The Voynich Ninja

Hi Diane,

Since I'm zero in botany, I began with the existing identifications by other researchers, using them as a raw material and looking if they would fit into the supposed mnemonics model. Would I have been proficient in botany, I would elaborate my own tentative identifications of course, but I'm not able to. At most, I can dicsern some trees and commonplace flowers - roses, you know, and all that. I can look at a plant and estimate whether it might fit the picture, but not reconstruct a plant from a picture.

Now, hellebore (which was Sherwood's suggestion) is outdated, please start reading from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. post. In my opinion, aconite fits quite well. This is of course subject to discussion, and any feedback is welcome.

Quote:I will say that the way you simply assert that the form taken by the root is meant to refer to the scorpion (no qualifications, no hint of guessing included as you say that) was done with such elan; with such devil-may-care insouciance,  that it really (honestly) brought a happy grin to my own fact, too. It's so nice to see people enjoying work of this sort, that even though you are surely mistaken, it hardly seems to matter.

Basically I'm throwing in suggestions, not asserting anything yet. The goal is to quickly check whether the mnemonics/"heads and tails" concept is viable or not. This is basically the initial stage of the study where I (or others who are interested in exploration of that concept) need to assess whether it makes sense to pursue it further and deeper.

But it is essential to say that the whole mnemonics concept is (for me) nothing more than a tool to get some clues for the text analysis. I am not proficient in imagery and comparative analysis thereof (so I gladly leave that to other researchers), neither (to be honest) Voynich imagery interests me in itself. So for me proposing (and revealing) hidden content of the imagery is but an intermediary to demystifying the text. The utmost criterion of whether I was right or wrong with the imagery would be whether we can or cannot advance with the text enarmed with these hypotheses for imagery. I'm afraid I'm looking a bit like Stephen Bax with this, but for me this methodology is just a time saver. Basically I agree with you about the approach that should have been taken, but I'm afraid that working methodically in that direction will take ages and (alas!) considerable funding.

As to the scorpion: segmented look and the end curled upwards with a tip were what led me to this assumption.

Probably just a coincidence, but I can't help but see a resemblance, especially with the shape of the right column:



BL Add MS 11639,Miscellany of biblical and other texts, 1277-1324, Northern France, f222v.

What these guys are supposed to denote?

Anton,
this section of the manuscript is labelled by the BL as "Prayers".
There is no specific description given for this embellishment or the characters pictured. Perhaps someone who can read hebrew can derive some explanation for these figures from the text.

OK thanks. I'm not sure it's a good parallel. The colums are not hairy, and the tails are not segmented. I'd say those may be lion's tails rather.

(12-01-2017, 02:46 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.OK thanks. I'm not sure it's a good parallel. The colums are not hairy, and the tails are not segmented. I'd say those may be lion's tails rather.

Anton, when I saw the calendar embellishments, I also thought lion's tails, mainly based on seeing similar tails on other medieval drawings of lions.

(12-01-2017, 02:02 PM)VViews Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Probably just a coincidence, but I can't help but see a resemblance, especially with the shape of the right column:



BL Add MS 11639,Miscellany of biblical and other texts, 1277-1324, Northern France, f222v.

In the plant world, there are many plants with segmented roots, especially plants with long rhizomes (both aquatic and terrestrial):

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.  Note how insect-like or worm-like this root can look in a drawing. It's easy for plants to inspire symbolic interpretations.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Segmented root 8



These aren't even the best examples, they are just the ones I could find quickly (it's easier to pull links off the Net than to spend all day uploading attachments from my own file library).

However, I suspect this particular VMS root might be symbolic or mnemonic based on the deliberate way the tip of the "tail" is drawn, but it might also be partly based on reality. See also VMS root You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (and several others).

(12-01-2017, 02:02 PM)VViews Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Probably just a coincidence, but I can't help but see a resemblance, especially with the shape of the right column:



BL Add MS 11639,Miscellany of biblical and other texts, 1277-1324, Northern France, f222v.

I think I posted this before but it didn't seem to be here, so again this is a tapeworm, and its similarity to the roots could indicate a parasitic plant. The hairiness of the drawn root could be a hint at its actual form, small hair-like roots that entwine with the roots of other plants.

The plant itself does resemble some in the broomrape family of parasitic plants.


note some species have extensions on the leaves similar to the drawing





Lousewort is interesting because the leaves in the drawing sort of look like lice with their six legs, and lo it's another parasite, one that was thought to be harboured by the plant and passed on to livestock when eaten.

The tapeworm idea makes sense in a way, but would people in the 15th century or earlier have thought the same about the concept "parasitic" as we do? I mean, would they have made the link between a parasitic animal and a parasitic plant? (This question may be impossible to answer)

Also, something to keep in mind is that these shapes are not just rings around a brown cylinder. The brown parts go from wide to narrow. They are more like ice cream cones in the process of being stacked into each other.

Just to emphasize this, I've traced the pen lines:

[attachment=1114]

This is one of those few roots that has a fee to it as if it represents a made object rather than something biological. Kind of like the joined segments in those pillars posted by VV, that also go from broad to narrow. Also the knob at the end seems like an indication in that direction. Animal "tails" in the roots usually end in lots of split parts or just a point..

not to belabor the point, but tapeworms are also segmented in this way, it's not just lines on a tube either.


and they have a small round head


i'm not sure that 15th century people as a whole would know of the correlation, but it seems to me this person who drew the root this way might have.