The Voynich Ninja

I have hinted at it a couple of times, but finally it is done. I present to you the first episode of Voynich Talk! I wanted to make more videos like the interviews David and I did before, but also I wanted some more freedom in the format.

Instead of interviews with a single guest, I would like to invite one or more guests to talk about a selected topic.

As for the expected publication schedule, there is none. I  don't expect to put out more than one video a month, since these take a lot of my spare time, and also I don't want to wear down potential (recurring) guests and topics too quickly. If I can approach some semblance of long-term regularity, I will be happy.

Normally, the talks will be focused on the guests and their input on the topic, and I will just guide the conversation.

However, for this first episode, we did something different. Together with Cary Rapaport, I have been researching the Herbal section (large plants). We studied different elements of the plant drawings, and noticed that many of them were near-exclusively found in either Herbal A or Herbal B. As it turns out, there are many more consistent features indicating the typical A-style and B-style than were previously known.

We developed the system to such a degree that we could now easily classify most plants as A or B by looking at the picture alone.

I even thought that we could probably teach someone else, thereby testing the validity of the system in the process. And so the idea for the first episode of Voynich Talk was born.

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

Thanks to Lisa Fagin Davis, Lars Dietz (@Oocephalus), Michelle Lewis and David Jackson for their participation!

For a more in-depth discussion of distinctive plant features, see:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

That was fun to watch!
Thanks Koen.

And thank you for letting us use your plant images! While making the video I thought several times about how much work it must have been to isolate them.

Well done Koen and Cary, and of great interest!!

I think that we should also highlight a group of three plant drawings You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (A, hand 1), You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (A, hand 1), You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (B, hand 2).

These plants have inflorescences of different types on one plant (an analogue is corn, which has an inflorescence - a panicle, and an inflorescence - an ear).

We checked around one hundred different features, but different types of inflorescence on one plant is one we missed. Possibly because it's so rare. When something has only three occurrences, you can't say much about its distribution, especially if they fall into the more numerous A-section. 

In this case, the distribution is 2 A vs. 1 B. Now to compensate for B's smaller amount of folios, you can roughly "normalize" the count by multiplying it by 3. So in this case, the numbers would be two occurrences in A, three occurrences in B (if it has as many folios as A). In other words, an even distribution.

Rare features can be more interesting if they occur more often in B. For example, the "screen" type inflorescence like the one on top of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. appears to lean towards B. It occurs in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (A) but also in 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 f 41v (B). If you then normalize B, you get 1A vs. 8B. Still, with only 4 occurrences and one in A, we did not find this convincing enough to include.

Edit: actually the "screen" of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is questionable, so this would leave only three attestations, all in B. This is probably relevant, but 3 (in absolute numbers) is not much to work with.


Zoomorphic roots are also interesting if you normalize for B: we got 4A vs. 6B. If B would have as many folios as A and keep up the same trend, that would actually be 4A vs. 17B. However, we only included features with fewer exceptions.

[attachment=8436]

@Koen
It was certainly interesting, even if I didn't understand much.
So I see the one hand where special features are emphasised.
I have copied down the picture from you here. Perhaps a little too early.
From left to right. Without looking at the plants themselves.
1 + 2 is clear. This is where special features come into play.
In 3 (right) it looks as if he has enlarged the stem a little to see the details. That was my first impression.
After a little thought I would say they are impressions of growth. 1. the closed bud. 2. the elongated shape with leaf. And 3. no longer to be seen here. The whole plant with fruiting body.
That's how I would describe this detail now.

Congratulations! I think these features are so important and definitely help to think about the question of artists and scribes. I suspect - but still just suspect - that these observations will support a contention that at least some of the scribes were also illustrating their own pages. Working on it...

(18-04-2024, 04:27 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Congratulations! I think these features are so important and definitely help to think about the question of artists and scribes. I suspect - but still just suspect - that these observations will support a contention that at least some of the scribes were also illustrating their own pages. Working on it...

Thanks, Lisa, and thank you for your enthusiastic participation in the video
Some of the discussion we had about scribes will be included in part 2 of the video, but I still need to record and edit part of that. Either way, the matter of scribes/text/images remains to be investigated further. I do think our findings corroborate your scribes to a large degree, but the situation is more complex than "each scribe did their own drawings". At least in my opinion. I keep feeling like quire 8 will be essential to understanding how the different people who worked on the manuscript interacted - this wil also be addressed in part 2.

Thank you for sharing these intriguing observations. It's fascinating to note the distinction between the illustrations on the Herbal pages in Currier A and those in Currier B. In my opinion, the plants also exhibit many similarities and similar ideas like the "root platforms". Therefore, I would only conclude that Herbal B pages were illustrated separately from Herbal A pages, but not necessarily that different scribes illustrated these pages.

On your webpage you list 11 folios with daisies: 31r, 34v, 39r, 40r, 40v, 43r, 43v, 46r, 46v, 48r, 48v. I'm curious why you didn't include 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. in your count? You describe the flowers on f53r and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. yourself as "B-like flowers". Maybe it is just the wording as you describe the list as "Daisies are found in 11 B-folios" and what you mean are not Daisies in generall? I'm also not sure if I would include You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. to that list.

You also list 8 folios with what you call "grass" (many parallel lines that appear to be growing around the base of the stem): 45r, 34v, 39v, 43v, 46r, 55r, 94v, 95v2. Can you explain why you didn't include 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 You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. to that list? Are you only counting parallel lines at the base of the stem? If that's the case, why did you include f43v, f46r, and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. then? (Note: Where did you see parallel lines at You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. at all?)