[Talk] Voynich Talk E1, pt 2/3: Everything you've always wanted to know about Quire 8

[Koen G]

The second part of the first episode of Voynich Talk is out now!

See the video here: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

It includes a discussion of Quire 8 which was recorded earlier with our four participants (Lisa, Michelle, Lars and David). We talk about the specific situation in quire 8; the four plant drawings here don't match our classification system (as covered in the original You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.).

Additionally, I recorded a chat with Rene earlier today, further outlining the bizarre situation in Quire 8. Some of the things we talk about might be new even to experienced Voynich researchers.

[Lissu]

Thanks for the video! Can't wait for part 3.

You talked about source manuscripts and herb gardens. Is it possible that someone used spoken language to describe the plants to the artist?
That would explain why it's difficult to identify some of them.

[Koen G]

It certainly could be. This would basically be the equivalent of a textual description without images (the vast, vast majority of manuscripts lack illustrations). During our talks this was touched upon: if the description (written or spoken) was something like "the flower looks like that of a lily", then the artist might just use their standard image of a lily flower. This would explain the "composite plants" phenomenon, as well as the apparent recycling of motifs.

I don't recall if I cut this out or left it in the video, but my objection to this was that textual (or spoken) sources can only explain so much. Especially in the roots, I suspect some influence of visual traditions. Take You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. for example. Where do those roots come from? 

"So this plant has round leaves that hang down from horizontal stalks, in three rows. You got that? Okay, now the root - pay close attention to what I'm saying okay? The root looks like two horses that are conjoined at the head. The horse on the left is larger than the one on the right. Okay. Now, they have unsettlingly large penises that intertwine. A bit larger."

   

I find it hard to imagine that something like that would stem from what was intended as a description of the plant in terms of what it looks like. At the very least, there must be some additional information processing going on here, relating to the name of the plant (doubtful in this particular case in my opinion), its usage, associated folklore... And that's only if we assume that every Voynich plant is intended to represent an actual plant to begin with.

Part 3 will mostly be some more free form discussion that I wasn't able to fit into part 1 and 2. It's basically for the handful of people who enjoy watching us talk about Voynich plants

[pjburkshire]

I don't recall if I cut this out or left it in the video, but my objection to this was that textual (or spoken) sources can only explain so much. Especially in the roots, I suspect some influence of visual traditions. Take You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. for example. Where do those roots come from? 

What's the deal with the hole? Did they draw 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. around the hole?

[LisaFaginDavis]

Yes, that's a natural flaw in the parchment on f. 34 that the artist incorporated into the drawings.

[Koen G]

Finally, part 3 is also uploaded: 
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

This is basically the remains of the videos we recorded with David, Lars, Michelle and Lisa. One of the topics we discussed is to what extent our large-plant properties are also found in the Pharma section. There is also a bit about realism, three dimensional representation etc.

The next full episode will likely be the one about the Rohonc Codex, but this is yet to be recorded - expect this in a number of weeks.