The Voynich Ninja

"The reactions will be one of the following:
- *awkward ignoring*
- "You are crazy as a person!"
- "Yes, but it's a German snake!"
- "The artist drew this cobra, symbol of Egypt, wearing another symbol of Egypt on its head, by accident!"
Let's see which one it is this time

Again, as I expressed already in my post above, I agree with others here that you are assuming too much about people on here.
I'm a bit disappointed that you would second-guess everyone on this forum like that. Did you wake up on the wrong foot?
You've already complained about being ignored here, and people explained that you weren't being ignored, and we had a long thread discussing why people ignore people, if they do.
We've been having lots of conversations and I haven't seen anyone call you crazy.
The German thing is a caricature, and you've had ample opportunities on this forum to see people suggesting other sources.

This whole thread is based on a false assumption about other people.

Vviews: I didn't say everyone is like that, I'm just describing a tendency. I'm talking about the wider scene outside of this forum. Here most people have a relatively open mind, which I'm happy about.

That does't mean though, that most effort doesn't go towards comparing it to Latin Medieval imagery. I was genuinely wondering if there is any concrete evidence for that, besides general impressions.

So far only Anton has actually answered that question, and I agree with his observations about the script, but not necessarily with the conclusions he draws from it.

By the way: you ignore snake and lighthouse and talk about my emotional state......

But anyways, I edited my original post. Although, all I said was "Most people seem to think...". With that I really wasn't aiming at every single person on this forum. Come on, I like you guys. Yesterday I was even reminded of R.Sale when I saw You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. 

Koen Gh,

you have started another thread about your snake and lighthouse comparison, so I didn't realize that you really also wanted it addressed in here. So now there are two threads discussing your blog post...?
I imputed your dismissiveness to a bad mood because it is unlike what I've seen from you so far.

As for the actual question, I won't venture into imagining why other people, and by extension those who are not on this forum might think this or that. Especially when I don't think that the root of your question has any basis in fact.
Seriously, I think if you go and look online for people who actually have stated that they believe the content is necessarily 15th C, you'll find that it's not at all as prevalent as you seem to believe.

(17-04-2016, 10:27 AM)VViews Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Koen Gh,

you have started another thread about your snake and lighthouse comparison, so I didn't realize that you really also wanted it addressed in here. So now there are two threads discussing your blog post...?

Oh, no, definitely not. I hope this thread can stay on topic. Although that You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is a rather good example of the *awkward ignoring* reaction

Well, if what you say is true, that's encouraging then.

Quote:I see the script as a late addition, which may have been devised by the people copying - or in that case, transcribing - older sources into MS Beinecke 408.

Well then your question (be that original or re-phrased) is incorrectly drawn, because adding a script is by no means a "minimal adjustment".

(17-04-2016, 09:01 AM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I agree that non-European is a problematical term. Let me phrase it more unambiguously.

This is a statement I would agree with, while many people won't: "The manuscript's contents is not the product of Latin-European culture, apart from a thin layer of medieval veneer in some places, like in the nymph sections. Instead, it is the result of a series of copies from assembled ancient sources, added in various places and times, only reaching mainland Europe close to the manuscripts' being manufactured.". 

Am I wrong in assuming that such statements are met with a large amount of skepticism? Am I really assuming too much?

Want to see this in action? I'll just reproduce two images from my last post here, in which I tried to summarize some possibly Alexandrian imagery on one and the same page: a vessel top adorned with the shape of the Lighthouse (Pharos), and a cobra wearing a symbol of the pharaoh (which was still in use in Greco-Roman Egypt). 

The reactions will be one of the following:
- *awkward ignoring*
- "You are crazy as a person!"
- "Yes, but it's a German snake!"
- "The artist drew this cobra, symbol of Egypt, wearing another symbol of Egypt on its head, by accident!"

Let's see which one it is this time
These are found on the same sheet:
 
   



Anyway. Instead of discussing semantics, I would like to know what concrete evidence there is to see the entire manuscript as mainly a Latin-European creation, "the work of one 'brain'" to quote your site, and to dismiss hypotheses that earlier strata still lay at the basis of the manuscript's imagery, indeed still representing the bulk of its contents.

Hi Koen, 
I believe the contents of the Voynich manuscript to have a remote origin in space and time. This is true for most cultural artifacts: things are rarely created from scratch. 
As you certainly know, I am a great fan of Stephen Bax' research. I think it likely that the Voynich manuscript is written in a non-European language and contains knowledge that was not known in XV Century Europe. Part of that knowledge possibly appears in medieval non-European manuscripts. I would consider with interest serious, specific and well documented suggestions about such sources. 

Coming to your images, when looking for visual parallels, those that are closer in time are the most useful: they could have had a similar history as the Voynich manuscript; sometimes they can possibly be a direct source. 
If you search for the most remote parallels instead, you must then explain transmission, as Rene wrote You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. This thread makes clear that you ignored his reply. Have you considered that your posts don't get replies because you ignore them?

You seem to expect a reaction of amazed wonder when you present a parallel between a detail from the Voynich manuscript and a XX Century reconstruction of the Alexandria Lighthouse.

Do you assume that the Voynich manuscript was created with the help of Google images? How comes that the author knew this particular reconstruction of the lighthouse?

What about all the other hobbyists that have proposed parallels with the Alexandria lighthouse in the previous years? Why should people be interested in some speculation they already read several times?

Why don't you consider doing some search for ancient images of the same subject? Do you find ancient manuscripts horribly boring? Since on the contrary I like that stuff, I did some of your homework for you:


And what about the Egyptian snake relic which I assume was excavated in the XIX or XX century? Don't you realize that you must explain the transmission of this visual tradition from several centuries BCE to 1420 ca? It seems you don't understand that when you post these images you take upon yourself the burden to explain their transmission.
BTW, many people interpret You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. as representing a plant, not Isis. As you likely know, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. present similar illustrations of “snakeweed” and similar plants. Do you think those other herbal illustrations to be related with Egypt?

You seem to enjoy free association with anachronistic images from random places. This is great: it's your hobby! Others have different hobbies and of course will rarely give attention to your Rorschach fun, as you rightly give little attention to their efforts.

Dear colleagues, please keep it a bit cooler, no need to raise the pitch.

Marco, I didn't know the parallel with the Pharos was proposed before. Do you have links to all these hobbyists? 

I used the picture of the reconstruction because it provided a clean, schematic view. I did, of course, confirm that the general structure of the proposed reconstruction was consistent with:

- That on relevant contemporary sources like these 2nd c. CE Alexandrian coins:


- Other modern reconstructions like this one from 2006:



Especially the coin on the right clearly shows the same three-tier structure as the Voynich Pharos. Of course I also saw the Arab source you quote. That is also relevant, in that it shows how the Pharos was depicted by those less familiar with it. In other words, if I want to argue the VM Pharos was first drawn by someone in Greco-Roman Alexandria, I have modern experts as well as first hand contemporary sources on my side. While you were doing my work for me, you failed to include the most relevant sources: those made by people who saw the Pharos every day. 

But you are right that I should probably include more of my heuristics.

What I am doing is not free association. In my blog post, I show continuity of Egyptian crowns until Greco-Roman times. About the plant, I trace the history of the image, and explain every part of it, how it ended up in the Alexandrian carving and how the plant was made to evoke it. Could you show me some of these snakeweeds? Do they look like a cobra, and is the plant on top drawn with exactly the same lines as the Tyche's headgear? Of course not. What you don't understand, alchemical herbals being your favorite hobby, is that these images were emblematic, and would have been recognized immediately by contemporaries, even when drawn into the shape of a plant.

(17-04-2016, 04:16 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Marco, I didn't know the parallel with the Pharos was proposed before. Do you have links to all these hobbyists? 

For the works of others, what about google?
"voynich" "alexandria" ("lighthouse" OR "pharos")

Here on this forum:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Quote:I used the picture of the reconstruction because it provided a clean, schematic view. I did, of course, confirm that the general structure of the proposed reconstruction was consistent with:

- That on relevant contemporary sources like these 2nd c. CE Alexandrian coins:



Especially the coin on the right clearly shows the same three-tier structure as the Voynich Pharos. 

You should really explain transmission: was this coin known in the XV Century?

By the way the Lighthouse here has a square section base, "triton" sculptures on the angles and a human statue on the top. The German and Venice images I posted are closer to that on the Voynich manuscript: stacks of cylinders with no statues. Do you think it impossible that the image of the lighthouse was transmitted to the author of the Voynich manuscript through the same channels that transmitted it to Walsperger and to the Venetian artist?

Quote:Of course I also saw the Arab source you quote. That is also relevant, in that it shows how the Pharos was depicted by those less familiar with it. In other words, if I want to argue the VM Pharos was first drawn by someone in Greco-Roman Alexandria, I have modern experts as well as first hand contemporary sources on my side. While you were doing my work for me, you failed to include the most relevant sources: those made by people who saw the Pharos every day. 

Nope. The most relevant sources are those available to someone writing in the XV Century. You must document transmission.

Koen Gh,
This reply here is in itself problematic: the coins you show are unlikely to have been seen by anyone in the 15th C, as I explained to you in another thread.
If you have evidence that this particular coin was in the hands of someone in the 15th C, or that the same design is represented in an MS likely to have been seen by someone from that period, then that would be better. Also, no one in the 15th C would have seen the Pharos everyday, because it had been severely damaged by a series of earthquakes, and was in ruins.
MarcoP is correct in reminding you that you have already been told (by ReneZ but also by me) about the problem of proving transmission in the iconography you rely on.

ETA, the artefact you use as a comparison with the snake is from a death mask. In the 15th C, it (and all other similar masks) was still in the tomb.