant and here is the translation:  
...

(01-06-2019, 02:00 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I don't think it looks like a pitcher plant (in fact, I think I know what plant it is), but if it is a pitcher plant, then are you saying the VMS (or the VMS plants) originated in tropical Asia or Madagascar?

(01-06-2019, 01:43 AM)Monica Yokubinas Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.amazing what we all think we know... never stop learning. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

I know you wanted to prove me wrong, Monica, but Drosophyllum lusitanicum is not a pitcher plant.

It is related to the sundew plants (a different kind of carnivorous plant), several of which are native to Europe. It's not surprising that it would be found on the Iberian peninsula. Look at the long thin tendrils, similar to many European sundew (Drosera) plants:

  Image Credit: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

You can't call that a pitcher plant. It doesn't have pitchers. You can't say Drosophyllum is a European pitcher plant because it's not directly related to Nepenthes (eastern pitcher plants) or the Sarracenias (the New World pitcher plants). Here are some pics of pitcher plants. They are distinctly different from sundews:

Image Credit: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(01-06-2019, 02:55 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(01-06-2019, 02:17 AM)Monica Yokubinas Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....

I have been consistent in my methodology for example You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is a pitcher plant and here is the translation:  
...

(01-06-2019, 02:00 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I don't think it looks like a pitcher plant (in fact, I think I know what plant it is), but if it is a pitcher plant, then are you saying the VMS (or the VMS plants) originated in tropical Asia or Madagascar?

(01-06-2019, 01:43 AM)Monica Yokubinas Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.amazing what we all think we know... never stop learning. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

I know you wanted to prove me wrong, Monica, but Drosophyllum lusitanicum is not a pitcher plant.

It is related to the sundew plants (a different kind of carnivorous plant), several of which are native to Europe. It's not surprising that it would be found on the Iberian peninsula. Look at the long thin tendrils, similar to many European sundew (Drosera) plants:

  Image Credit: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

You can't call that a pitcher plant. It doesn't have pitchers. You can't say Drosophyllum is a European pitcher plant because it's not directly related to Nepenthes (eastern pitcher plants) or the Sarracenias (the New World pitcher plants). Here are some pics of pitcher plants. They are distinctly different from sundews:

Image Credit: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

You are correct that there are many types of carnivorous plants and I try to translate the writing before finding a plant. It is a type of carnivorous plant that is described, and the translation of the belly eating the insect and getting caught, describes a pitcher plant. It is the drawing that does not do it justice. Botanical art was mostly copied from previous versions in the very early medieval period, and many times the person doing the copying never actually saw the plant. 

"The explanation for this curious divergence in style may well be that the Apuleian manuscript illustrated Mediterranean herbs and plants, not then known in countries in Northern Europe, whereas the monk who illustrated what is known as the Bury St. Edmunds Manuscript accurately drew additional plants grown within the confines of the Abbey’s garden. All the same, this early attempt at naturalism did not prevent a persistent decline in botanical illustration, which continued almost until the end of the fourteenth century. " You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Please note that the root You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. that exists now does not correspond to the original idea of the artist. Initially, the root (in thin lines) looked like the mirror root f18r.
[attachment=4587]

(21-07-2020, 09:38 AM)Wladimir D Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Initially, the root (in thin lines) looked like the mirror root f18r.

So you mean he/she/they originally drew a different kind of root and then changed it to the twisty root?
Couldn't it still be the original idea of the painter? I mean to me it could very well just be a twisty root that also has a non-twisty part, maybe at the backside?

All in all this plant is one of the most confusing to me, with the wierd "leech with tonsure" bulbs...

Very nice find, Wladimir. I'm not quite seeing a specific parallel to the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. root. I do see an artistic similarity in the style, but it's tenuous. I do think we can conclude these faint lines were part of an initial plan for the root of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. that was aborted. A rough initial sketch, maybe. It doesn't look to me like this initial plan produced more than a few lines, though.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. shares a bifolio with f3v just next to it on the left. I'm not sure there's nearly as much question about the original intended order of the Herbal A pages and quires. I'm only pointing out that they share the same side of the same physical sheet of vellum. Seeing as how books were created and commonly kept unbound in medieval times, this leaves open the possibility that these two images could have been conceived, executed, and/or presented together, at some point.

Looking at You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. side by side, I could almost see two different life cycles of the poppy plant, namely the middle image with the erupting of flowers from their outer shell (f6r), and the rightmost image of ripe poppy fruits (f3v):


This is pretty tenuous too. 

But back to the roots. The clearest iconographic parallel I see with the settled-upon design in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., the two snakes entwined around the staff of Hermes a.k.a. Mercury.

Some interesting snippets from the Wikipedia article:

Quote:In Roman iconography, it was often depicted being carried in the left hand of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., guide of the dead, and protector of merchants, shepherds, gamblers, liars, and thieves.
...
It is said the wand would wake the sleeping and send the awake to sleep. If applied to the dying, their death was gentle; if applied to the dead, they returned to life.

But enough of this. If these roots are Caducei, why are the "snakes" not intertwining at all? And why four sets of them?

One thing is becoming clearer to me, though. The roots in the VMS are drawn very deliberately. And, being unable to unsee the bird of prey from the Habsburg heraldry in the roots of f46v, I'm more and more convinced that the plant parts form a symbolic language unto themselves, and it's not nearly all pareidolia.

(21-07-2020, 04:36 PM)RenegadeHealer Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I'm more and more convinced that the plant parts form a symbolic language unto themselves, and it's not nearly all pareidolia.

I would personally like it if this becomes more or less generally accepted fact and not something that has to be defended all the time. 

I don't know what these particular roots could indicate, but I agree that they seem very deliberate. The 2x4 arrangement makes it particularly intriguing. It's always reminded me a bit of rope making, where first you intertwine smaller strings and then those again, until your rope is thick enough. This would be a likely solution if the layout was 3x3 though, not 2x4.

EDIT: Actually here's a video where they use an authentic looking 2x4 setup:

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

On the other hand, it could be said: Once again, it's about pairing.

f48r is similarly like ropes, only here a three-strand one (three and four strands are the main options)

[attachment=4590]

Koen, what comes to mind when I see the pic you linked was the Cat o' Nine, which is at its root a folk tool (and weapon!) made from unraveling the 3 ply x 3 ply twine of a large gauge rope, and attaching something hard and heavy to the end of all nine strings.

But as you mention, the VMS You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is 3 ply x 4 ply. Do you have any idea if there were regional variations on how many strands of thin rope were typically used to make a thicker one? The history (and prehistory) of rope and cloth making is a subject that fascinates me, but I haven't delved into yet.