- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
The frog
- The frog
-
The frog
ReneZ > 21-05-2017, 09:00 AM
There are only three illustration of animals in the herbal and pharmaceutical section: a pair of snakes, a dragon and a frog.
The snakes and dragon are very common in medieval illustrated herbals, but the frog isn't.
In fact, beside snakes and dragons, one would commonly see scorpions and dogs, and in almost all cases the animal has something to do with the medicinal properties of the herb.
What would the frog mean?
It is on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. in the upper right corner:
This is clearly the same herb as on f32v:
The "artist" has taken the trouble to bring in one leaf and one flower to show that it's the same.
Which herb would have something to do with frogs?
One option is given by the Tractatus de Herbis tradition. There is usually a frog ('rana') drawn closely to a herb called 'ranaria'. This is because the books show herbs and animals mixed, and they are organised alphabetically. Here's an example from Munich CLM 28531, which I have rotated for layout purposes:
The herb does not look at all like the herb in the Voynich MS.
Another incidental example I found is in a Latin illustrated copy of Dioscurides, also in Munich: CLM 337:
Now this one is a bit more interesting as the herb does bear a passing resemblance to the VMS herb.
This one is Cyminon Agrestis, which in the more common Greek versions is Κύμινον άγριον
(hope that comes out).
After this, it gets more difficult. In Greek copies of Dioscurides (I only checked the online ones in Naples and in New York), the herb looks very different, and there is no frog. The reason of the frog seems to be a standard venom-related issue, but I haven't seen any specific reason why a frog and not a dragon/snake/scorpion.
Unfortunately, the scan of CLM 337 is not of the best quality, and the Beneventan script takes quite a while to get used to.
So, no great answers yet, but perhaps someone else knows a bit more. -
RE: The frog
ReneZ > 21-05-2017, 09:27 AM
There used to be a web site that has a PDF copy of CLM 337, but I can't find the link again. It was already mentioned in this forum IIRC. The illustration of the page in question (fol. 88r) is here: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. .
This is in Book 3, and the herb has number ΞΕ.
Riddle is of the opinion that this very rare Latin illustrated copy of Dioscurides has illustrations that may have been drawn from nature. -
RE: The frog
davidjackson > 21-05-2017, 09:58 AM
Outside of the herbal tradition, frogs are often depicted carved on holy water fonts across Catholic churches because they were associated with good harvests and fertile soil, being a link between water and earth. I've seen them in cathedrals here in Spain, which is why I looked it up not so long ago.
The tradition, I seem to remember, goes all the way back to Egypt, where frogs used to appear before the floods of the Nile. Even today there is a Spanish saying: "See a frog, prepare for the rains".
As opposed to toads, which were evil in nature. The two form a symbolic duo : frog / toad, good / bad, which can still be seen in church engravings. You can see toads engraved ontop of skulls as a reminder of sins committed in life pursuing you into death.
So the image could be a soil attribute rather than image mnemonic? -
RE: The frog
-JKP- > 21-05-2017, 10:08 AM
Those are good examples. The frog is certainly not common in herbal manuscripts. It's quite common in alchemical manuscripts and I'm assuming it has a symbolic significance.
Venomous frogs are generally found in South America and southeast Asia. I don't think there are any in northern Europe or the Mediterranean area (I'm not certain about this, but I can't think of any off the top of my head) so it seems unlikely that the plant is used to treat frog toxins. There are some medicinal and magical recipes that include frog parts.
In manuscripts where the order of the animals is not alphabetical, I don't know whether the frog might be a reference to a wetland plant. Another possibility is that it might refer to a plant name (e.g., frog-bit, frog cup, frog crowfoot, etc.).
Both Himalayan balsam and Amomum have roots like 32v but the flowers and leaves don't match.
The roots and leaves of 32v resemble Potentilla, but not the flowers.
The root and flowers resemble Campanula rapunculus, but not the leaves.
As far as I know, neither of these latter two plants is associated with frogs by name or by habitat (they tend to grow in meadows and fields rather than wetlands). -
RE: The frog
MarcoP > 21-05-2017, 10:23 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. shows a plant with a toad-like root.
The plant is called Unctuosa, Campotos, Sticos[?], Bubula.
The leaves are described as "wide at the top and thin at the bottom" (as often seems to be the case in this ms, the illustrated interpreted this in a non-naturalistic way).
The flower is said to be "large, similar to convolvolus (volubilis), but yellow". Some of the illustrated flowers compare rather well with those of the Voynich plant (but for the color).
The root is explicitly described as toad-like ("ad modum buffonis formata"). -
RE: The frog
MarcoP > 21-05-2017, 10:33 AM
-
RE: The frog
-JKP- > 21-05-2017, 10:36 AM
(21-05-2017, 10:23 AM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. shows a plant with a toad-like root.
The plant is called Unctuosa, Campotos, Bubula.
The leaves are described as "wide at the top and thin at the bottom" (as often seems to be the case in this ms, the illustrated interpreted this in a non-naturalistic way).
The flower is said to be "large, similar to convolvolus (volubilis), but yellow". Some of the illustrated flowers compare rather well with those of the Voynich plant (but for the color).
The root is explicitly described as toad-like ("ad modum buffonis formata").
Now that's interesting, because "unctuosa" is sometimes associated with the plant called Orpine (Sedum telephium), which has quite broad flowers and a lot of thick root tendrils that tend to mass up at the point of the stalk. Also, one of the names for Sedum telephium is "frog's stomach".
Unfortunately, it doesn't resemble the VMS plant (the leaves and roots of orpine resemble VMS 50v, but not the flower). Orpine has pear-shaped leaves with bumps, and umbellate flowerheads, but it might be the one mentioned in Trinity O.2.48. -
RE: The frog
VViews > 21-05-2017, 12:21 PM
This is probably irrelevant but I want to add that a coalescence of frogs and similar-looking flowers can also be found in French heraldry:
Supposedly, the Merovingian kings' emblem was the frog, until, as legend has it, an angel appeared to king Clovis telling him to change it from the frog to the lily, leading to the adoption of the fleur-de-lys . The design of the fleur-de-lys is said to echo that of the original frog:
![[Image: rois_merovingiens_grunbg.jpg]](https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Lq8ls_TuPNc/Ts1puTaBdyI/AAAAAAAACP0/b79lTTTiQV8/s320/rois_merovingiens_grunbg.jpg)
Arms of the Merovingian kings according to the 1483 Grunenberg armorial.
![[Image: clovis.jpg]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4ZX4O7rJq9A/Ts0VFfTznxI/AAAAAAAACPM/g0hqRdnljxc/s1600/clovis.jpg)
![[Image: artimage_184626_2905458_201008304911365.png]](http://static.blog4ever.com/2008/02/184626/artimage_184626_2905458_201008304911365.png)
(Sorry I can't find the reference for these, they are from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. heraldry blog)
It is important to note that all of this is myth: the Merovingian kings didn't in fact have any coat of arms at all, but with the rise of heraldry, coats of arms (and fables explaining their origin) were assigned retroactively to many historical and biblical figures. -
RE: The frog
Diane > 21-05-2017, 02:24 PM
If the Vms botanical folios were a Latin herbal - which they're not IMO - and if frog pictures were generics - which they're not necessarily - then all pictures of all frogs with all plants would have similar meaning (significance). Which I don't think the case here.
So frog A in a Latin herbal may not be meant to convey the same as frog (B) carved in a misericord or frog © in a mural from Ephesus or frog (D) in the Voynich manuscript.
IMO the frog meant here is one that is renowed for its climbing to the heights of the 'peacock tree' ... where it sings.
But that's just my opinion, of course. Due mainly to first identifying the associated tree with (as you see) its 'peacock' -evoking root.
The frog in Latin bestiaries
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
