06-01-2017, 01:20 PM
This is a delightful thread; lots of fun, and lots of intelligence all together.
Thanks to everyone who posted earlier.
May I make two points which apply in general to the work of analysing and commenting on imagery.
First, don't forget to address the issue of significance in the specific context. A dragon in one image can be there for a very different reason than a dragon appears in a different context. As example, in a Latin Christian work the dragon is usually an emblem of real or mythical or metaphorical evil; but in, say, medieval heraldry it may just mean "Wales".
Secondly, stylistics is absolutely vital, but like intended significance is constantly forgotten. If something is differently conceived and presented, it comes from a "different place" in every sense.
Anyway, I think the significance of the dragon in f.25v is to signal the name of the plant which was originally called Dracaena draco, but later named D.cinnabaris. That switch in taxonomic description has caused all sorts of confusion in Voynich studies. D. draco was later made the name for the Mediterranean species which has flowers and fruit, though D. cinnabaris has neither.
As to style.. this little dragon is one of the few mnemonic elements in the botanical section that I would certainly attribute to western medieval culture. It looks to me like Celtic style, and here's the example I cited - even though it has two heads. The source I used says it comes from Clonmacnoise - and its anomalous, western and probably Christian character is what first led me to write about the Irish who had travelled east to Egypt and beyond. They include Hugo the Illuminator who travelled with Symon Semeonis, and William the Irishman who travelled with Odoric of Pordenone.
But since I covered all this between 2008-2010, I daresay it's new old news to people here.
![[Image: dragons-paired.jpg]](https://voynichimagery.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/dragons-paired.jpg)
Thanks to everyone who posted earlier.
May I make two points which apply in general to the work of analysing and commenting on imagery.
First, don't forget to address the issue of significance in the specific context. A dragon in one image can be there for a very different reason than a dragon appears in a different context. As example, in a Latin Christian work the dragon is usually an emblem of real or mythical or metaphorical evil; but in, say, medieval heraldry it may just mean "Wales".
Secondly, stylistics is absolutely vital, but like intended significance is constantly forgotten. If something is differently conceived and presented, it comes from a "different place" in every sense.
Anyway, I think the significance of the dragon in f.25v is to signal the name of the plant which was originally called Dracaena draco, but later named D.cinnabaris. That switch in taxonomic description has caused all sorts of confusion in Voynich studies. D. draco was later made the name for the Mediterranean species which has flowers and fruit, though D. cinnabaris has neither.
As to style.. this little dragon is one of the few mnemonic elements in the botanical section that I would certainly attribute to western medieval culture. It looks to me like Celtic style, and here's the example I cited - even though it has two heads. The source I used says it comes from Clonmacnoise - and its anomalous, western and probably Christian character is what first led me to write about the Irish who had travelled east to Egypt and beyond. They include Hugo the Illuminator who travelled with Symon Semeonis, and William the Irishman who travelled with Odoric of Pordenone.
But since I covered all this between 2008-2010, I daresay it's new old news to people here.