- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
The Voynich Manuscript, Dr Johannes Hartlieb and the Encipherment of Women’s Secrets
- The Voynich Manuscript, Dr Johannes Hartlieb and the Encipherment of Women’s Secrets
-
RE: The Voynich Manuscript, Dr Johannes Hartlieb and the Encipherment of Women’s Secrets
MichelleL11 > 19-04-2024, 02:52 PM
(18-04-2024, 12:32 AM)pjburkshire Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.What is your interpretation of the blue star-like image on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and the image to the left?
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Hi, pjburkshire:
Keagan and I believe that the large symbol in the middle represents thunder (loud noise).
This idea was first proposed by Ellie Velinska based on a similar symbol found in Hildegard von Bingen: Liber Scrivias; Universitätsbibilothek Heidelberg, Cod. Sal. X, 16. You can follow this in summary in the following string on the board in 2018, which involves the work of many board members:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
and more in depth in 2020 specifically seeking thunder imagery, again with many contributors: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
This is supported in our research because of a common medieval belief that thunder had a negative effect on fetus development and we believe it is likely this imagery refers to this. Thus, we interpret the woman on the far right to have died due to miscarriage (also a common occurence in medieval times) that was "caused" by the thunder.
Please note that the other findings of this precise kind of symbol in contemporary manuscripts by both myself and many other members tended to be marginal symbols that appear to have solely a decorative purpose and thus a less likely parallel to what is seen in the Voynich, which appears to have meaning.
Thanks for your question. -
RE: The Voynich Manuscript, Dr Johannes Hartlieb and the Encipherment of Women’s Secrets
MichelleL11 > 19-04-2024, 03:32 PM
(18-04-2024, 12:21 PM)bi3mw Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.@MichelleL11: According to my research, Johannes Hartlieb also translated a balneological treatise into German. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any further information on this. Have you perhaps found anything about this in connection with your research on the article ?
Quote:( Translated from German into English )
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. Frauenheilkunde in volkssprachigen Arznei- und Kräuterbüchern des 12. bis 15.
His versatility is reflected in his works: in addition to three medical works - the herb book, a Secreta mulierum treatment and a balneological treatise - he translated several fortune-telling books, the Minnetraktat des Andreas Capellanus, the Alexanderroman and the Brandanlegende from Latin into German. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Jahrhunderts. Eine empirische Untersuchung, Dorothée Leidig, Page 261
edit:
Quote:( Translated from German into English )
[2] FISCHER, HANNS. "ZU JOHANNES HARTLIEBS BÄDERBUCH" Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur, vol. 84, no. Jahresband, 1962, pp. 296-300. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Most of it is still unedited, and we do not even reliably know the manuscript and printed distribution of it. Both of these are true of the "Bäderbuch", alongside the Secreta mulierum, the second medical writing in the narrower sense.
.....
Hartlieb's small balneology was never printed. Researchers know the work from two Munich manuscripts already recorded by K. Goedeke,1) cgm 732 and cgm 733; both contain only the "Bäderbuch". [2]
Note: Hartlieb translated Felix Hemmerlin's "De balneis naturalibus sive termalibus" for Sigmund in 1467
Hi, bi3mw:
Yes, Keagan and I dug into this question to a certain extent back in 2020 when we were seriously considering Johannes Hartlieb as being directly involved in producing the Voynich. As discussed in the paper, we are now considering him a good reflection of certain attitudes present in the Voynich, but most likely too late to have actually been involved.
Still, the parallels between his work and what seems to be reflected in the manuscript based on images is compelling, so it is worth testing whether the claims of him having done all this work is well supported and to see the examples.
The primary set of references that we consulted that you did not include in your posting is the work done by Frank Fürbeth on this issue.
Frank Fürbeth, Johannes Hartlieb Untersuchungen zu Leben und Werk, Max Neimyer Verlag Tübingen (1992), p. 79-81.
Frank Fübeth, "Jordan Tömlinger statt Johannes Hartlieb: Ein Nachtrag zum Verfasserlexikon?" Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertumund deutsche Literatur 115:4 (4th quarter, 1986), 283-303.
Also, there is evidence that Hartmann Schedel later owned a copy of this work, see Werner William-Krapp, Die Literatur des 15. und frühen 16. Jahrhunderts: Teilband 1, in Geschichete der deutschen Literatur von Anfängen bis zum Beginn der Neuzeit, Band III: Von späten Mittlealter zum Beginn der Neuzeit, ed. Joachim Heinzel (Berlin, 2020), 89.
Very briefly, there is evidence that the bathing manuscript (a translation and expansion(?) of Hemmerlin's work) attributed to Johannes Hartlieb was likely actually done by Jordan Tömlinger, an attorney from a family of doctors, rather than by Hartlieb himself. Such pseudo attributions were very common in medieval times, often to a "classical" author, to give the work credibility. Interestingly, Hartlieb's name seems to have used in this way as well, to give other work credibility, even during his lifetime. For example, the incorrect attribution of a manuscript recently discussed on the board to Hartlieb (see, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. citing You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.) may be an example of this.
Hope this additional information helps. -
RE: The Voynich Manuscript, Dr Johannes Hartlieb and the Encipherment of Women’s Secrets
bi3mw > 19-04-2024, 04:03 PM
(19-04-2024, 03:32 PM)MichelleL11 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Very briefly, there is evidence that the bathing manuscript (a translation and expansion(?) of Hemmerlin's work) attributed to Johannes Hartlieb was likely actually done by Jordan Tömlinger, an attorney from a family of doctors, rather than by Hartlieb himself.
Thank you Michelle for the precise statement. I was not previously aware of Frank Fürbeth's work on the subject. The assertion in various articles on the net that Hartlieb translated Hemmerlin's work for Sigmund is therefore simply wrong. This must be taken into account when evaluating Hartlieb's portfolio in relation to the VMS. -
RE: The Voynich Manuscript, Dr Johannes Hartlieb and the Encipherment of Women’s Secrets
pjburkshire > 19-04-2024, 05:53 PM
(19-04-2024, 02:52 PM)MichelleL11 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Keagan and I believe that the large symbol in the middle represents thunder (loud noise).
Are you familiar with Ensoulment in the tradition of Aristotle? Have you considered that as an option?
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
"In the time of Aristotle, it was widely believed that the human soul entered the forming body at 40 days (male embryos) or 90 days (female embryos), and quickening was an indication of the presence of a soul."
I made slides and put them on YouTube.
Pregnancy & the Voynich Manuscript, v. 1.0
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Ensoulment & the Voynich Manuscript, v 1.1
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. -
RE: The Voynich Manuscript, Dr Johannes Hartlieb and the Encipherment of Women’s Secrets
MichelleL11 > 19-04-2024, 05:53 PM
(19-04-2024, 04:03 PM)bi3mw Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[quote='MichelleL11' pid='59015' dateline='1713537158']
The assertion in various articles on the net that Hartlieb translated Hemmerlin's work for Sigmund is therefore simply wrong. This must be taken into account when evaluating Hartlieb's portfolio in relation to the VMS.
Just to be clear, there is no doubt that Hartlieb was very interested in bathing and its medical applications (even for himself) as, according to Fischer (which you cited), he went on multiple trips to baths local to him (Gastein) with the Dukes as their personal physician. It was on one of these trips, very near the end of his life, that he received the Hemmerlin manuscript from the bishop of Chiemsee (Bernhard von Kraiburg) and was commanded by Sigmund to translate it from Latin to German.
However, what is not evident is that he was the one who actually performed the work.
There are three existant manuscripts known -- Cgm 733, dated 1481; Clm 8244 complied after 1517; and the earliest, Cgm 732, dated 1474. (Hartlieb died in 1468). The first two listed are attributed within to Johannes Hartlieb but the last is attributed to Jordan Tömlinger -- so this is the primary evidence that false attribution had occurred for this particular manuscript and that the translation was likely after Hartlieb's death.
Nothing is ever completely clear in this kind of stuff.
-
RE: The Voynich Manuscript, Dr Johannes Hartlieb and the Encipherment of Women’s Secrets
MichelleL11 > 19-04-2024, 06:08 PM
(19-04-2024, 05:53 PM)pjburkshire Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(19-04-2024, 02:52 PM)MichelleL11 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Keagan and I believe that the large symbol in the middle represents thunder (loud noise).
Are you familiar with Ensoulment in the tradition of Aristotle? Have you considered that as an option?
Hi, pjburshire:
Yes, Keagan and I have run into that tradition in our work. Please understand that we are working in probabilities and not certainties with any of this -- unless and until the meaning of the text is determined (if there is meaning there).
But that being said, the argument that ensoulment is a very central part of the Voynich runs counter to our position at this time, as we are seeing the manuscript as in the more medical tradition of late medieval manuscripts. In our experience, the ideas of ensoulment and various manipulations of the soul (at birth, death, judgment, etc) tend to be found in more religous works. That's not to say that religion is absent from the Voynich (or it is not "Christian"), but it does not -- from the imagery according to our current thoughts -- appear to be a very central part of the manuscript. As such, we see ensoulment as a lower probability to be a central theme of the manuscript than if there were more religious imagery present.
To be clear, we are not saying that ensoulment can't be involved (and there are likely aspects of it in the Rosettes page and perhaps Quire 13 if our interpretations are correct), we just find it to be of a lower probability to be a central theme than other broader topics that we propose in our paper.
I am certain that this observation will not deter you from continuing to pursue your ideas, of course, but we did want to repond to your direct question from our current viewpoint. -
RE: The Voynich Manuscript, Dr Johannes Hartlieb and the Encipherment of Women’s Secrets
bi3mw > 19-04-2024, 06:41 PM
(19-04-2024, 05:53 PM)MichelleL11 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.but the last is attributed to Jordan Tömlinger
Oh, I see ....
Quote:( Translated from German into English )
Cgm 732 occupies a prominent position not only because of its age. While in the two other manuscripts the name "ich Doctor Hartlieb" is found in various places, which nowhere explicitly refers to the authorship of the translation, but suggests this understanding in context, Cgm 732 always reads "ich Jordan Tömlinger" instead. FISCHER believes that this difference can be explained by the fact that Tömlinger was the scribe of the manuscript, "who put his own name wherever Hartlieb's name should have been written"; but that Tömlinger was only a copyist who "distorted" the manuscript with his own name is again explained by Hartlieb's authorship. FISCHER is clearly engaging in circular reasoning here, in which he tacitly uses the evidence that Hartlieb was the author and Tömlinger the scribe as the premise of his argument. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. Fürbeth, Frank, Jordan Tömlinger statt Johannes Hartlieb: Ein Nachtrag zum Verfasserlexikon ?, Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur, Publisher S. Hirzel, 115. Bd., H. 4 (4th Quarter, 1986), page 285 -
RE: The Voynich Manuscript, Dr Johannes Hartlieb and the Encipherment of Women’s Secrets
CaryR > 21-04-2024, 11:12 PM
These are some of my thoughts after reading the full paper. This research adds to our understanding about medieval censorship of so-called “womens’ secrets”, reasons for enciphering, and actual historical examples, but in my opinion their interpretation of the Voynich imagery remains too speculative and selective.
The first paragraph of the paper states that Voynich Manuscript’s “most distinct illustrations depict women pointing objects towards their genitalia.”
There are illustrations on almost every page of the Voynich, with a range of apparent subject matters, so what makes these illustrations more distinct than any of the others? Also, in most cases where a nymph holds an object, she points it away from her body, so I don't think it can be said with certainty or even as a likely possibility that the objects are intended to point towards their genitalia.
For reference, these are all the nymphs in Quire 13 who hold an object:
• f76v: Nymph at top left holds an object with an outstretched arm, and the object points upwards. The nymph below her also holds an object with an outstretched arm, and the object points down to the ground.
• f79v: Nymph at top left holds a cross-shaped object, with arm outstretched and the object pointing up and away from her body. The nymph below her holds a ring-shaped object, with arm outstretched in a similar way to the others, but lying down. This is the only instance where I think it could be argued that the object is positioned over her genitalia. However, other explanations for the position might include that the object is held over her body in general, and the meaning is not genitalia-specific; or, that the artist typically draws an outstretched arm to hold an object, and repeated this drawing style despite the lying-down position of the body.
• f80r: Nymph at top left holds a spindle-shaped object; with arm outstretched behind her back. The object is drawn with some attempt at perspective, showing its orientation pointing away from the viewer, down and to the side. Nymph at top right holds a similar spindle-shaped object, with both arms crossed behind her back. Again, it appears that some perspective was attempted, showing the object pointing down and angled away from her body. Nymph at middle left holds a pincer-shaped object, angled down and away from her body. Nymph at bottom left holds 3 pear-shaped objects, with arm outstretched and pointing away from her body.
• f80v: Nymph at top left holds an unidentified object, with arm outstretched, pointing away from her body. (The authors identify this as an enema, but this is certainly debatable.) Nymph at middle left holds a ring-shaped object with an outstretched arm, pointing away from her body. Nymph at middle right holds (or possibly just touches) what looks like a plant growing from the base of the "tub" she stands in. Nymph at bottom right appears to hold a piece of another nymph's long hair.
• f82r: Nymph at bottom left holds an unidentified object behind her back, pointing down and away from her body. Nymph at bottom center holds a ring-shaped object, lifting it upright in front of her face.
This amounts to 14 nymphs in Q13 who hold unique objects. Again, I think only one of these (the lying-down nymph on f79v, top middle, who holds a ring-shaped object) could arguably be pointing the object "towards their genitalia". The nymphs in Q13 who hold objects should also be considered in the larger context of all nymphs in the manuscript, including those in the Zodiac section, over 200 of whom hold stars. This fact is not mentioned in the paper. A reader unfamiliar with Voynich imagery would be led to believe that the manuscript’s illustrations focus on women pointing objects towards their genitalia, when this is actually the focus and subjective interpretation of the authors of this paper. Even if more than one nymph in Q13 does point an object towards her genitalia, the vast majority of nymphs in the manuscript hold stars, which would suggest that womens’ genitalia is not the main focus.
The authors go on to describe the following specific Q13 nymphs, interpreted with the same specific focus: “One woman (fol. 80r), for example, points towards her vagina a phallic object whose flared handle indicates it was intended for insertion. There are two depictions of a clyster or enema (80v, 82r);3 an object too small to identify, but oriented towards the vagina (76v); and three rings or straps with bulbs, of which one is adjacent to the vagina (79v, 80v, 82r). One woman positions her hand adjacent to her genitalia, next to which is an erasure (80v). Another is suggestively leading a man by the hand (80r) and one is touching another’s right breast (79r). Almost all of the several hundred women are topless or nude. Such illustrations would seem out of place if the manuscript’s primary concern was astrology, alchemy or herbalism.”
Assuming the illustration referenced from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is the nymph on the top left of the folio, the object in question is held behind her back…so is it really likely it’s meant to be pointing “towards her vagina”? Furthermore the object appears to have been drawn with some attempted perspective which would put its orientation pointing down and away from her body. It is unclear whether this object might have a sexual or gynecological function, particularly because she only holds it and does not appear to demonstrate its use. (It should be noted that none of the objects held by nymphs are used to interact with the environment or with other nymphs. They are just held, in the same way figures like saints hold attributes.)
About the nymph on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. described as "suggestively leading a man by the hand" (the one on the top right), note that she appears to have both arms crossed behind her back. Why would a woman lead a man with both hands crossed behind her back (an uncomfortable, restricted pose)? And it's clear that the male figure reaches for her upper arm, not her hand.
Also, just because most of the human figures are nude in the Voynich, it does not necessarily point to a focus on sexuality. Contrary to the authors’ claim that “such illustrations would seem out of place if the manuscript’s primary concern was astrology, alchemy or herbalism,” nude figures are not necessarily out of place in medieval manuscripts of astrology. For examples, see the Aratea tradition, or the Vaticanus gr. 1291 Helios miniature.
The authors provide many examples of how information pertaining to womens’ sexuality and reproductive health was sometimes erased or obscured in medieval texts. They state that in some medical manuscripts, “often single words, such as ingredients or genital terms, were targeted for erasure.” These examples make sense in the context of a manuscript that was readable to begin with, in which case various methods of erasure “such as scratching, strikethrough, and cutting” could be effective means of censorship. But when it comes to the Voynich–an entire manuscript with unreadable text–is it likely that a word would be erased out of censorship, as the authors argue occurs on f80v? If the goal was to hide or censor subjects like sex or reproduction, why erase something just in this one area when the manuscript’s text is already obscured? And, if the authors interpret some of the other held objects as enemas or other gynecological instruments, why would these be left visible too? The female figure on 80v described as “positioning her hand adjacent to her genitalia”, assumes a similar pose as many other female figures in the manuscript, and just because an arm is positioned “adjacent to” one’s genitalia, does not necessarily mean that one’s genitalia is the focus.
When discussing textual redaction as evidence of prudish attitudes, the authors mention Hildegard of Bingen’s lingua ignota as one of several examples. They write that the lingua ignota “includes 1,010 invented words, of which over 130 refer to medicinal plants and 140 refer to the human anatomy, including the genitalia.” This example is included alongside other examples of clear censorship, including “one redactor [who] replaced a recipe for genital hygiene with one for facial care, stating that the new version allowed women to maintain themselves ‘decently’. Hildegard’s lingua ignota, on the other hand, is quite different from such examples because her words are not obscured out of a desire for censorship. The purpose of her lingua ignota is still debated among scholars, but she apparently used it for mystical purposes. If one third of the words relate to medicinal plants and human anatomy, it certainly indicates that these topics were important to her. But just because she used invented words does not necessarily reflect prudishness. The words for body parts are replaced by her invented words, but so are the words for plants and many other mundane things. Hildegard also wrote extensively about human sexuality, reproduction and medicine in regular, unobscured language, so evidently she did not consider these topics too inappropriate.
I would also like to comment on the section of the paper concerning the Voynich Rosettes foldout, which the authors argue “represents a scientific understanding of human coitus and conception.” They claim that the central Rosette is the opening of a uterus, and further, that “the six protrusions entering it represent a non-realist penis depositing male sperm.”
The interpretation of a uterine opening is based on a twelfth-century description of female anatomy from Master Nicholas, a Salernitan physician, ideas which persisted in later years and other writings. He describes the uterus as divided into seven cells, with two openings or orifices, one at the bottom and the other inside. The authors see the 9-rosette foldout as representing this view of the female anatomy, with the middle and top-left rosettes being the two “openings” and the other seven being the chambers of the uterus, because “the other seven circles do not have openings.” It’s unclear how the authors define an “opening” in the Rosettes roundels, because while the top left one does have empty space in the center, the middle one does not. At the same time, the top right one has empty space in the center, but the authors classify this and all other roundels as “closed” and representing parts of the seven-chambered womb. The authors explain the appearance of the central roundel as having “an opening penetrated by six bulbed, pointed tubes” which represent an ejaculating penis. It is entirely unclear to me how six separate tower/vessel-shaped objects with pointy finials can represent something like this. Do they make up different parts of a penis together, or are they six individual penises? And if so, why are there six of them? Finials are also found in the center of the middle-left Rosette and the middle-top Rosette, so if the finials in the center Rosette are meant to represent penile penetration, what are they doing in the other roundels which the authors say represent other closed chambers of the uterus?
The authors cite various other researchers’ interpretations of the Rosettes including “a depiction of a Sephirothic tree, a map of northern Italy or central Mexico, a fantasy utopia, a mappa mundi with the four elements, the New Jerusalem of Revelation, a sea port, a journey or an escape route from a volcanic eruption.” But they discount these interpretations because these subjects “did not cross medieval lines of taboo or warrant encipherment. Nor do these interpretations bear any conceptual relationship with women pointing objects towards their genitals.”
If the Voynich’s text is in fact enciphered, there could be more reasons for doing so besides a taboo subject matter. Hildegard's lingua ignota, cited earlier in the paper, provides an example of a text that was obscured for mystical or spiritual reasons. It's also absolutely not a requirement in medieval manuscripts that all the subjects gathered in the manuscript must be closely related to each other. The Rosettes might not be conceptually related to Quire 13. The presence of elements like buildings in the Rosettes, which are absent in the rest of the manuscript, seem to suggest at least some shift in context.
The authors do address the question of “how can castles be inside a scientific representation of coitus and conception?” and their explanation is that the medieval Latin term ‘clausura’ can refer to a ‘closure of a mouth’ or ‘enclosure of a town with a wall or fortification’ but the term is also used to describe part of a uterus in the late 13th-early 14th century text Secreta mulierum. According to the authors, the Latin ‘claustrum’ can mean both a wall or a virginal membrane, and the German ‘schloss’ had similar meanings and was used in texts by Dr. Johannes Hartlieb and other German gynecological writers.
The Voynich rosettes have imagery of fortification in several areas. A wall with swallowtail merlons connects the bottom-left Rosette to the bottom-middle Rosette. More walls with towers connect the top-left Rosette to the top-middle, the top-middle to the top-right, and the top-right to the middle-right. The top-right Rosette also contains a castle with swallowtail merlons, and other imagery of walls and towers. If castles and city walls are meant to represent a virginal membrane or the opening of a woman’s vagina or uterus, the reasons for their placement in these particular locations is unclear. The two roundels which the authors identify as orifices or openings (the top left and the center) lack any imagery of castles. Castle imagery appears on one of the seven roundels they identify as closed chambers of the uterus, and is also found between these roundels in four locations. It is not specified whether the authors believe there is a specific reason for this placement of castle imagery in a diagram of the seven-chambered uterus.
While this is a lot of criticism, I don't entirely disagree with all of the authors' ideas. Most notably, I think their interpretation of the top-left Rosette as related to the female genitals may be on the right track, and is plausible given its shape. However, the best parallels for this mandorla shape are probably not found in medicinal illustrations but rather in religious contexts.
It's clear that the authors have done a lot of good research, but I think this shows once again how easily the Voynich manuscript can mislead even experienced researchers. -
RE: The Voynich Manuscript, Dr Johannes Hartlieb and the Encipherment of Women’s Secrets
Ruby Novacna > 22-04-2024, 12:18 PM
Thanks, Cary, for the detailed comments.
Indeed, this new interpretation of the page of the Rosettes is quite bold and unexpected.
I hope that the text will not resist us for much longer, to be able to separate the different theories.