• Options
• Login
• Desktop Style

J. Janick interpretations of the VMS...

• Index

  • The Voynich Ninja
  • Voynich Research
  • Imagery
  • J. Janick interpretations of the VMS...
• J. Janick interpretations of the VMS...

• J. Janick interpretations of the VMS...

  -JKP- > 12-01-2017, 06:54 PM

  DavidJackson kindly posted links to a collection of essays by J. Janick which interpret and support the Tucker New World theory.
  
  Since it's in the library section, it's not possible to comment on the individual articles.
  
  
  I read (with difficulty), the chapter on the zodiac section.  It was so full of errors, I had trouble getting through it and found myself unable to read the others (I didn't feel it was worth the time).
  
  
  However, mine is only one opinion, there may be others who feel differently or who want to address specific statements in the essays, so I thought I would start a thread in case others want to comment on his arguments and his conclusions.

• RE: J. Janick interpretations of the VMS...

  Emma May Smith > 12-01-2017, 07:46 PM

  1) The Voynich Manuscript has clear links to European culture.
  2) Nahuatl is an American language.
  3) European culture did not permanently contact America until after 1490.
  4) The manuscript has been scientifically dated to the period between 1400 and 1450.
  
  Therefore, any solution proposing an American connection to the Voynich manuscript is definitely wrong. No serious researcher should waste their time on this theory, or any theory which proposes a date later than 1450.

• RE: J. Janick interpretations of the VMS...

  -JKP- > 12-01-2017, 08:17 PM

  I don't want to comment on the Janick essays in depth, but I'll mention why I found them difficult to read.
  
  In the zodiac-symbols section, he identifies the text under the symbols as Carolingian. It's not even close to being Carolingian. This style of handwriting on the VMS is found in the Occitan/Catalan region in the 15th century and probably dates to about the mid- or late-15th century. The spelling of the months supports the handwriting (they are consistent with each other).
  
  It's also very likely that the marginalia was added later as it casually crosses over some of the drawings and the original illustrator tended not to do this. It's a different hand, a different color ink, and a different "sensibility". It's also a different hand (and language) from the marginalia on the last page. The way Janick writes about the zodiac symbols gives the impression that he thinks the month labels were part of the original manuscript and thus accepts out-of-hand that these are intended as zodiac signs.
  
  There are factual errors in the section on historical precedents for the iconography of the symbols, as well.
  
  
  I don't want to be seen as out-and-out attacking the work of another researcher, and we all make mistakes or go down blind alleys once in a while, but a certain minimum standard of care and attention needs to be maintained if something is to be taken seriously.

• RE: J. Janick interpretations of the VMS...

  Anton > 12-01-2017, 08:28 PM

  Quote:4) The manuscript has been scientifically dated to the period between 1400 and 1450.
  
  Therefore, any solution proposing an American connection to the Voynich manuscript is definitely wrong. No serious researcher should waste their time on this theory, or any theory which proposes a date later than 1450.

  
  What falls altogether out of the "American theory" is why those inhabitants of America (be that natives or colonists) would suddenly utilize German along with Voynichese in f116v.

• RE: J. Janick interpretations of the VMS...

  -JKP- > 12-01-2017, 08:34 PM

  I just made the mistake of looking at the chapter on zoomorphic imagery.
  
  Janick writes this about the green-pool You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. with the many critters:
  
  "Fig. 1. Folio 79v from the Voynich Codex depicts a scene from a pool of water and includes five different animals (left to right) resembling an alligator gar (Atractoseus spatula) swallowing a woman, a lizard, an iguana (Ctenosaura similis), a paca (Agouti paca), and a coatimundi (Nasua sp.)."
  
  Is there anyone on this forum, who thinks the creature that the nymph is emerging from or being swallowed by, or is standing in (or wearing) is an alligator? Does it even remotely resemble an alligator?
  
  
  Since he has co-authored the paper on identifying the VMS plants, the issue of identification is important. It's quite concerning that he identifies that fishlike creature as an alligator (alligators have legs). Am I wrong in thinking this cannot be an alligator? Does this ID have any credibility?

• RE: J. Janick interpretations of the VMS...

  Koen G > 12-01-2017, 08:50 PM

  The quotes you selected seem very theory-driven, rather forced to prove a certain point. (And the little green critter nearby would make a much better alligator).
  
  I guess an American theory is possible, with many "if's". I'd need much more solid cultural/historical evidence before I'd believe any of those plant IDs.

• RE: J. Janick interpretations of the VMS...

  -JKP- > 12-01-2017, 08:59 PM

  (12-01-2017, 08:50 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The quotes you selected seem very theory-driven, rather forced to prove a certain point. (And the little green critter nearby would make a much better alligator).
  
  I guess an American theory is possible, with many "if's". I'd need much more solid cultural/historical evidence before I'd believe any of those plant IDs.

  
  Some of the plant IDs might be correct, since there are plants that originate in both the New and Old World, but I just read an assertion in the article that the plant IDs somehow prove that they are New World plants.
  
  Given the great amount of overlap between New and Old World plants (especially if you include plants that look the same on both continents even if they are different species), I don't think anyone can make the assertion from plant IDs alone that they come from the New World.
  
  
  Even though I like the idea of a possible New World origin and have tried for a long time to find evidence for it, I can't convince myself that they are New World plants because there's a pretty clear picture of Ricinus in the VMS. If it's Ricinus (I'm about 80% sure that it is), it didn't exist in the New World until the 16th century when colonists brought it over.

• RE: J. Janick interpretations of the VMS...

  Anton > 12-01-2017, 09:05 PM

  Which folio is Ricinus?

• RE: J. Janick interpretations of the VMS...

  -JKP- > 12-01-2017, 09:38 PM

  (12-01-2017, 09:05 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Which folio is Ricinus?

  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  Most likely Ricinus. Note the peltate leaves. The drawing is naturalistic. The leaves, fruits, and roots are accurate (they are almost white and kind of curvy like the VMS drawing).
  
  The only other reasonable possibility IMO is one of the chestnut species but the leaflets are more separate and not quite peltate, whereas in Ricinus they are more fused. Ricinus is an ancient Old World medicinal plant. It's in many of the old herbals.

• RE: J. Janick interpretations of the VMS...

  R. Sale > 12-01-2017, 09:40 PM

  In Post #2, Emma May Smith makes the following statement: "4) The manuscript has been scientifically dated to the period between 1400 and 1450."
  
  I am aware that four parchment samples from the VMs have been Carbon-14 dated and give results that indicate that they were produced in the first part of the 15th Century. And it does seem probable that the VMs was created not too long afterwards. Apparently, however, I have missed the evidence that turns this reasonable and probable hypothesis into an absolutely guaranteed, scientific fact. What is that evidence?
• Next Oldest Next Newest