The Voynich Ninja

Back to the lines in question, the use of nebuly lines and their potential sources of origin.

If it is proposed that Hellenistic sources transmitted these elements through Byzantine intermediaries to the VMs artist, then those elements, the nebuly lines, should exist in Byzantine art and heraldry. Are there examples? I don't really know. There is Byzantine heraldry. I looked through what Google coughed up and did not see any examples of such lines. None of the insignia had the basic, geometric simplicity that is found in the early phase of European heraldry. But if you like double-headed eagles, you're in luck.

Is there an example that shows a nebuly line or something like a nebuly line in a Byzantine context? To what extent were the standard heraldic lines of division being used in Byzantine heraldry in general?

I cite Byzantium as a possible place where the sources for the root-and-leaf section have been made. This mainly because it was a multicultural centre between East an West, where for many people the Greek heritage was still very much alive. They have long identified as Greeks rather than Romans.

It seems obvious to me that the VM has little to do with standard Byzantine art. Byzantium just stands out as one possible place to explain some of the stranger aspects of my findings about the root and leaf section. 

If I want to answer the question: where did people live and work for whom this information would be incredibly useful, Byzantium stands out as a fine option.

Specifically about the line, my main argument is that those lines appear to tap into an older tradition and have little to do with heraldry. They seem like a derivate of the aegis pattern, which had the symbolic meaning of a protective 'shield'. If we assume a collection of similar old sources, this is an option. 

JKP, I agree about pagan, as in pre-Christian. The difference in attitude can also be seen in the fact that a large portion of the Balneis people are drawn without visible nipples or genitals or attempt to hide them, while in the Voynich no such taboo can be found.

Koen Gh,

I think ReneZ's suggestion above was going in the same direction as MarcoP's on the other thread.

You are rather demanding regarding the evidence that others offer, and challenge them to produce perfect matches and detailed examples for everything they claim.  I personally enjoy your challenges because they push me to delve more deeply.

But obviously then, it is only fair that people on this forum will expect you to apply the same standard to your own suggestions: if you want to be convincing, you can't just say Byzantium (or anywhere) makes a fine choice the Voynich source material or for the root and leaf section format, just because it was multicultural and had a lot of trade.

Specifically: you're going to have to show us Byzantine manuscripts with containers and roots and leaves set up like that, and manuscripts that use leaf or root shapes evoking Greek legends as mnemonic devices in plants.

I have nothing against any origin theory about the Voynich, but it is always when we get down to specifics, providing examples and explaining transmission and historical continuity that things get more difficult. In Voynich studies as in life, some people can't stand that and take offence when they are challenged, and that's a shame: challenges make us better.

ReneZ,
The problem with Singer is that it's not at all clear that he had even seen the Voynich when he made that description, based on the evidence unearthed by Rich SantaColoma You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. Of course, that doesn't detract from the interest of the idea of archei, (or similar), being possibly featured in the balneo section.

VViews:

There are two problems with what you ask of me:

- I never asked someone to produce an example that explains an entire section. (If I ever did, I'm very sorry.) Most of my remarks were aimed at concrete statements or comparisons. For example, at some point Helmut Winkler said the following, in relation to the animal's scales being a sheep's wool:

Quote:you can see these curls on medieval  images of sheep again and again

I then said that I would have liked to see an example of this - he stated that a large number of examples existed, so it's not an unreasonable question.
He then linked You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. Perhaps you can see why I was a bit disappointed.

Then people (including myself, because I wanted to help this ongoing line of investigation) produced very specific images of the golden fleece and this nebuly line ram, to explain this image. Again, my criticism remained to the point: both the nebuly ram and the golden fleece are recognized as a ram because of the iconic horns, which the VM animal is missing. 

When I offer the example of Byzantium, I do so in an attempt to provide a context in which my observations could coexist. It's not a perfect context, but this statement is already of a higher level than the ones I'm criticizing. By no means I see the VM as a typical product of Byzantine culture, or any culture for that matter.
 
You won't find a complete parallel for any VM section in any other manuscript. If that existed, in any culture or time, we would have found it already and the Voynich would have been solved. The possibility exists that, like I believe, MS Beinecke 408 is the result of various older sources being copied and adapted, possibly several times, each source and each copy leaving its own marks. 

I don't ask people to provide a perfect parallel for an entire section, because such a thing is impossible.

The level of questions I do ask, however, I can usually answer about my own work. If you have questions of this level, please ask them, and I will try to answer:
- "Pattern x is common in y." --> can I see an example?
- "This is a ram because it appears with a nebuly line" --> many other things appear with lines of this type. It does not help to identify the animal.
- "It's still a ram though." --> Why doesn't it have curly horns?
- "It's a nebuly line, like in heraldry." --> In that case, isn't it strange that little effort seems to have been made to make the bulbs symmetrical, while some wavy lines in Voynich plants do show decent symmetry?

These are all simple, to the point questions based on one or two arguments, about those specific arguments. I'd love it if people asked such questions about my work. These questions can be answered, debated... Or they can give the author a chance to explore some problems about his statements.

Asking for a match for a whole section is what you have just done above for the balneo, dismissing balneis puteolanis as an inspiration because it doesn't match exactly with the details of the way the nymphs in the Voynich are represented.

But returning to your work, I'd really appreciate it if you would take the time to look into the history of the objects you use for comparison in your mnemonic examples and reference them in a more detailed way.
Showing one unnamed statue or vase of which one detail resembles a Voynich leaf if we rotate it by 90° is not very convincing to me. You have to be able to name this particular vase or statue (current location, collection number?) and show that it was not, say, destroyed or lost in 1AD and then retrieved and pieced back together by archaeologists in the 1930's, but that it was visible at the time you suggest it would have inspired the Voynich artist.

Your You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. about Thalia is an example of this and presents several additional problems: the statues you show are unnamed, we don't know anything about where they were or how the Voynich artist would have seen them. If you mean that the artist would not have seen the images but read a description of Thalia, then provide a text that describes Thalia holding a head with a spiky beard.
Then there is the issue of resemblance: The plant leaf is half-rounded, half spiky, and the head held by Thalia in your examples has no such spiky beard: it's either beardless or has a curly beard or one that has two long wavy ends. The artocarpus fruit example you compare it with is completely spiky, not half.
In any case, how would the artist have both had knowledge of ancient greco-roman statues and thai fruits? Traders were not educated in universities. Also, remember that there was no refrigeration at the time, so many fruits never made it back because they would have rotted before they could reach their destination. If you're claiming the artist would have seen the artocarpus depicted in a manuscript, then reference that herbal manuscript where a description or illustration of artocarpus resembling the Voynich one is visible.

I think that if you start to reference your examples more systematically, you might be able to construct a geography of where and when the Voynich artist would have had to be physically present, or have traveled to, in order to witness them all.

(09-04-2016, 11:40 AM)VViews Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.ReneZ,
The problem with Singer is that it's not at all clear that he had even seen the Voynich when he made that description, based on the evidence unearthed by Rich SantaColoma You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. Of course, that doesn't detract from the interest of the idea of archei, (or similar), being possibly featured in the balneo section.

I am very familiar with that story and it is one of dozens of highly interesting side stories to the Voynich MS and its history. I dug into it a bit more, but it is probably a bit off-topic here. In any case, he clearly says he saw the MS.

The real point is, though, that I find it of interest to know what these archei looked like. But perhaps there are no illustrations of them, and they are only mentioned in his text. Anyhow, Paracelsus' work almost certainly postdates the Voynich MS.

(09-04-2016, 03:13 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The real point is, though, that I find it of interest to know what these archei looked like. But perhaps there are no illustrations of them, and they are only mentioned in his text. Anyhow, Paracelsus' work almost certainly postdates the Voynich MS.

I don't know much about these things, but as far as I remember the  archaei are a neo-Platonic concept, something in the Astral plane and not only Paracelsian, but used before him in Alchemical circles (Agrippa?) and there was a lot of neo-Platonism around in the 15th c. What I mean to say: If there are similarities, they must not be derived from Paracelsus, but P. and the VMs could be derived from common sources.

Vviews:

Quote:Asking for a match for a whole section is what you have just done above for the balneo, dismissing balneis puteolanis as an inspiration because it doesn't match exactly with the details of the way the nymphs in the Voynich are represented.

Okay, you may be right. I'll try to be a bit less demanding
I'll admit that several VM bathing scenes do bear resemblances to the Balneis. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. for example. So we can agree about that, and then zoom out a little bit. On the previous folio, which still looks quite aquatic, we see 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. and... well, you know. So those are questions that should be addressed next, if someone were to persue a Balneis path. But I'll grant that the Balneis resembles some VM scenes.

On the other hand, it does still show quite a number of clearly recognizable typically christian people and symbols, including crosses, a church, Jesus, a woman with a halo, a pope and other clergymen... so I don't agree that it is similar to the VM "bathing scenes" in that aspect.

Quote:But returning to your work, I'd really appreciate it if you would take the time to look into the history of the objects you use for comparison in your mnemonic examples and reference them in a more detailed way.

Agreed. You know, this is the first time that someone here actually says what is unclear about my work and how I can improve it. I will provide more consistent info in later posts.

Quote:Showing one unnamed statue or vase of which one detail resembles a Voynich leaf if we rotate it by 90° is not very convincing to me. You have to be able to name this particular vase or statue (current location, collection number?) and show that it was not, say, destroyed or lost in 1AD and then retrieved and pieced back together by archaeologists in the 1930's, but that it was visible at the time you suggest it would have inspired the Voynich artist.

I agree that I should tell the reader which tradition the statue belongs to and when and where it came from. The question whether this specific statue was visible to the author is usually less relevant though. When I show Greek imagery, I generally try to show that this was a type, a more or less conventional way of depicting this figure. The examples I show are the ones of which I think they were similar, or of the same "type" as the ones the original artist and his sources were used to. For example, if you do a google image search for You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. you'll see that Nike was depicted in some standard poses on these coins, many of which were rather widespread, from Macedonia to Egypt to the East. If you click though to one of those "collector sites", you see that there are dozens and dozens of surviving coins, all with similar poses, from different regions and times.

Quote:Your You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. about Thalia is an example of this and presents several additional problems: the statues you show are unnamed, we don't know anything about where they were or how the Voynich artist would have seen them. If you mean that the artist would not have seen the images but read a description of Thalia, then provide a text that describes Thalia holding a head with a spiky beard.

Thalia isn't my favorite identification. The plant is problematic and the image isn't too telling. It's one of those where I would gladly accept more convincing matches. 

Once again, "Thalia with mask" was a visual type though, like Jesus with a cross, or a burning heart, or... Thalia had a mask, in most depictions. This convention survived antiquity: see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., and many others. While the mask became smooth in later times, in antiquity it was often bearded, or beardless but with hair on the head. See You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....  These comedy masks were, of course, also an item known in their own right, see for example You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. 

I call these mnemonics emblematic mnemonics because they exploit exactly the fact that many people in many Greco-Roman areas were exposed to these standard images, conventions, and would recognize them. If I draw a plant like a bent man carrying a cross, you will recognize who I mean. I explain the difference between emblematic mnemonics and narrative mnemonics in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Now narrative mnemonics are a different story. Here, the original artist had no well known image to evoke. For example, the story of Cadmus slaying the dragon was well known, but there was no "quick and easy" way to recognize Cadmus by a stance or attribute. In this case, the mnemonic is a narrative one. The best example is in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. It tells several scenes, and I quote Ovid to describe them.

Quote:Then there is the issue of resemblance: The plant leaf is half-rounded, half spiky, and the head held by Thalia in your examples has no such spiky beard: it's either beardless or has a curly beard or one that has two long wavy ends. The artocarpus fruit example you compare it with is completely spiky, not half.

Good remark. This is, unfortunately, the result of the blending between a plant and an iconic image: neither will be perfectly represented, just like the mnemonic names of the mythological figures aren't completely the same as foreign plant names. Maybe there is an explanation in the paragraphs? I don't know.

Quote:In any case, how would the artist have both had knowledge of ancient greco-roman statues and thai fruits? Traders were not educated in universities. Also, remember that there was no refrigeration at the time, so many fruits never made it back because they would have rotted before they could reach their destination. If you're claiming the artist would have seen the artocarpus depicted in a manuscript, then reference that herbal manuscript where a description or illustration of artocarpus resembling the Voynich one is visible.

Again a good remark. This fruit is, today still, a local one because it expires. The tree would have yielded other valuable materials though, like wood, fibres and even glue. Also, the crew has to eat.

But this is something I'm still struggling with myself. If you look at "normal" root-and-leaf folios like f100r , you see modest or no mnemonics, and relatively "normal" plants. See my recent discussion of 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. as an example. These plants could probably be linked to other traditions. The Theophrastian corpus, perhaps?

On the other hand, there is the mnemonic excess of the "Mythological foldout", both recto and verso side. These plants relate to the trade around India, and apparently even further. I frankly don't know enough about this part of history to say who was educated in Greek culture and would have needed this information. Was this foldout originally a different source altogether, that got edited by these educated "Greeks"? Several people here have theorized that the foldouts may have once been separate sheets. Maybe?

Until recently I was rather naive and thought these mnemonics would have been used by actual sailors who went to these places. Sailors were a savage bunch though. I now think it more likely that these documents were gathered and edited for an educated person with a higher social status. Perhaps someone overseeing shipments in a culturally Greek trade hub? (Hence the Byzantium suggestions). Perhaps someone who was more of a fleet manager, coordinating ships on various routes? I don't know yet.

From what I've read, people who travelled the entire trade route were an exception. This is another reason why I think an official or fleet manager type is more likely. But we know so little about the intercontinental trade, and I know even less, so this is pure speculation. Since you showed interest in the story-based mnemonics, I wonder what you think about the Cadmus post?

So well, I hoped that clarified some things. I for one will add more information to my imagery in next posts, and I'll be more cautious in theorizing about a historical background until there is more certainty.

My efforts to find a definition of aegis are somewhat limited by historical ambiguity.

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

The Gorgon's face is on the Aegis, is that correct? And the Gorgon is on the scaly patterned part that sits on the shoulders and upper chest. Then does the red and black pattern selected have anything to do with the aegis? It just happens to be included in the same image?

The origin of the aegis is a bit cloudy. Some say a serpent; some say a goat. If it is suggested that the scaliness of the serpent is reflected in the VMs representation of a pangolin, then the wrong pattern in the Greek image has been highlighted in this discussion. If the chosen pattern that runs down the side of the dress is a representation of goat hair, because it is clearly not scaly, then the VMs animal is a goat, I suppose. Goats and sheep have certain similarities.

It seems to me that there are distinct differences between the nebuly line and the aegis line examples. First the difference in connotation. And second is the difference in structure, where the aegis line correctly fails to make any effort to match bulbs on one side of the line with bulbs on the other side of the line. That structure, that effort is plainly lacking in the aegis image.

Now compare the VMs example with these two types of line. Yes, the top of the VMs line is a bit canted to the side, but the bottom part is better - better than the top part! Not nonexistent like the aegis example, but a better rendition of a nebuly line than the top portion. And that makes the VMs example a nebuly line.

The VMs animal has not been identified as a ram. Several suggestions have been made with various merits. The lines are a second factor in the VMs illustration. Can they be ignored?? The lines are there - what is their interpretation??

1) Nebuly lines are part of heraldry. Heraldry was a concurrent, established, traditional system in many of locations where the VMs may have been composed.

2) Aegis lines come from Greek mythology images into the Hellenistic era. They may have been transmitted through the Byzantine culture and traveled along trade routes to the VMs author. No Byzantine examples are known, however.

Heraldry apparently came late to the Byzantine culture and did not flourish. There does not seem to be an early development phase of geometric designs in historical Byzantine imsignia. The idea of a nebuly line transmitted through Byzantine culture is probably not valid.

Therefore if the VMs examples are interpreted as nebuly lines, then the comparative challenge is to find other examples of illustrations of *any* animal similarly drawn with nebuly lines (or other heraldic lines).
Other examples still appreciated!!!!!!

The *only* posted example of such a combination is the Tubingen ram (Aries). Does that make the VMs animal a ram? Hard to say. But it does make the two illustrations comparable. And the third factor, the blue paint, is also a strong similarity. I'll leave it at that.

Hi Koen Gh,
thanks for replying so positively to what I wanted to express as a constructive critique.
I find your post on cadmus really interesting; I'll look into that in more detail later (busy weekend). Where is the header illustration from?
Also thank you for your explanation about your use of mnemonics, and your narrative/emblematic distinction. I have no issue with the process in itself, on the contrary, I think it's definitely worthy of consideration.

I do want to draw your attention to one point, which I think is quite important:
In your reply, you mention the fact that the image of Thalia "survived" antiquity, using a 1739 painting to prove it. I just want to warn you about confusing the re-emergence with continuity: the 18th century was the heyday of neo-classicism, which draws on the earlier Renaissance classicism of the 16th C. These movements are so named precisely because they draw on classical sources from antiquity, and emulate their style, in contrast to what was done in intermediate periods such as the middle ages. Finding a classical image resurrected in neoclassical times does not indicate that the image continued to be produced, in the interval. 

Coins are a different matter. I am not a specialist of numismatics, but this is what I know: 
Contrary to today, coin value was not based on what was imprinted on them (face value), but literally by their weight in the metal they were made from. When people found old coins, they generally saw them for their bullion value, and these were often re-minted. There are exceptions for gold coins, which tended to be generally accepted for trade regardless of their place/time of origin, until the advent of the Florin and Guilder.
"Surviving" coins from antiquity are usually precisely those that were not continuously in circulation but remained hidden in some way (a lot of them were found by excavation, or by underwater archaeologists in recent times).

Side note about collecting: Although there was a practice of ancient coin collecting in Roman times, this disappeared in the early centuries AD. Petrarch is credited with re-launching the trend in the 14th C, but this was a practice limited to the higher nobility, hence the fact that numismatics (this is an 18th C term) was nicknamed the hobby of kings. The first book presenting a history of coins, De Asse et Partibus Eius, was written in 1514.

Regarding coins in Byzantium, I would recommend You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. as a starting point, especially for the map of the coins made in various Byzantine mints.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. gives a great overview of the coins in use in various areas/periods (in French, but very visual and easy to use even for a non-speaker I think).
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is a pretty good hub of links to information about medieval money, precious metals and economics.

All this to say, as in my previous post, that although I have no problem with the core premise of your research, care needs to be taken when referring to examples from antiquity beyond authors and manuscripts for which the continuity is often well proven, and that looking into the history of artefacts and iconographies may lead you to be able to determine which kind of person would have been in a position to observe all of the elements you believe served as inspiration for the Voynich.