Edit:
My original question, which can be read below in small text, was apparently full of wrong assumptions. I will rephrase it:
There are a number of people who seem to think the chance that the manuscript was copied with minimal adjustments from older, non-Latin-European sources unlikely. I wonder which concrete evidence these people see for their preferred interpretation.
((original: )Most people seem to think that the content of MS Beinecke 408 was created at the time of its writing in 15th century Europe. The images are peculiar, but this is seen as the result of an individual's quirks, rather than unexpected cultural influences.
So I would like to know why people are convinced of this, and why they seem to be very unlikely to consider any non-medieval-European sources.
I fully understand that certain elements in the nymph sections look very medieval. For eample the clothes in some of the roundels. But these are relatively rare, and often considered later additions or modifications. Either way, it was common practice for copyists to update aspects like clothing.
What I would specifically like to know is which concrete evidence there is against earlier sources.
In other words , why can't it be a lucky surviver -by medieval copy- of a lost type?)
Anton just posted an observation about my readings of the plant labels in another thread. Since I appreciate input and criticism and would like to know possible objections to what I'm doing, I thought it would be neater to move this to a new thread. This is what he wrote:
Quote:Since Koen elsewhere expressed his belief that pharma section labels represent plant names, I did some screening checks and then I found this thread in which I would like to state the following discouraging considerations as to the aforementioned proposal.
1) Many of the pharma section labels are unique words. E.g. in f88r, even if we exclude the labels that might be attributed to jars, 38% of labels are unique; in f88v, using the same principle, 50% of labels are unique.
2) Furthermore, not all non-unique labels are mentioned in the botanical folios. In f88r, 25% of non-unique labels, and in f88v, 40% of
non-unique labels, are those which are mentioned only outside of the botanical folios.
Considering 1) and 2), we can state that for the book, the opening part of which is an extensive herbal, it is strange to have so many herbs not mentioned in the descriptive subject section.
3) Some labels are re-used through the pharma section. Like, otoldy is used in f89r1, then in f89r2 (but here it can be attributed to the jar), but also in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. where it labels two roots of entirely different appearance.
4) Here and there there are more labels than plants, even if we provide for the jars. Like in the third row of f99r: tha jar has its own label inside, so to the right of it we have 8 labels for only 7 objects. In the third row of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. we have 7 labels for 5 objects.
Point 4) is not decisive, because there could be plants which names are encoded with multiple vords arranged in an uncareful fashion.
Taken together, all these points, I am afraid, waive the possibility that the pharma section labels are plant names.
Anton, I understand your objections, but there are some factors that could explain your findings:
- The first label in a row is always attributed to a jar. I think these are geographical names related to trading (like ports or local trade centres), which may not be repeated elsewhere, but I have only a number of proposed readings, which I haven't published yet. The interpretation is very tentative, but they do belong to the jars. The more ornate jars just don't have their label written on them because that would ruin their appearance and make the label hard to read.
- A core part of my interpretation is that the labels are the local names for the plants, i.e. the names that were foreign to the reader. They may be repeated in other sections, but don't need to. It's like if you had a book in English about French plants, with first a botanical description of the plant, and then a list of the French names. The first part can mention the French name, but doesn't need to since its focus is not linguistic.
- I read the gallows as "ornate" forms of sounds that can also be expressed in ligatures (like the "bench"). I don't understand this well enough yet to describe how it works entirely. In the root and leaf section, ornate glyphs are used to stress certain sounds. So it's possible that the same plant name appears in two different forms, in which case I would expect the less ornate form in the "large plant" section. I have found one example of this, which I will gladly explain if so desired.
- It cannot be denied that there are plants that appear in both the "large plants" as the "small plants" section, but there is definitely no one-to-one correspondence. Many plants from either section can't be found in the other one. I'd be more worried if you found more corresponding words. I'm rather comfortable with the numbers you mention.
- The "more labels than plants" problem is easily explained, usually in the way that you suggested already. The labels often refer to products rather than the actual plant, which may result in a label that reads "wood (of) teak", like in my post about You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. I'm rather happy with the label reading there (although it is a bad example of how the plant name is similar to the mythological mnemonic name, but that part is less relevant in this discussion). Similarly, I have recently found out that the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. plant's label refers to the juice of the fruit, rather than the plant's name, so it reads "juice (of) ???". The first word of that label I read as "Ros", which still appears in many Indo-Iranian languages as "ros" or "ras" meaning sap or fruit, just like it did in Sanskrit. At the time of posting, I hadn't discovered this yet, so this isn't reflected in the post. So this would refer to a fruit of which the juice was economically interesting or used as provisions for a ship's crew.
- About some labels being re-used, that is to be expected. We're dealing with foreign plant names, and those names often got borrowed to name different plants, or got assigned to different plants in different places over time. Given the fact that Voynich roots are especially mnemonic, i.e. modified, we can expect roots that look different to bear the same, or a similar name. Also, since we're dealing with a transcription of these names for Greek speakers, some phonological differences in the original languages won't be reflected. For example, to a Dutch speaker who's not used to English, the words "thorn" and "torn" will sound the same, just like "bet" and "bed".
My search for the exact location of the root-and-leaf section mnemonic makers goes South, and we have a look around in Greco-Roman Alexandria (Northern Egypt).
On one single folio, we see things as: Isis-Tyche, protective deity of Alexandria. It's the Voynich, so she's disguised as a plant.
The famous Lighthouse of Alexandria:
And a snake wearing the crown of the pharaoh:
Lots of images again, so I'll refer to my post, where serious arguments can be found as well:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Essential argument in justification of that manuscript - fake, are inserting rows (perhaps paragraphs), and the writing of these lines from the bottom up.
EXAMPLE 1 Order of writing lines "c", "b", "a". If the string "a" written earlier it would have been flat, and the text at the end of the lines would not rise up.
Example 2. The procedure of writing lines "g", "f", "e".
Perhaps simply insert string "f", But then the in the line "e" was not originally the word "rol".
Example 3. Sequence writing lines - "j", "i", "h".
Example 4. If the string "k" would be the first, you do not need a rung would be, and would not need to do a big gap, to circumvent drawing.
Example 5. The sequence of writing lines - "o", "n", "m".
I tried to find a solution of the displayed (extra?) 5 and 4 ladies
outside the circles but found only one possible solution in Mandean calender.
"Besides their New Year’s Day, Mandaeans also celebrate on the 22nd of May and they feast during the five days that immediately follow the Iranian New Year’s Day, the 21st of March (the 20th in leap years). " (source: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.)
Related pages in the VMS:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
and
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
and
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Then i investigated the Mandean people and culture and analysed the language with help of a Mandean Professor,
but nothing really matched, although the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. direction was interesting because of the water rituals.
The solution on the zodiacs might be found there on the extra 5 and 4 ladies.
Here's a half formed idea that I'm going to throw amongst you all to see what response we get.
What is the Voynich text is nonsense - but the image aren't?
I've just finished re-Reading Carruthers art of memory and her ideas on memonics have stuck.
So imagine that every single image is encoded, and possibly the labels, into a mnemonic structure. A sort of visual shorthand. But the bulk of the text is filler to "throw you off the scent".
I am currently convinced that the Voynich Zodiac isn't a zodiac at all.
Instead, it's a late medieval Spanish-based myrogenesis - the attributing of specific characteristic to each degree of the zodiac.
The zodiac signs simply illustrate the month, the nymphs around the zodiac are paranatellonta, the aspects that astrology granted each degree around zodiacal sign.
In fact, I suspect the zodiac is actually a lapidary.
A year ago I put up a long blog post explaining this and examining historical precedent You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..
I'm currently revisiting this topic with new information, and I'd love to hear your opinions on this before I finish off my article.
How outlandish is the Voynich MS imagery?
This is a very qualitative question, not one that can be answered on a scale from 1 to 10.
In the older literature one reads that the illustrations have no historic parallels, but is that
really true?
One way to get a feeling for this is by looking for other examples of possibly 'unusual' or even
'outlandish' illustrations in other MSs.
I would invite people to look for, and show examples here.
People who have seen images from the Ripley scroll(s), the Buch der heiligen Dreifaltigkeit or
the Bellifortis probably already have a good idea what this could look like, but there is much, much
more. Ellie's blog already has quite a number of nice examples.
Let me just start with a MS with some interesting cosmological diagrams:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
I've mentioned a number of times that I suspect some Voynich plants have been inspired by Greco-Roman stories rather than imagery. In today's blog post, I compare these plants, to see whether their stories can be tracked to a single source. To my surprise, they can.
The five scenes that I analyzed all appear to have been taken literally from Ovid's Metamorphoses. This came as a surprises for me, as I wasn't expecting a single source, much less a Roman one.
There are way too many images to post in this thread, so I'll just link the post:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
I will gladly answer any questions or remarks, or address anything that's unclear.
How are the images in the first section of the Voynich manuscript different from other ancient herbals?
I would be interested in other people's opinions.
I attach visual comparisons between the Voynich ms and other manuscripts. I used four of the identifications listed by Derek Vogt on the site of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..
The plants are:
Betonica (Voynich You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.)
Malva officinalis, marsh mallow (Voynich You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.)
Papaver, poppies (Voynich You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.)
Plantago (Voynich You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.)
The intent is not to comment on these specific identification hypotheses, but only to compare images between different manuscripts.
Manuscripts, left to right:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., Pseudo-Apuleius Platonicus, England, 2nd half of the 12th century
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., Tractatus de herbis, Southern Italy, between c. 1280 and c. 1310
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., Manfredus de Monte Imperiali, Liber de herbis et plantis, Southern Italy, first half of the XIV Century
The Voynich ms, first half of the XV Century
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., Herbal of Giovanni Cadamosto, Veneto, 3rd quarter of the XV Century (before 1472)
Of course, you don't need to comment on these specific plants and manuscripts. Different comparisons are definitely welcome!
![[Image: isis-snake.jpg?w=720]](https://herculeaf.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/isis-snake.jpg?w=720)
![[Image: lighthouse.jpg?w=720]](https://herculeaf.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/lighthouse.jpg?w=720)
![[Image: pharos2006.jpg?w=424&h=472]](https://herculeaf.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/pharos2006.jpg?w=424&h=472)
![[Image: snake-and-vulture.jpg?w=396&h=218]](https://herculeaf.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/snake-and-vulture.jpg?w=396&h=218)
![[Image: K22.2Pan.jpg]](https://i2.wp.com/www.theoi.com/image/K22.2Pan.jpg)
