The Voynich Ninja

Now that I'm starting to publish mt research on mnemonics in the root and leaf section (I prefer Diane's term over "pharma section"), I was wondering what your opinion would be about this specific plant. In my research it's more of an aside, so I haven't studied it elaborately yet. I mention it on the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. on my new blog. 

There is "mnemonic activity" in the roots as well as in the leaves. If we first have a look at the roots, we see they are drawn like two "legs", with something rather strange in between. I think it's a foot, drawn in "running" position. It appears to have five toes and an ankle.



Now let's look at the leaves: the three leaves on the left are normal. Their tip is nice and round, like a good, decent leaf tip. Their position is as one would expect a leaf to behave.
But now look at the leaf on the right. Its "tip" is drawn totally differently. Also, it appears to hang more, like it's heavier than the other leaves.

Come on, it's a phallus.

But what does it mean?  Some kind of hardwood? 

My best guess, in the light of my other research, is that it has something to do with Hermes, who was both a messenger (running foot) and a fertility god (large phallus). I'm not certain though, so I wonder what you guys make of this.

Hi Koen Gh.,
While I quite like the idea you develop on your blog of mnemonics being involved in the Voynich, I personally believe the "shape" of that leaf is due to the green paint job rather than the underlying drawing.
Unfortunately, we still don't know when this green paint layer was added, or even if the person who applied it understood the contents of the text. In any case, that person was rather sloppy in their application of paint, especially the contours. So personally, I don't place much faith in this green paint job as a source of useful information.
If you look at the drawing under the green paint, it is just like that of the other leaves.
 
"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar"

VViews

I agree that we have to be careful not to become "pareidolic" and try to see hidden shapes in everything. However, when I look at the formal indicators you suggest - outline versus paintjob - I see a difference between the left leaves and the one on the right. 

The leaves on the left have only been given these "spines", which extend beyond the leaf, they have no outline. The right leaf on the other hand, has a much smoother appearance on top (like one would expect in a phallus) and the "tip" (sorry) has been clearly traced with an outline. The couple of spines that do leave the  phallus on the bottom - like, sorry again, hairs - are much thinner lines than those leaving the other plants. Do you see what I mean?


For my general theory it's not too important whether the phallus is a leaf or a phallus though - I argue that the roots are the most mnemonic heavy. Would you agree that there's a foot in the roots?

I think that possibly these were not meant to be leaves, but some kind of spikes. Possibly cereals, like this illustration from the Naples Dioscurides f69 (millet).

---

I don't remember seeing foot-shaped roots, but Alchemical Herbals have a "Palma Christi" (Hand of Christ) plant:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Well, there's a hand-root too, but that looks more like a leek. (Just copying the image from the "exercises" on my blog). As I mentioned there as well, this is the most anatomically accurate hand in the manuscript. 



Edit: also, I will discuss finger millet in a future post. It would typically be left white. I've grown accustomed to the imagery in the root and leaf section over the past months, and those are definitely leaves with spines.

(07-03-2016, 05:19 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.and those are definitely leaves with spines.

Better than phalli

Yeah, on the phallus they're reduced to just a couple of hairs

(Some animals like cats have spiked penises though... but I digress)

A lot of things are naturally phallus-shaped, so it's really hard to tell. The plant root of that particular plant is somewhat manlike, so perhaps there's the suggestion of a phallus in the "leaf" (or grain head), or maybe it's a coincidence.

Often in medieval art, shapes are added to suggest which part of the body the plant helps. If someone were drawing Avena sativa, for example (wild oats), which for centuries has been reputed to have hormonal properties/effects, it would not be unusual for them to render the suggestion of a phallus within the drawing. In Pagan times they wouldn't have been shy about adding it. Once Christian prohibitions about nudity became widespread, fig leaves were added, phalluses were knocked off statues, phalluses and breasts were wiped out of manuscripts, and parts went "private" (were suggested rather than rendered more obviously).

There's a pretty unambiguous phallus in the biological section, and a lot of nudity in the VMS, so I don't know if the illustrator would have been shy about suggesting a phallus in one of the plants.


Dunno.

JKP

An unambiguous phallus in the biological section? Which one do you mean?

If this is a phallus, I would of course agree with a more pagan interpretation, the reason why I mentioned Hermes.

You see, the ancients liked small, delicate penises in their art. Not in a sexual way - they just thought the male body as an artistic object was more beautiful with a civilized, slender penis.

Sizable phalli like the one this, would, if I remember correctly, only be used in two contexts:

- To make a figure appear uncivilized, barbaric... like Satyrs.
- Fertility deities, like Priapus. 


The reason why I don't abandon the "phallus theory" right away, is exactly this. 
If we were to associate the running foot with a deity, it would likely be Hermes/Mercurius. And he doubled as a god of fertility. Look for example at this picture, where Mercurius, with his usual winged feet, is given a Priapic phallus:



So we get a running foot and large phallus in one deity. This is where it gets interesting for my theory - I think the mnemonics in the root and leaf section offer "vocabulary/pronunciation hints" for Greek speakers.

If I were to analyse this plant the way I did in my running series of blog posts, I would first consider these two options:

- foot+ phallus refer to Hermes --> plant name sounds like /hermes/
- foot and phallus are separate clues --> Ancient Greek for "foot" is πούς m ‎(poús), (Laconian) πόρ m ‎(pór). In that case, it is likely that the phallus acts as a double hint, suggesting that the plant sounds like /priapous/.

This is far from certain of course. I would first have to back it up with a plant name that does sound like hermes or (pria)pous and a label reading along those lines.

(07-03-2016, 08:46 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.JKP

An unambiguous phallus in the biological section? Which one do you mean?

...

Well, I could be wrong, but the diagram in the middle-left of folio 77v looked to me like an ejaculating penis (whether urine or semen, I don't know) from the first moment I saw it. The other drawings on the page look suggestive of fallopian tubes or uteruses or vaginas (I'm not certain what they are, but they an internal sexual anatomy feeling to them).

There were prohibitions against carving up human cadavers in those days, but they did do it in some of the universities, they were permitted to dissect animals, Caesarian sections did exist, many people butchered their own animals for meat, and there were enough people drawn and quartered in public squares, or sliced to bits on battlefields, that I'm pretty sure the medieval community was far more familiar with internal anatomy than our public school system has led us to believe, in fact, far more than the average person today.


So... to me it looks like she is standing in the testicles and it's male anatomy. Have I been wrong in assuming other people see it that way as well?