The Voynich Ninja

Other points of comparison to consider.

Ears: The VMs example and the mosaic both have rounded ears that stand out from the head. That is why I went with the Iranian brass bucket. It has the rounded ears and the extended tongue. And it's facing in the forward direction - not looking backward like the mosaic - sans lingua.

Head direction: I don't think there are too many examples of Leo where the lion is looking backward like the image in the mosaic. But I see Marco is ahead of me on this and has already posted one example.

Right or left paw extended: I see there are examples of both in the Leo images already. However, heraldry and the clearly heraldic Leo from London, British Library Add MS 17987, fol. 14r, 1446 (Germany) [Thanks Marco] always use the right. The VMs image has the right paw raised. Could there be any heraldic influence? The mosaic is too early for such influence and it's a lefty.

(18-08-2016, 01:40 PM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I am lost.
Here is a simple YES/NO question. A single word is needed to reply. All replies will be appreciated.

Objectively speaking, is there a tree in the Voynich Leo illustration?

It's difficult to agree on "this is more similar than that", but it seems we cannot agree even on something as basic as the answer to the question above.

Technically, I don't think there's a tree. I believe it's the tail.

But... I don't want to rule out the possibility that the tail was intentionally shaped like a tree since it resembles the kind of tree that grows in places where big cats live.

Thank you Sam, Koen and JKP!

There is no tree in that illustration, but we cannot agree even on this simple fact.

As Sam suggested, maybe we can agree that f72v3 contains a medallion representing one or more entities. I am currently not interested in something so generic.

(19-08-2016, 02:02 AM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Thank you Sam, Koen and JKP!

There is no tree in that illustration, but we cannot agree even on this simple fact.

Apparently we can't even agree that it's even theoretically possible that it's both a tree and the end of a tail at the same time.

Quote:As Sam suggested, maybe we can agree that f72v3 contains a medallion representing one or more entities. I am currently not interested in something so generic.

Not sure what you mean by "generic", but I think my proposal is about as specific as it gets.

Marco - the opposite of what you say is true. Four (4!) serious Voynich researchers agree that a tree is referenced in the image: Diane, JKP, Sam and I. This is not just a crazy theorist's opinion.

The fact that we are cautious about the exact intentions of whoever caused the image to first be like this, should speak in our favour. The tree-proposal comes after a serious consideration of the available evidence (see Diane's post on the feline), and Sam's find has increased its credibility and visibility manifold. 

While I cannot yet determine whether the change from tree to tail was intentional or a misunderstanding of the exemplar, one thing seems certain: the Voynich "Leo" is not a lion.

It's true, we have a huge problem of objectivity and of logics.

We disagree on the facts. Koen and Sam answer YES to my question. I and JKP answer NO.

YES is different from NO.
Agreement goes: YES YES YES YES
Disagreement goes: YES NO YES NO

JKP wrote: “I don't want to rule out the possibility that the tail was intentionally shaped like a tree since it resembles the kind of tree that grows in places where big cats live”. Here he is not speaking of facts. He is speaking of the possible intentions of the illustrator. His sentence implies that it is also possible that the illustrator had different intentions. I agree with JKP's statement, I guess with a huge difference in how likely we evaluate the different possibilities. And a tail shaped like a tree is not a tree.

Possibilities are not facts. Facts are observable. Possible intentions are very unlikely to ever be verified. You usually don't find medieval texts describing the intentions of the illustrator: I doubt that when we will read the text it will say "I shaped the tail of the cat to look like a tree". We have seen the kind of images resulting from the intention of representing a feline and tree: they contain a feline and a tree. Here I can see no tree (while Koen and Sam do). Since we don't share the same set of facts, I am unable to contribute anything useful to the discussion.

The “theoretical possibility that it's both a tree and the end of a tail at the same time”, disquisitions about “entities” are just not my cup of tea. I like discussions based on observable facts. It's my personal preference and I hope this is acceptable to you. I am sure that others will find such tough theoretical issues stimulating (apparently, Magritte found concepts of this kind worth exploring).

(18-08-2016, 04:50 PM)Sam G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Something else worth considering is that these European Leo images seem to show a wide diversity of tail endings, some of them unusual.  Was doing something funky with the end of Leo's tail an established convention, like a way for the illustrator...

Doing funky things to lions tails was very common in European heraldry, a good example is the double tailed Bohemian lion

I also like facts.

Fact 1: the Voynich feline does not look like the typical medieval Leo. This is not subjective, it can be determined through binary features.
Fact 2: It is known that the Carolingians injected classical imagery into the medieval European tradition through their Aratea copies. This might explain unusual features in later examples like Cod. Sang. 402.
Fact 3: Older imagery from Greco-Roman North Africa explains most, if not all, strange aspects of the Voynich feline: colour, dots, musculature, uplifted paw, wobbly eyes, pointy tongue, round ears, tree shape, tail between legs...
Fact 4: It has been demonstrated in this thread that there existed a widespread custom to place a certain tree behind animals, not as decoration but as a specific motif. The tree with three branches of often found behind the leopard/panther type, originally referring to its connection with Dionysos.
Fact 5: The tip of the Voynich feline's tail strongly resembles such a tree, with the clearest example found in the Qasr mosaic.

Now all that is missing is an explanation, and I think Sam provided a clear one in his initial post. Conscious blending of the forms is one option, copying from unclear exemplars another. The fact is that these older examples have a stronger explanatory power than the "weird zodiac" idea. It doesn't matter to me whether you believe this or not, but I do like the exchange of ideas if this can bring us closer to a solution.

Marco:

First of all, I almost posted that exact same Magritte painting in my previous post.

Obviously anyone can claim to see whatever he wants in any illustration.  So clearly there can never be universal agreement on the identification of any element in any image.

I disagree that there is a meaningful distinction between identifying an image and understanding the intentions of the illustrator.  Saying "this is an image of a feline animal" and "the illustrator intended this to be an image of a feline animal" are, in my view, functionally equivalent statements. (I should add: assuming he's the original composer of the illustration and not a copyist, etc.)

I've said that the entity in question is descended from an image similar to the tree from the Qasr mosaic via several/many generations of copying.  That seems like a fairly concrete statement to me.

In the VMS image, though not in the original, it also looks like this entity is a the end of the animal's tail, since the tail disappears behind the animal's body and tree-like entity emerges from the other side.  Obviously we can't be sure, and like I said, any question about it is functionally a question about what the illustrator intended since it's not an actual physical thing, it's just some ink on a piece of parchment.

I get the impression that you don't feel comfortable saying that what I'm proposing is wrong, yet at the same time you don't like the implications, and want to bow out on a technicality.  That's fine with me.

(19-08-2016, 09:19 AM)Sam G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I disagree that there is a meaningful distinction between identifying an image and understanding the intentions of the illustrator.  Saying "this is an image of a feline animal" and "the illustrator intended this to be an image of a feline animal" are, in my view, functionally equivalent statements.

For me, the distinction is crucial.

The statement that an image looks like a certain animal (or plant) is the conclusion of the reader. It is made on the basis of the
experience of the reader. What is meant in the illustration is based on the experience of the artist / draughtsman, who lived
and worked 600 years ago.

Example: we can see a plant in an early herbal manuscript (not necessarily the Voynich MS), and recognise its similarity to
real life plant X. One of the criteria could be that the leaves are alternate. The problem is that in earliest herbals, the artists may
not have paid any attention to the leave arrangement at all. This is quite commonly the case, though for the Voynich MS we
don't (yet) know. In the later herbals (Fuchs etc.) these distinctions were made carefully.