• Options
• Login
• Desktop Style

Matching Plant Images Internally

• Index

  • The Voynich Ninja
  • Voynich Research
  • Imagery
  • Matching Plant Images Internally
• Matching Plant Images Internally

• RE: Matching Plant Images Internally

  Jorge_Stolfi > 4 hours ago

  (5 hours ago)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Or P and H were both copied from the same original plant.

  
  I find it extremely unlikely that the Author got fresh specimens of all the 120+ plants that had to be listed in his herbal.  It would be like assuming that the geographers who drew world maps did so by actually going around the shorelines they depicted. 
  
  Especially when he had also to make a catalog of stars in the sky, and dissect cadavers for the Bio section. It is much more likely that, like mot authors of medieval herbals, just copied material from earlier herbals.
  
  Especially considering that many of the plants are obviously not real, like f5v f11r, and f40r.
  
  Moreover, the drawings of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and f102r1 are not just the same plant.  The layout of the branches is the same, the root is drawn from the same perspective view.  And on the other hand there are many critical differences, like the stalks and and bases of the leaves, the shape and placement of the root "tendrils", and the apparent 3D shape of the root -- three stubby cylinders on f1v, a potato and two broad humps on f102r1.  Both the similarities and the differences argue against both drawings having been made independently from the same plant specimen.
  
  My best theory for these "echoes" is that the Author originally drew quick sketches of the plants, but not from nature. Instead he drew them as he would find them in markets and apothecary shops.  That is, he drew the sausages, not the pigs.  (That would explain why the Pharma section has mostly parts of plants, and why the roots and fruits often have flat ends, as if they were cut away: namely, because they were cut away when the Author sketched them.).  Later, the scribe drew the figures on Pharma by copying those sketches, as they were, with little change -- except that he inevitably distorted some details. And then, later still, the Scribe drew the plants of the Herbal section, by copying the same  sketches from the author, enhancing the details (like the shape of root and of its tendrils) as best as he could guess them, and adding the missing parts (like the flower of f1v) from his own imagination or from other European herbals.
  
  But there are still some problems with this explanation.  Like, why are the three lobes of the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. root so different from each other, in shape and hatching?
  
  All the best, --stolfi

• RE: Matching Plant Images Internally

  Mark Knowles > 2 hours ago

  (4 hours ago)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  (5 hours ago)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Or P and H were both copied from the same original plant.

  
  I find it extremely unlikely that the Author got fresh specimens of all the 120+ plants that had to be listed in his herbal.  It would be like assuming that the geographers who drew world maps did so by actually going around the shorelines they depicted. 
  
  Especially when he had also to make a catalog of stars in the sky, and dissect cadavers for the Bio section. It is much more likely that, like mot authors of medieval herbals, just copied material from earlier herbals.
  
  Especially considering that many of the plants are obviously not real, like f5v f11r, and f40r.
  
  Moreover, the drawings of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and f102r1 are not just the same plant.  The layout of the branches is the same, the root is drawn from the same perspective view.  And on the other hand there are many critical differences, like the stalks and and bases of the leaves, the shape and placement of the root "tendrils", and the apparent 3D shape of the root -- three stubby cylinders on f1v, a potato and two broad humps on f102r1.  Both the similarities and the differences argue against both drawings having been made independently from the same plant specimen.
  
  My best theory for these "echoes" is that the Author originally drew quick sketches of the plants, but not from nature. Instead he drew them as he would find them in markets and apothecary shops.  That is, he drew the sausages, not the pigs.  (That would explain why the Pharma section has mostly parts of plants, and why the roots and fruits often have flat ends, as if they were cut away: namely, because they were cut away when the Author sketched them.).  Later, the scribe drew the figures on Pharma by copying those sketches, as they were, with little change -- except that he inevitably distorted some details. And then, later still, the Scribe drew the plants of the Herbal section, by copying the same  sketches from the author, enhancing the details (like the shape of root and of its tendrils) as best as he could guess them, and adding the missing parts (like the flower of f1v) from his own imagination or from other European herbals.
  
  But there are still some problems with this explanation.  Like, why are the three lobes of the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. root so different from each other, in shape and hatching?
  
  All the best, --stolfi

  
  You may be correct. I don't what the truth is. I find it perfectly conceivable that the Author got fresh specimens of all the 120+ plants that had to be listed in his herbal, maybe that he grew in his garden. However I also find it perfectly plausible that he didn’t. I am inclined to the view, at the moment, that all the plants are real, although they may well not be drawn in a way that actually represents the plant in question. I am, nevertheless, open to various possible explanations as I don't have a clearly formed theory.
• Next Oldest Next Newest