13-02-2018, 02:02 AM
Although some people later referred to d'Imperio's book to suggest that the idea of mnemonics is not new, or that it has connection to the earlier discussions of alchemical herbals, the fact is that it is only thanks to Don Hoffmann who alone refrained from dismissive noises, that my explanation of mnemonic devices and their presence (introduced in a paper of 2008) finally entered the study.
I'm glad to see what a popular idea it has become, but I think it important to emphasise two things:
1. that I see no direct connection to the 'Plants of the Alchemists' books at all, but some distant connection to one of the images in the Juliana Anicia codex - that which accompanies text from an early, eastern, Greek author.
2. That I have never used the mnemonic device as a means to identify the subject of any botanical folio. In my opinion this is a sure road to error. Rather, having first undertaken the usual - and sometimes very lengthy - investigations needed to reduce the number of possibilities to a few, the mnemonic serves as a check that the wrong path hasn't been taken.
What emerged as I worked through the botanical folios (sharing only such material online as I thought might help the linguists and cryptographers), is that these mnemonics are not language-dependent. This is the chief reason that many are legible: they are about the plant(s), not about words for the plant(s). In this they show a clear divergence from the practices of Latin mnemonic imagery, which is invariably dependent on the shared vocabulary of the original maker and intended users.
The way to identify the plants is by reference to the type of leaf, the petioles and their relative length and form of attachment (opposite or alternate), the habitat and the habit indicated.. these things are in order depicted from the literal to moderately-schematic in most cases.
Flowers do not have the same importance in the manuscript's tradition as they do in ours, and are often denoted by some formal motif (which is the case, for example on f.33v).
When you have a tentative identification by these means, that's the time to consider the mnemonic to see if, and how, it accords with that identification. IMO
I'm glad to see what a popular idea it has become, but I think it important to emphasise two things:
1. that I see no direct connection to the 'Plants of the Alchemists' books at all, but some distant connection to one of the images in the Juliana Anicia codex - that which accompanies text from an early, eastern, Greek author.
2. That I have never used the mnemonic device as a means to identify the subject of any botanical folio. In my opinion this is a sure road to error. Rather, having first undertaken the usual - and sometimes very lengthy - investigations needed to reduce the number of possibilities to a few, the mnemonic serves as a check that the wrong path hasn't been taken.
What emerged as I worked through the botanical folios (sharing only such material online as I thought might help the linguists and cryptographers), is that these mnemonics are not language-dependent. This is the chief reason that many are legible: they are about the plant(s), not about words for the plant(s). In this they show a clear divergence from the practices of Latin mnemonic imagery, which is invariably dependent on the shared vocabulary of the original maker and intended users.
The way to identify the plants is by reference to the type of leaf, the petioles and their relative length and form of attachment (opposite or alternate), the habitat and the habit indicated.. these things are in order depicted from the literal to moderately-schematic in most cases.
Flowers do not have the same importance in the manuscript's tradition as they do in ours, and are often denoted by some formal motif (which is the case, for example on f.33v).
When you have a tentative identification by these means, that's the time to consider the mnemonic to see if, and how, it accords with that identification. IMO
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)