+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: Imagery (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-43.html)
+--- Thread: Mutemandeafcat *Voynich Manuscript: Early Thoughts on the Imagery (/thread-2246.html)
Mutemandeafcat *Voynich Manuscript: Early Thoughts on the Imagery - Mutemandeafcat - 07-01-2018
First post to my blog about the MS.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
I don't know if this is really where I should be posting this, as it is not a academic paper, and I do not write like an academic. I did want to see if anyone else knew of this same interpretation, or if I am the first to document this interpretation (as incomplete as it is).
I am always looking for dialogue and connections, so I am posting this to reddit as well. I will edit it as I feel it's needed. I definitely would appreciate the pointing out of obvious mistakes, including typos.
Thanks,
Mutemandeafcat
RE: Mutemandeafcat *Voynich Manuscript: Early Thoughts on the Imagery - davidjackson - 07-01-2018
I have moved this thread here as it seems a more appropriate venue for it.
RE: Mutemandeafcat *Voynich Manuscript: Early Thoughts on the Imagery - Koen G - 07-01-2018
In my experience when one writes something about the imagery on a purely speculative level, there is not much response because people know beforehand that any discussion won't lead very far. I could say "those things don't look like eyes, ears... or any representation of the senses at all", and that would be it. But let's try.
The mouth-like circle has been interpreted similarly before, though more in a "maw of hell" kind of way. For example JKP briefly mentions the idea in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. Those things, if they are teeth, certainly aren't human. This is the most straightforward of the four. Note that an image like this would not have brought "senses" to the medieval mind, but rather "eternal damnation if I covet my neighbour's wife and swear too much".
![[Image: bodleian_10310370513.gif?w=500]](https://artstor.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/bodleian_10310370513.gif?w=500)
![[Image: 73c1b3d09519e7e92b4182311faab60b--mediev...script.jpg]](https://i.pinimg.com/736x/73/c1/b3/73c1b3d09519e7e92b4182311faab60b--medieval-manuscript-illuminated-manuscript.jpg)
The thing you interpret as an eye is an oval with "scales" around it and "plumes" on four sides. And around that a whole lot more stuff. Inside the oval are stars and a flower-like symbol. You might say "but the iris is a flower", which is true, but this is through association with the (colors of the) rainbow and its associated goddess Iris, not with the flower. Symbols like this one have been found in other maps or charts as well, usually in the centre and with some cosmological meaning. We have a thread about that somewhere IIRC.
Taking the castle rosette to refer to sound is original, but will probably come across as a bit forced to most readers. A magnificent castle and beautiful landscapes might also activate the sense of sight, and the sea the sense of smell, and so on.
If you wish to stick to your interpretation you'd have to do more research. The manuscript's contents were made, roughly, some time before 1450. How did people think about the senses then? Did they know about the anatomy of the inner ear, as you suggest? How did they picture this? How did they draw a spice bazaar? Which (classical?) sources did they depend on? Did they really see ears-eyes and mouth-nose as complementary pairs?
I also often find myself in the position where it's hard to find evidence or at least an indication for an interpretation. But still I try to include imagery from pre-1450 sources, quotes from ancient or medieval authors.... and of course consult the literature. The subject of "senses" in medieval times is unknown to me, but I'd expect that things have been written about it.
So well, what you have is the "hypothesis" part of a "working hypothesis".
But that's okay, many people who are writing about the manuscript now have started there.
RE: Mutemandeafcat *Voynich Manuscript: Early Thoughts on the Imagery - Mutemandeafcat - 08-01-2018
Quote: I could say "those things don't look like eyes, ears... or any representation of the senses at all", and that would be it. But let's try.
I don't believe you could say, the eye and the mouth, were not a graphical representation of, an "eye" and a "mouth." What kind of eye or mouth is irrelevant, and so is, what they mean. They are a representation of an eye and a mouth.
I also completely disagree with your interpretation of the medieval mind. Having read the output of the human mind from ancient times to today (including medieval times) I found no lack of complexity and depth of understanding at any time. They understood many and varied things from their time to antiquity. Of course, I am referring to the men who would've been exposed to this manuscript.
I don't need to know the mind of "medieval man", I just need to understand the mind of its intended audience.
You also did not present any evidence to the contrary, you merely presented the fact that other people could interpret it differently. That is not a rebuttal.
If you can produce a logical path of reasoning to an interpretation that disputes mine, using as much logic and reason as I presented in mine, and doesn't incorporate any of the aspects of my interpretation... I would truly want to hear it.
I had not been paying attention to the imagery (it isn't relevant to my focus right now. Although, obviously, it was the thing that formed the bases of my theory.) I just happened to look at the foldout, and saw the symbols that look like the Stargate, and their symbol for earth. Then, I was looking at it, while posting my response in that thread, and proceeded to communicate my initial interpretation of the four corners, and posted it. After sending, I realized I most likely just sent "new" information, and then created my blog post to expand a little.
My interpretation of these aspects of the graphics spoken of, were seen through the lens of my broader theory, and were predicted and expected.
I presented all the detail that I did in my introduction post, NOT to be some boastful lunatic looking for attention, but because I assumed ten or more people would present theories with similar claims that I could then investigate for further evidence, validation, and/or rejection of my theory. (I now realize that was a huge mistake, and nobody could help but think I was an ego driven crackpot.)
I am new to this community, and just finding my footing. (I clearly don't even know how to quote Koen properly in this message.) I mean no disrespect, and hope I have not come across as being disrespectful about any aspect of the community, or the study of the MS.
RE: Mutemandeafcat *Voynich Manuscript: Early Thoughts on the Imagery - Koen G - 08-01-2018
Don't worry, we are discussing ideas, not each other
It might come across as harsh sometimes, but what we want is to eventually understand the manuscript, which means we have to be able to discuss everything objectively. There's a rule which states that the burden of proof lies with the one who proposes the solution. I could say the manuscript was clearly written by a group of traveling Norwegian peasants, and there's nothing you could say to prove me wrong. It would be up to me to provide evidence for such a claim.
There are a number of ways you could investigate your hypothesis, basically by asking some research questions:
- How did medieval people think about the senses? What was the dominant theory?
- Do any examples exist of medieval illustrations of the senses, and what did those look like?
- Were they aware of the parts of the inner ear, and their importance, as you suggest?
- How did they draw a spice bazaar before 1450?
- Was a hell mouth ever associated with taste instead of eternal damnation? My guess would be that such an association is completely impossible, but if you find a text which states that hell really loves the taste of sinners, you'd strengthen your point.
My first theory was, much like yours, based entirely on my own impression. I thought that some of the bathing ladies folios symbolized processes for producing certain substances. I had looked up the chemical processes and was able to match those to the drawings quite well. But then I started to consult the literature, and it soon appeared that these methods were not known yet at the time the manuscript was made. So I dropped the hypohesis and moved on to something else.