The Voynich Ninja

The Cod Sang 402 image is indeed interesting. Maybe it was copied or adapted from some image similar to the VM?

Still, I agree with Sam that the resemblance of the VM feline is stronger with the mosaic. Just look at the blue spots, rounded ears and the musculature in the front legs. The VM feline appears to be much closer to the ancient imagery than the cod. Sang. example. It looks as if somewhere along the line of copying, someone had an ancient example available and brought it closer to his contemporary expectations.

We will probably never find the ecact image this feline was copied from - but I still consider Sam's mosaic the most impressive witness of its tradition found so far.

Two points:
Rene,
I'm not quite sure how to phrase this diplomatically, but you have mentioned that "well known expert on zodiac imagery" many times, and in every Voynich forum or blog that I've seen.

So I think everyone knows about the letter you received and what it said.

Perhaps now you could tell us something about your personal opinions, from your own study of this section.  Or, better still, perhaps you could consider the points, and the examples that Sam is making?

Just a thought.

Sam,
If you study the manuscript for the sake of understanding the manuscript and nothing more, then you must be prepared for silence, since you will be a minority of perhaps four or five.

There's also a problem unrecognised by many Voynicheros: imagery isn't self-evident and requires the equivalent of natural talent for music.

Thing is, that a great many people when asked to match the image of a feline that has a spotted hide, crossed eyes, an uplifted paw, a tail that looks as if it turns into a fan or a palm-tree, and withers like a greyhound..

... will present a nice picture of a lion.

You happen to be one of those with an 'eye' for this sort of work.  But you may have to cope with silence, or with those whose response to a new idea is either (or both) to shut you up, or to persuade you to agree with a favoured theory.

Just the way it goes.   In treating the imagery, people who would explode if one said that the letter "B" and "D" and "T" were just forms of "P" are perfectly happy to call a sheep a goat, or to compare red 'wild bull' with the antelope-horns to a nice, white domesticated bull.

But every now and then, we get good news.

I think your mosaics are good news.  Good to see.

(15-08-2016, 05:38 PM)Diane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Rene,

[...] you have mentioned that "well known expert on zodiac imagery" many times, and in every Voynich forum or blog that I've seen.

So I think everyone knows about the letter you received and what it said.

Perhaps now you could tell us something about your personal opinions, from your own study of this section.  Or, better still, perhaps you could consider the points, and the examples that Sam is making?

I have no idea what you mean with the letter.

Weren't you complaining recently that the opinions of the true experts (Panofsky, Steele,...) are being ignored by the 'Voynicheros'? I couldn't quickly find the place where you wrote this, here, or possibly in Nick Pelling's blog.

Are you now suggesting that we should ignore what she wrote? That isn't very consistent.

I just think that it would be better for the discussion if concrete, relevant arguments were provided instead of attempting to shoot down reasonable debate by shoving forward a supposed authority and hiding behind it.

And now to the other end of the cat. I notice that VMs Leo seems to have its tongue out as though licking the raised, front paw. While the mosaic example is a cat looking back over its shoulder. What I've seen of lions, more on the heraldry side of things, is that heraldic lions frequently do have their tongues extended. But it occurs to me that this may not be the case with lions that are associated with the month of August. Does the typical August lion have its tongue in or out?

And while heraldic lions are most often represented as aggressive or rampant, August lions are not so much. Many positions have heraldic designations.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

The VMs lion would be passant, standing with its right paw raised. The mosaic lion would be regardant or looking backward. Not to mention that they are oriented in opposite directions. Can it be suggested that the appearance of the animal in one particular representation is retained through various iterations, but its positioning has been lost in transmission?

Going back to the tail end of the cat. In the VMs, the tail is between the hind legs. In the mosaic it is not. In heraldry it is not between the legs, except in the example: Lion coward. So is the VMs illustration of Leo a cowardly lion licking its wounds? Or just washing its feet on a bad day?

On the whole, however, and just as an example, this sort of search for one-to-one correspondence always raises certain questions.
Is the comparison valid? And if so, what does that mean? How does a Roman mosaic from Tunis make it into the VMs Zodiac?

What we have is a great discussion about what this proposed correspondence of illustrations might mean, but not an answer to the original question as to whether the correspondence is truly valid in the first place. To some extent it is just part of difficulties inherent in the use of the one-to one paradigm. In order to answer the first question more clearly, the standard option is to try to find an example with better correspondence, that's what we do. A better answer to the question of validity is found by changing the paradigm. That is what the author has done through the institution and use of a two-to-two paradigm. It is a paradigm shift. And its presence is obvious. It's the paring paradigm - a pair in the real world and a *pair* in the VMs.

(15-08-2016, 09:43 PM)R. Sale Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.And now to the other end of the cat. I notice that VMs Leo seems to have its tongue out as though licking the raised, front paw.

Sometimes I wonder if it's a tongue at all. A tooth maybe? In an herbal I would expect to see dandelions, but I don't think any of the plants in the manuscript resemble one. Could this be a reference to the plant? Was it known as dent de lion at the time?

I just looked it up and yes, just before the time of the manuscript. And Taraxacum is from Persian writings about the plant about the 10th century. So having learned that, here is a pic I found yesterday that has a blue (well the whole thing is blue) leopard with both a tongue and teeth in a similar position with what appears to be dandelion leaves behind. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(15-08-2016, 09:07 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I just think that it would be better for the discussion if concrete, relevant arguments were provided instead of attempting to shoot down reasonable debate by shoving forward a supposed authority and hiding behind it.

I find the work presented earlier this year by Marco Ponzi and Darren Worley totally convincing.
In parallel JKP had independently made very similar analyses. The links may be found together here:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(scroll down a bit).

Not only is this very convincing, it is also fully consistent with the professional opinion that was already stated many
years before.

Now I don't want to discourage anyone from any discussions on their favourite topics.
But how does one deal with a big corpus of evidence, backed up by scholarship, that seems contradictory
to ones ideas?

One wouldn't want to 'sweep it under the carpet'.


It is of course interesting to consider that the Voynich MS illustrations might be direct copies of sources that are more than a millennium older. The idea that they are just a product of their time (early 15th C) based loosely on material generally available (and that undoubtedly traces back through the ages) is perhaps quite boring in comparison.

But how does one then explain the various other MSs that have been shown as comparison? I think in particular of:
Cod. Sang 827
(BAV) Pal.Lat.1369
Cod.Sang.402
and in fact (BAV) Reg Lat 1324, the (probably French) Aratus MS also from the 15th C?
Would these also be direct copies of classical sources?

Quote:Diane said:
I'm not quite sure how to phrase this diplomatically, but you have mentioned that "well known expert on zodiac imagery" many times, and in every Voynich forum or blog that I've seen.
Perhaps now you could tell us something about your personal opinions, from your own study of this section.

Diane, I know quite well that you and I are both in agreement that part of the problem with Voynich research is the lack of professionalism, and over-indulgence of personal pet theories.
The use of independent expert (or at the very least well regarded) opinion to buttress up a theoretical case is the only correct way to proceed.
If someone is not willing to reveal their personal opinion, but simply wishes to remind us in a non-contentious way of independent research that argues against a presented theory, that is perfectly within their rights and worthy of applaud.

Quote: There's also a problem unrecognised by many Voynicheros: imagery isn't self-evident and requires the equivalent of natural talent for music.

To which I would ask you: Then what's the point of history of art courses? (Even the best composers needed training from their masters)


As R. Sale very correctly points out:

Quote:How does a Roman mosaic from Tunis make it into the VMs Zodiac?

Prove that missing link and your argument will be much more supported. Anyone can say that this image looks like that image, and there isn't much else to argue about.

But that's not the question. The question is:

How did the scribe see that image?

So let us stick to this pertinent question and see if we can help Koen build up his argument.

The answer to this question is very simple. The scribe did not see this mosaic.

Rene mentions just one possibility in his last post: Aratus manuscripts. I learned from Marion Dolan's doctoral thesis about the subject that the Carolingians' intent was to safeguard the knowledge of the Ancients. They copied the texts as far as they were available. And for the imagery, they searched far and wide (including North Africa) for remaining useful images: mosaics, frescos, carvings, public monuments, calendars...

Hence, the Aratean tradition was one way the imagery, concepts and style of the ancients found their way right into the heart of Europe.

There are many, many other ways for ancient imagery to find its way to Europe. Take Baresch' learned traveler who went to Egypt to gather knowledge. Take Diane's wandering traders, who maintained Hellenistic documents just because they were incredibly useful. 

R. Sale is right: we should not argue for a one-to-one correspondence. Diane had posted a very similar image before in which it was clear that the tail was originally a palm tree. Now Sam posts a mosaic with much the same palm tree and even more similarities. It is clear that this was a common way of depiction. Moreover, Diane's example was in a coin, and coins travel. But there were likely once dozens of such images found in a wider area, and many dozens more copies of those spread far and wide.

R. Sale is once again right: the head is different. This means that the VM cat was altered or copied from a similar source. Diane has written about the depiction of the eyes which, together with the splash of blood on the hind leg, point to a post-Hellenistic tradition of neutralizing images that were seen as threatening. If I recall correctly, this points towards the Carolingians again.

This way the puzzle of transmission can be assembled. The tail, the blue spots, lack of mane... are likely indications that the original source was classical. The head and other factors point towards another stage of alteration.

We are not looking for the direct source, that is futile. We are looking for pieces of the puzzle. And in my opinion, Sam provided a corner piece

I'm not sure whose statements about the VMS Zodiac imagery have been more grossly misrepresented here -  mine or Ewa Sniezynska-Stolot's.  

Her statement that Aries has been "redrawn from a calendar" is plainly a suggestion that the Aries image originated outside the usual collection of Zodiac imagery.  Obviously that's in perfect agreement with what I've proposed, so the idea that her view contradicts mine is obviously absurd.

The idea that what I've proposed contradicts existing studies of the VMS Zodiac imagery is also completely absurd, in fact I cited one of the studies named above in my original post precisely to make my point.

It's impossible to have a productive discussion if you do not honestly represent the views of others - both participants in the discussion and people outside of the discussion (e.g. experts).

Anyway, I'd still be interested in gathering more opinions as to whether or not the resemblances between the images I've pointed out are likely to be coincidental or not.

---

(15-08-2016, 09:43 PM)R. Sale Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It is a paradigm shift. And its presence is obvious. It's the paring paradigm - a pair in the real world and a *pair* in the VMs.

Hmm, I actually hadn't thought of that, but it kind of does continue the "pairing paradigm" in the sense of being a two-in-one composite image.  Maybe that's a coincidence, but there might actually be something to it.