What was the reasoning of these experts to say that MS Beinecke 408 was "clearly modelled after medieval herbal MSs"? Why not an example of an earlier tradition of which all other examples are lost? The "lost tradition" part is really not so extraordinary, taking into account the massive amount of works that have been lost and the extreme coincidence by which one or two copies of others have survived. Many works are only known to us because of one surviving copy, and we know, for example by mention in other texts, that many others are completely lost.
It's plants with text. To say that it is clearly modelled after the medieval tradition is like saying that tigers are modelled after lions. Who can tell, without years of study and the proper methods, which came first and what is the relationship between both?
IImagine a world where only lions are known, no tigers. Torasella and Touwaide are lion experts. They know lions inside and outside and can pick out the smell of lion droppings miles away.
One day, explorer W. Voynich discovers a tiger. He tried to sell it to the highest bidder, passing it off as a beast of legend. Even though it is clear that the animal looks different than a lion, there are certainly similarities and the opinion of lion experts T&T is sought. They proclaim: "the tiger is clearly a descendant of the lion".
Only in Voynich studies.
I think you may have swapped the roles of who have done the years of study with the proper methods, and who have not....
On things I cannot judge, I weigh the opinions by exactly that criterium.
Then there's this more difficult aspect of which arguments are sound and which aren't. The trouble with that is that it is not really possible to quantify, or even describe adequately.
(12-08-2016, 07:21 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There is a lone mineral-like object in the small-plants pages but as I've already mentioned on the blog, there's a distinct lack of non-plant medicinal ingredients in the VMS, ingredients that are found in many other herbals.
I agree, this an interesting point. Another possible exception is the frog or toad in You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. (but it's unlabeled, so it's not clear if it plays the same role as labeled plants).
According to Erwin Panofsky (from You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.), the Voynich manuscript
is probably the surviving one of two volumes: the plant and star half of the work which doubtless included also beasts and stones.
This seems rather speculative to me, but of course it is not impossible.
(14-08-2016, 07:04 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It is certainly correct that the herbs shown in the Voynich MS do not (clearly) match any sequence known from other herbal MSs, but the herbal or botanical part of it (one can name it what one wants) is clearly modelled after medieval herbal MSs.
I agree. I haven't seen matching sequence in manuscripts, Theriac lists or other lists - like Charlemagne's 99 plant list from Capitulare de villis vel curtis imperii or alchemy herb lists. However, similarities were found by different researchers with all of these sources.
Regarding the mineral - the blue cube - Steve D. suggested the possibility it could be Persian blue salt (although it is not clear if the coloring in the VMs was done by the author - so color-wise we should take every idea "with a grain of salt"
(14-08-2016, 08:46 AM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.What was the reasoning of these experts to say that MS Beinecke 408 was "clearly modelled after medieval herbal MSs"? Why not an example of an earlier tradition of which all other examples are lost? The "lost tradition" part is really not so extraordinary, taking into account the massive amount of works that have been lost and the extreme coincidence by which one or two copies of others have survived. Many works are only known to us because of one surviving copy, and we know, for example by mention in other texts, that many others are completely lost.
It's plants with text. To say that it is clearly modelled after the medieval tradition is like saying that tigers are modelled after lions. Who can tell, without years of study and the proper methods, which came first and what is the relationship between both?
I suspect that what I wrote about the Leo image in the other thread also applies to the botanical imagery: it's fundamentally foreign/ancient imagery that has undergone a bit of modification after its transmission to medieval Western Europe.
From what I've seen, there are probably more similarities between the VMS botanical imagery and medieval herbal imagery than can be attributed to coincidence or even to underlying similarity in the plant forms being depicted. But it's a leaf here, a root there, a dragon eating leaves that could have easily been a recent addition, etc. Obviously the vast majority of what's in the VMS botanical imagery has no parallel whatsoever in the medieval herbal tradition, either in the overall plant shapes or in the small-scale stylistic conventions used to depict them.
Wandering about, I bumped into this.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
Here there is a prospective formulation. And the jar in the first illustration has strong Hellenic influences.
I don't think the theriac formula with 64 ingredients (from c. 18th Century) mentioned at the beginning of this thread is any good for VMS purposes. It contains Cymbopogon citratus (from the West Indies) and Balsamorhiza deltoidea (from British Columbia and NW US). I don't think they would have been found in any of the older recipes. (There may be more anachronistic ingredients on the list - I stopped looking at two.)
Does anyone have an earlier formula or group of formulas that better fit(s) the early Fifteenth Century?
Thank you.
Don of Tallahassee
Insofar as the ordering of the herbals in MS408, I think you can only trust order so far as single bifolio pages since they could all have been shuffled or flipped prior to their final (current) binding.
Insofar as poisons/antidotes being indicated, I don't yet see this in the plants, although I have not finished my list of proposed identifications. Perhaps it could still be, since many of the plants listed as ingredients are actually edible.
Don,
The main point of the theriac link is to show that it has a history that spans from the Classical and Hellenistic periods to the Renaissance and beyond - just to show that the manufacture and use of this medication would be contemporary with just about any proposed date of VMs creation. The formulation provided is just that, not a proposed match to VMs chronology. Did you see the formulation in the article on mithridate? Perhaps it's a somewhat better list. And at this point a few specific ingredients may not matter too much. There are probably going to be a number of formulations that differ in their details. And they can be compared as they are discovered.
As Linda noted just above, a number of the ingredients are spices. However as far as having active ingredients that actually cure disease or function as an antidote of some kind, I can't say. There's always the placebo effect and the body's ability of heal itself, as long as the medication isn't fatal. And of course, there is the potential presence of sufficient opium to relieve pain, meaning the patient will feel better (be cured?), even if s/he dies anyway.
Hi Richard,
The list of actual ingredients may not matter too much to you. It does to me.
I want to check any such lists of ingredients with what I think is shown in the VMS. For this I need 15th Century lists, not lists from later times showing ingredients that would not have been available to the author of the VMS.
That is the reason for asking for those lists.
I don't know how anyone can say much about what the text says if they can't read it, or don't think they can read it.
Since I am delusional enough to believe I can somewhat read the VMS, lists of actual ingredients from the time of the VMS might be a good way to see if my ideas are correct or nearly correct. Trying to match recipes from hundreds of years apart using different or expanded lists of possible ingredients doesn't seem to be a logical thing to do.
Thank you.
Don of Tallahassee