The Voynich Ninja

(17-07-2020, 06:39 AM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I wonder why a mermaid even appears in an herbal book. As in the example Hortus_Sanitatis (De piscibus)

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

Hi Peter,
the title "Hortus Sanitatis" (the garden of health) is indeed misleading. The book is not strictly about plants (as suggested by "hortus") nor about medicine (as suggested by "sanitatis"): it basically is a natural science encyclopedia.

"De piscibus" is about fish, which include everything that lives in the water. The chapter about You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. ("Syrene") quotes the usual myths from medieval sources. It also includes this passage that I found interesting: "Isidore [of Seville] wrote that they are not truly animals, but prostitutes who reduce their customers to poverty. But several philosophers and religious commentators say the contrary, that they truly are sea mosters" (has non in veritate belvas sed meretrices quasdam Ysidorus fuisse descripsit, que transeuntes ad egestatem deducebant. Sed et philosophi et sanctorum expositorum nonnnulli contrarium sentiunt vera monstra marina esse dicentes).

Other human-fish hybrids illustrate the chapters about You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and whales (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). The chapter about dolphins includes a description of medicines derived from these animals.

[attachment=4850]Having seen this, I ask myself the question: did the Templars bring this with them from their travels in the East?

(18-07-2020, 11:54 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Our awkward "mermaid or female Jonah" situation might be caused by the VM artist's reluctance to draw true hybrids.

I am not sure that the illustrator had a fundamental reluctance to drawing hybrid beings. I rather suspect that the not natural transition from the "fishy" lower body to the female upper body was intentional. Legs are clearly visible standing in the fish's mouth and these are drawn "divided". In summary I find it difficult to recognize melusine / mermaid here.

Even though I've written about it maybe being a Melusine, after much research into fish/human combinations, and even though I realize it might be Jonah (if there is Christian content, this seems a likely interpretation), it also occurred to me that there might not be any significance to the combination of nymph and fish other than the nymph showing us something about the fish...


In other words, maybe it is a big fish and the nymph is simply there to say, this is a BIG fish.

• If it is a big fish and the nymph is not actually part of the fish tale (not a melusine or mermaid or a swallowed or emerging entity), then it opens the possibility that the fish is a constellation, a big-fish constellation like Piscis Notius/Meridionalis (southern sky) who swallows the stream from Aquarius's urn (note how there is a stream of something flowing down toward the nymph in the fish). Or maybe the nymph is standing in for Aquarius or the water from the urn:
  

 [attachment=4851]

• Or maybe it is the constellation Delphinus, which was often drawn as a fish (there is actually a dolphin fish that resembles a dolphin). Delphinus is nearby Equuleus (little horse), Vulpecula (little fox), Sagitta (arrow), Aquila (eagle), and Pegasus (winged horse)—in other words, near a bunch of critters. Some of these constellations are small and faint, but Delphinus is regularly included in medieval manuscripts:
  

.  

Morgan M.389         Wellcome Ms Persian 373

I think it is a combinatory image. There is a nymph, there is a fish, which has a mouth that resembles the wells or whatever the nymphs stand in elsewhere in the quire and in the zodiac section but with a gap in it.

I could see a way where Melusine could fit into my own interpretation, since the combination does resemble a mermaid or tailed humanoid enough to conjure up some resemblances, given all the ideas still swirling around about this image, but depending on what you may have seen of the respective iconography. I think it is also meant to pull in all these references (Jonah et al could be in play too, plus more) and makes a statement about it all. 

It is the genealogical aspect of Melusine which would fit in to my interpretation. If you extend the genealogy idea all the way back to the origins of human beings, it brings a humanist view to it, everyone came from the same place when you go far enough back in history. I think this is what this image relates, specifically, Anaximander's version of human origins, which has protohumans incubating in fish mouths until the terrain was habitable for them, since the earlier Earth was different. Anaximander coincidently is also considered the father of geography by subsequent geographers like Strabo and others, so for the imagery combination to include geographic (and hydrogaphic, hence the fish) references with these philosophical ideas is also appropos. Taken together, i think the author(s) show us where they thought that instant when the fish spit the humans onto the shore might have occurred, (the animals already having been esablished, with some even having returned to live in the ocean) based on geographic anomalies which hint at an earlier state of existence, a paradise where there is now only eroded volcanic wasteland. 

This may seem anachronistic to some but i think it was completely possible for someone from that time to have such thoughts, if they had access to the knowledge of these features of the terrain and intuited its previous history, perhaps some knowledge of archeological finds, and their upbringing allowed for openmindedness of thinking that origins of humans happened farther back than 6000 years ago (or whatever the count was at that time). If you read Strabo's geography now, it could have been written yesterday, but that was 1400 years earlier than the time of vms creation (being translated at the time though, thus they could have read it too) so i don't buy the idea that we can't think like they did in the 15th century, or vice versa, when we can understand the older ideas without too much trouble (as long as we can read it).

So the statement i think it makes about Melusine et al is that all these non human icons over time are part of our human psyche, so they all have to do with being human. ie it says to retain the history and tradition behind these fanciful creatures and incredible stories they come along with, because it shows us ourselves more clearly in the mirror of time. Protect the libraries, maybe? Also a humanistic idea. Could be this is how your collection of library connections works, maybe that is why all the mnemomics and glyphs, to protect information that could otherwise be lost, if the libraries were no more.

I also like JKP's Aquarius and Piscis Notius reference,  the fish swallowing the stream of water, because that is basically what i see it doing, the nymph stands for the waterfalls that used to be there, and the real fish would have benefited from human occupation of that area, providing the humans with ample food in turn. It is the dawning of the age of Aquarius, the current age being Pisces, both now and upon creation of the vms. it was just a bit darker dawn in the 15th century, but at roughly two thirds the way through i think they would have been thinking about it similarly. That simultaneous notion of past and future possibilities is powerful. ie the paradise can return, but so can the flood that likely created the anomaly in the first place. The aspect of the world repeating itself is also involved in this idea, it was of concern. The two fish of Pisces are said to be the offspring of the Great Fish, so there you have the past present and future all rolled up into one continuous image, from our (collective) perspective, at this time. Melusine may yet return too.

Here's another thought. From the perspective of the early to mid-1400s, take as many fish related stories and images as you can gather, sort out the common factors, (e.g. Melusine changing form vs. Jonah being swallowed or disgorged), combine them in an illustration that is intentionally ambiguous and not displaying a high level of artistic skill. And what do you get?

Now take that illustration to the streets of Dijon (etc.) and ask the average man or woman in a country where the ruling family has for three generations claimed to be descended from Melusine what the image might represent. Will their answer be generic or specific? It seems reasonable to me that any person of that era, who has any knowledge or past and present Burgundian tradition, will be familiar with the royal propaganda. Apply the same test to the image on f. 57 of Harley 334. Whether Burgundian or French there is still a Valois connection and still a connection to Melusine.

Representing a mermaid is reasonable because there are many unnamed mermaids. Having a Melusine is like have *a* Zeus or having *a* King Arthur. How many are there??? There are multiple myths, but, at least in theory, they are based on a specific, singular, named personification.

That is why i said it depended on what you had seen of the iconography. We don't know the intended audience is French or Burgundian royalty or their subjects, it could have been meant for the family of an Italian sailor, in which case the mermaids might be more recognizeable than Melusine, or someone somewhere who might more likely see Johah. In terms of what it really is, onmly the maker(s) know for sure. I am trying to say that this ambiguity can include the specific notions of others on the subject of lineage, since i think this depictiion denotes the origins of everything to do with humanity. To equate it to Melusine would be to make specific the idea to the audience you mention, the idea of lineage to a water nymph, even though they would not perhaps see the Anaximander fish idea, having seen Melusine instead. But i can't see it as depicting Melusine in any other way as the imagery lacks any other hint of her story. The idea i had about how she could still be there is more about the idea of keeping up the knowledge of traditions even though they may be fantastic or false, to have a clearer view of humanity and its understanding of concepts through time.

(03-10-2020, 10:20 PM)Linda Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But i can't see it as depicting Melusine in any other way as the imagery lacks any other hint of her story.

I also prefer the Melusine representations that clearly tell her story. So for example this one:

The breaking of the taboo: The husband sees his wife Melusine in the bathroom and discovers her snake body.

[attachment=4980]

Germanisches Nationalmuseum, Hs 4028, Thüring, von Ringoltingen, Melusine, 1468, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

bi3mw,

Yes, that needs to be the standard for identification. It isn't an illustration of Melusine, as a source for comparison, unless the source indicates that that it is intended to be an image of Melusine. Anonymous creatures need not apply, unless, like the dragon over the castle of Lusignan, the identification is implicit.

That being said, there is still a range of representative features for Melusine: full dragon, half-woman half-fish, half-woman half-snake, etc. Sometimes there are wings. Wings seem to be a fairly good indicator, in that there don't seem to be similar creatures having wings in other myths of this era. At the same time, a number of examples identified as Melusine do not have any wings.

Does VMs You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. show an image of Melusine? Perhaps. And if so, which Melusine myth is it? Is there a companion creature in the VMs illustration that compares with the representation of the Golden Fleece? Perhaps.

These are not my discoveries. Surely they need to be questioned and discussed. The results, however, are too often ambiguous. And ambiguous results tend to be dismissed.

There is an alternative interpretation which I call provisional acceptance. If these identifications are valid, what does that tell us? As multiple identifications indicate a similar provenance, an area of interest develops.

Based on the similarities between VMs You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and Harley 334 f57, the primary figure and four companion critters, what does Harley 334 have to say about the f57 illustration?

I would appreciate further clarification on the passage in post #28, where a German source, in translation, makes the statement: "and discovers her snake body."

What German word was used for 'snake' in the original text? Was is Schlange? Is there another word? Schlange is also a serpent. There may not be a lot of difference between snakes and serpents from a modern perspective, but from a medieval perspective, if one sees snakes as snakes and serpents to include mythological personas, then there is a more significant difference.

And so the artist painted what it said; a snake. No frills, no fins, no wings - a snake. The image really is one of the plainest and simplest representations of Melusine's lower half - and no wings. Snakes don't fly. Snakes don't have wings. Only mythological serpents can fly.

The old 1960 Encyclopedia Britannica, which was dated at the time, calls Melusine a "tutelary fairy", calls her a serpent and says she "flew away in serpent form." Serpents have wings, like the dragon of Lusignan.

Language itself can be tricky. The heraldic terminology for the nebuly line has its Latin derivation and its German equivalent (gewolkt) both referring to clouds. It is something that is a shared interpretation in both the Latin and Germanic language groups.

On the other hand, the obscure heraldic fur that has a clear scale-like pattern and was known known in English and French as papelonne, was known in German simply as 'scale covered', without any innate connection to the butterflies referenced in the French/English term. The presence of these heraldic images and their placement, along with the "PAPE" sound, is essential to interpreting this VMs puzzle. Pape refers to the Genoese popes of VMs White Aries. In this case the potential for a canted interpretation is more language specific and doesn't work in German because the "PAPE" sound or its equivalent referential term is not used.