+- 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: Plant 52r (/thread-2892.html)
RE: Plant 52r - -JKP- - 15-08-2019
I don't know what I think about this plant, but it has always looked to me like two somethings (people?), like a child on the left, parent on the right, for example.
And the root has always looked to me like something rather ritualized, probably because it is arced (like fingertips touching) and it is symmetric.
But now, having looked at nothing but Christian literature for the last few days, the root looks a bit like someone in prayer, or bowed down in front of the bigger shape. Amazing how intensive exposure to a certain genre influences everything you see after that. I hope it will wear off after a while!
I agree that the top, the "flower", looks like a crown.
RE: Plant 52r - ReneZ - 15-08-2019
To me, this looks like a good (potential) example where someone drew a plant from a written description, and interpreted the various parts in his own way.
RE: Plant 52r - Koen G - 15-08-2019
Could be for the crown, Rene. But what sort of description would get you to draw a root like that?
RE: Plant 52r - Helmut Winkler - 15-08-2019
(15-08-2019, 12:53 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.To me, this looks like a good (potential) example where someone drew a plant from a written description, and interpreted the various parts in his own way.
This is very interesting. for me, the 52r plant is an excellent example of a plant drawn from reality, one of several examples where the draughtsman reproduces plants growing from pruned rootstocks, a purely biological, agricultural explanation.
RE: Plant 52r - Wladimir D - 15-08-2019
Maybe the root represents the family tree of some ruler? In this case, he has an illegitimate rival, who is represented by a young plant. Watch how he is inserted into the root with the help of a “harpoon”.
RE: Plant 52r - Koen G - 15-08-2019
(15-08-2019, 02:34 PM)Helmut Winkler Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This is very interesting. for me, the 52r plant is an excellent example of a plant drawn from realityAt first sight one would indeed think this. But if you look for plants that look like this, I think you'll have a hard time finding them. Or do you have an example?
RE: Plant 52r - ReneZ - 15-08-2019
I don't have strong feelings about this, but I do find the idea that plants may have been drawn from written descriptions attractive. I could not get any positive feedback about this in the old mailing list, but we have seen in the meantime that there are examples of this, e.g. the Cambridge herbal that was discussed here quite intensively 1-2 years ago. But also the 'Musa' plant in several Tractatus copies, as Marco very convincingly showed.
Assuming that the draughtsman was actually familiar with plants from nature, he might have gotten some of them perfectly right, some others he would give real components but not the ones that should belong together, and maybe in some cases he would have no idea and come up with some fantasy plant.
This would explain a few things.
Of course it can be an existing plant, but the fact that JKP could not find any fitting plant for this suggests that it may be some hybrid as described above.
However, there was also a proposed ID on Nick Pelling's forum by "Peter" who has been very active in finding matching plants for many of the pages.
So, of course, I don't know, but I find it an attractive idea.
Edit: w.r.t. the root, I do not find it exceptional.
RE: Plant 52r - -JKP- - 15-08-2019
I don't think anyone would accidentally draw the root like that. Roots don't grow up out of the ground, curl together and reattach themselves in a very symmetric way under normal circumstances. At the very least, it is stylized or it is an attempt to show something that the illustrator can't quite visualize in 3d.
Whether it's mnemonic or narrative, I can't tell. It has perplexed me for a long time.
Rhizomes are common in nature, I pretty much expect to see them and a number of the more naturalistic plants in the VMS have them (ones with more familiar shapes), but the dramatic difference between the bases of the two shoots, plus the shapes of the leaves plus the shape of the flower TOGETHER makes the plant look intentionally stylized to me.
RE: Plant 52r - Helmut Winkler - 15-08-2019
At first sight one would indeed think this. But if you look for plants that look like this, I think you'll have a hard time finding them. Or do you have an example?
[/quote]
No, I don't have an example, but I am slightly sceptical about this whole ID business anyway. I think the problem is that the person, who made the VMs, drew what he was seeing and that is not necessarily what we recognise. There is a thesis about the Basel Circa Instans which deals with the problem. My personal opinion is that all the plant drawings are done after nature, the small plants section as well. The tecnical questions, if for example some plants were dried, are another question
RE: Plant 52r - Koen G - 15-08-2019
(15-08-2019, 04:35 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I don't think anyone would accidentally draw the root like that. Roots don't grow up out of the ground, curl together and reattach themselves in a very symmetric way under normal circumstances. At the very least, it is stylized or it is an attempt to show something that the illustrator can't quite visualize in 3d.
Exactly. Rene, if we're both talking about the same thing (i.e. the dark brown part, whatever that may be, root or branches or both), I don't understand how you can call this stylized arrangement of connected stumps "not exceptional"
Helmut: what about the faces in the roots and the clear animal shapes then?