The Voynich Ninja

(29-08-2016, 08:54 PM)Sam G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It seems to me that the most precise matches are coming from these old mosaics, despite the fact that there are vastly more surviving medieval manuscripts than mosaics, and of course we are only looking at mosaics in the first place because there are basically no surviving ancient books (which is where the best comparisons would almost certainly be found).  So I think that's a strong indication that these similarities are not coincidental.  Based purely on numbers, we would expect all the best matches to be in medieval manuscripts.

I couldn't agree more. Several of the images I posted all came from the same historical site, just because there is not much else left! Compare that to the thousands of medieval manuscripts that have been scrutinized, and you might perhaps understand why we find this relevant.

We know that books and scrolls existed, thousands upon thousands of them, which have now been lost completely. Much of the Greek works we still know today, we only know through the Romans and Arabs. Otherwise, their tradition would have been lost. The idea of an "only survivor" of its kind is not that exotic - it happens all the time, though in most other cases we can read the text, which makes it a lot easier

And still, those relatively few windows we have into that world... they sometimes reveal so much more than hundreds of medieval Zodiacs could.

Koen and Sam,
Personally I think (as Rene), the better match is this picture:

Talking about sources of a certain image, but not about derivation history of the medieval art, if you think that ancient mosaics can be a source of the VMs Leo, why do you think that bestiaries or heraldic pictures can't be a source of it, as in any of these cases "our" Leo looks unusual?
In the second case, at least, the aim of the author is clear and natural – to make zodiacal diagrams, which represent Zodiac or an astrological calendar. What is the aim of the author in the case of intentional depiction of the modified leopard (panther) here, if it doesn't relate to Zodiac at all?
I understand that you make accent on the similarity of the muzzle of "our" Leo with the muzzle of a real leopard, but not with those from bestiaries. From the other side, I see one more possibility: there can be influence of Arabic astrological manuscripts, where Leo mostly have just symbolical mane or doesn't have it at all, but his muzzle is more natural than medieval European ones. Moreover, view on the muzzle of an animal from above is inherent exactly in Arabic depictions.

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

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

We can see the same angle (view from above a head or a muzzle) in the image of the fish on the f79v. 

This picture shows two eyes too as the Leo picture, I really don't think that the second eye of the lion was drawn later by anyone else. Of course, such view is quite rare, especially for ancient images (in profile). For now, I found only one picture of the fish depicted in this way in Arabic source (I can't attach it right now).
Actually, I see no obstacles to think that the appearance of the VMs Leo can be combined, for example, of 2 shapes: usual medieval representation and Arabic view, thus, represents unusual, but still European Zodiac Leo.
To Koen: 
Maybe you will clarify where your line of thought leads? I mean, generally, I suspect your further developments as I read your last blogpost (although, maybe, I'm wrong?!).
What is the Top Secret of this?

I was just trying to find where in the forum Hartlieb's work was discussed already, but a search with the term 'Hartlieb' returned zero results (to my surprise). I had a feeling it was mentioned already.
Anyway.
Going to the online digital copy of the Berlin MS Germ Qu 2021, the first image we see is of:  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Searcher

Thank you for your questions - I hope the following clarifies the reasoning behind my method a bit, if not, do let me know.

First, and perhaps most importantly, we are trying to find scientifically plausible explanations for elements of the imagery that are usually ignored, overlooked or explained away by calling them "idiosyncratic". I think the difference is best described by (medieval) authoral versus non-authoral.

Most people believe MS Beinecke 408 had a 15thC author. Not necessarily someone who invented the whole thing from scratch, but someone who understood everything in the manuscript and added his own unusual touch to it. This 15thC figure is seen as the main creative and intellectual force behind the manuscript.

I am not saying that this approach is wrong. In fact, it is the one that should be tested first, and is a very valid initial hypothesis. It has been the initial hypothesis for over a hundred years. You can decide for yourself what the results are for our knowledge.

The second main approach has been elaborated mostly by Diane, eve though of course others have floated similar ideas. No one less than Baresch himself believed that the MS was likely the result of a traveler gathering Egyptian knowledge. That is why he contacted the most renowned Egyptologist of the time for help.
Diane has written hundreds of thousands of words worth of blog posts analyzing the imagery and trying to trace its historical and geographical journey. 

Very roughly, I would compare the two approaches like this:



You can see that the second approach requires more steps than the first one. If you think the MS is the work of a 15thC creative individual, you just look for the closest matching contemporary source and everything that does not match is the result of this author's unusual world view.

What we are trying to do in this thread, is to find artifacts that might actually explain the weird aspects of the imagery. This is more difficult, but ultimately has more explanatory value and allows us to say more about the way this material was created and altered throughout the centuries.

If you expect clear-cut answers and a line of thought that leads to a "Top Secret" (?), I must disappoint you. I am just considering the evidence and going where it leads me, not the other way around.

For example, before I had seen this griffin, I was hesitant to include Syria as a location that had been relevant in the material's evolution. This was a point in Diane's posts that I never really agreed or disagreed with. Now I am more inclined to agree and consider which role Syria may have played. New finds lead to new insights and altered ideas. That's science.

My blog posts generally rely on Diane's. What I mean is, I find that she has demonstrated sufficiently that the VM is a copy of very old documents that have been altered stylistically by the cultures in between. I have the luxury of being able to build upon her work and refer to it, without having to construct my own bubble from the ground up (as seems obligatory in Voynich studies). I generally write about those aspects where I don't entirely agree with her conclusions. For example, I believe that in both the small plants section and quire 13 (the "bathing section"), there are numerous references to relatively mainstream Hellenistic culture and/or astronomy, while Diane sees different and post-Hellenistic cultural influences.

There is no theory or grand idea that we are trying to work towards. The evidence is there, and we follow it.  I'm not sue what you mean with "I suspect your further developments as I read your last blogpost"? If you mean that I alter my views and revisit previous ideas with new insights, then yes, I definitely do! In fact I once considered adding a tag to all of my older posts that some of their contents may not reflect my current ideas anymore.

But just to give you something concrete, these are some of the things I currently find likely. I'll add a (D) to those that are based on Diane's conclusions, (K) to my own additions/points of disagreement:

- The first documents that provided the base for the various sections were from the Hellenistic period (D)
- The various sections were not originally meant to for a whole. The manuscript is compound. (D)
- What unifies the material is its relevance for the Eastern trade (routes, products, astrology, navigation...) (D)
- The reason why the material was maintained relatively unaltered for such a long time is that trade = money. (D)
- References are made to the kind of astronomy the average Greek would know (Aratus...) (K)
- The small plants section was probably something like an illustrated glossary, teaching Greek speakers the most relevant foreign names for plants or derived products. (K)

In summary: the puzzle is probably much more complex than we think. I believe that Diane has layed out a credible and well argued partial framework, but many additions, confirmations and further study are needed. That is what this thread is about: finding pieces of the puzzle.

Quote:Talking about sources of a certain image, but not about derivation history of the medieval art, if you think that ancient mosaics can be a source of the VMs Leo, why do you think that bestiaries or heraldic pictures can't be a source of it, as in any of these cases "our" Leo looks unusual?

In the second case, at least, the aim of the author is clear and natural – to make zodiacal diagrams, which represent Zodiac or an astrological calendar. What is the aim of the author in the case of intentional depiction of the modified leopard (panther) here, if it doesn't relate to Zodiac at all?

This is a very good question. One of the reasons why altered ancient documents are to be preferred over medieval usage of bestiaries, is the fact that indicators of a Latin European (Christian) environment are very rare. Some modernization did occur, especially in the "zodiac". The crossbowman is obviously not a Hellenistic original, and it appears that clothes and headgear have been added to a number of figures. The thing is that these aspects appear to be the exceptions rather than the standard. 

Isn't it strange that Baresch, who lived much closer to the creation of MS Beinecke 408 than we do, saw it as an alien, foreign, exotic "sphinx", while we insist on seeing it as a product of a medieval mind? 


Rene: Very nice example! I wonder which source it came from. As we can see in the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., Hartlieb himself was not intimately familiar with exotic animals' anatomy...

(30-08-2016, 02:00 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....to give you something concrete, these are some of the things I currently find likely. I'll add a (D) to those that are based on Diane's conclusions, (K) to my own additions/points of disagreement:

- The first documents that provided the base for the various sections were from the Hellenistic period (D)
- The various sections were not originally meant to for a whole. The manuscript is compound. (D)
- What unifies the material is its relevance for the Eastern trade (routes, products, astrology, navigation...) (D)
- The reason why the material was maintained relatively unaltered for such a long time is that trade = money. (D)
- References are made to the kind of astronomy the average Greek would know (Aratus...) (K)
- The small plants section was probably something like an illustrated glossary, teaching Greek speakers the most relevant foreign names for plants or derived products. (K)

I agree with the first point, but I rather consider this point in another context. I think that the closest to the VMs Zodiac is the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., to the point, it is also considered unusual, its source(s) is/are unknown, as well, and supposed to be Greek and Arabic, including Syrian.
Anyway, if we closer learn a certain manuscript, it is turned out to be unique and unusual in one or another detail. The main difference is that most of illustrated manuscripts are not enciphered. 

Quote:You can see that the second approach requires more steps than the first one. If you think the MS is the work of a 15thC creative individual, you just look for the closest matching contemporary source and everything that does not match is the result of this author's unusual world view.

Yes, I think the author was pretty creative   

Quote:What we are trying to do in this thread, is to find artifacts that might actually explain the weird aspects of the imagery. This is more difficult, but ultimately has more explanatory value and allows us to say more about the way this material was created and altered throughout the centuries.

As I understand, we are all see different signs in the same things. As I said, interpretation of images is a pretty thankless task, but I hope it will lead you to something that help to decipher the VMs. It seems, my attempt to pay attention to "lunar" and alchemical signs in the VMs and to obscure inscriptions is unsuccessful. And I have no idea, whether someone saw them or didn't.

Koen,

I realise that people like Searcher don't quite know which parts of an image are significant for comparing imagery, and that others are so used to creating comparisons at a fairly low level of sophistication, but even so it shouldn't be that difficult to realise that this feline in the VMS isn't a lion, and isn't a medieval heraldic figure.

If Sam G. ever comes back to this thread - all the images in the Calendar section have counterparts in imagery for coins from the Hellenistic to the early Roman period.  I wrote about this some years ago when first emphasizing that the images in the centres of these roundels do not constitute the series of Roman zodiac figures - not even those for the months inscribed.  That's when I also found the closest matches for the form of the Voynich leo, and the otherwise unheard-of form for the Archer in mosaic from Syria, dated to the period of Byzantine rule, but of northern Syrian style.

It is interesting that the Getty museum curator, unprompted, pointed to just the same centuries and region - and turned up an excellent comparison.  I very much doubt that s/he meant Koen to suppose that she thought the feline a griffin: what she was pointing out was the style of image - time and place of enunciation.

(03-09-2016, 10:56 AM)Diane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Koen,

I realise that people like Searcher don't quite know which parts of an image are significant for comparing imagery, and that others are so used to creating comparisons at a fairly low level of sophistication, but even so it shouldn't be that difficult to realise that this feline in the VMS isn't a lion, and isn't a medieval heraldic figure.

Diane, 
every researcher (reader), reading any thread can decide without assistance, which opinion is more objective, more intellectual and which has a higher level of sophistication (in any meaning of this word). There is no need to make an accent on your opinion about that what I know and what I don't know.
I don't think, my posts are an obstacle for your and Koen's research. I'm interested to see the next steps in this theory.

My main interest is to understand the text. However, I very strongly feel that we must understand the imagery and the path it followed through various cultures first. That is my end game in my analysis of the imagery: we need to understand it so it can assist us with the text. 

For me it is incredibly relevant to see possible Byzantine-Syrian influences in the style of the images. It tells us something about possible languages. Greek is omnipresent, but what else? 

This is also why I change my mind quite often. Old, shaky ideas weigh heavy on the shoulders of progress.

A friendly challenge for those who have not read my blog post in which I address some issues raised in this thread. This is what I believe to be a parallel example, though one that is more accessible since the line of transmission has been exceptionally well documented.

This image is from a 15th century Italian manuscript about the constellations. We see a kneeling naked man with a sword in one hand, and a satisfied man-skin in the other.

My questions are:

1) Who is this man? How do you know?
2) Why is he holding a man-skin?
3) If we go all the way back through the line of transmission, what are the roots of this image?
4) Af far as I know, this composition is unique. Is this the work of an author with a special world view?

(12-09-2016, 07:01 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.A friendly challenge for those who have not read my blog post in which I address some issues raised in this thread. This is what I believe to be a parallel example, though one that is more accessible since the line of transmission has been exceptionally well documented.

This image is from a 15th century Italian manuscript about the constellations. We see a kneeling naked man with a sword in one hand, and a satisfied man-skin in the other.

My questions are:

1) Who is this man? How do you know?
2) Why is he holding a man-skin?
3) If we go all the way back through the line of transmission, what are the roots of this image?
4) Af far as I know, this composition is unique. Is this the work of an author with a special world view?

It's the constellation Hercules. How do I know? I'm familiar with the interpretation of Hercules. Here are similar examples:



Note that these map the image to the stars and that the one on the right also has a human face (I haven't read your blog post on this so forgive me if you have already posted these images).