I will soon return to type-token investigations, but there is a short imagery post I wanted to finish first. It’s about the Beast – yeah, that one. I have talked to few people about this in the past, so this won’t be new to everyone. Still, I always find it helpful to line up the evidence in a blog post.
Why is it important?
Considering the fact that the Voynich manuscript has dozens of pages full of images, this one detail has garnered a disproportionate amount of attention. This is mainly the case because it is used as an argument for one of the most prominent alternative theories in Voynich research – the New World theory.
You see, the New World theory rests on two pillars: the interpretation of a specific plant image as a sunflower (a New World plant) and the interpretation of the above beast as an armadillo (a New World species).
What I mean to convey with the above sketch is that most New World arguments consist of bad science, guesswork and shaky identifications, all justified by the presumed solid pillars of sunflower and armadillo. You can imagine what would happen to the figure and his theories if the sunflower, armadillo or both were to be taken away…
Animals of the Voynich
Even looking at the Voynich exclusively, more specifically the way it depicts animals, we can learn quite a bit. Are Voynich beasts naturalistic? Can we rely on them to pinpoint one species? Are they well drawn? Do they all represent real animals? As we will see, the answer to all of those questions is no.
Look at this:
We kind of know that this should be a ram, a male sheep, given its appearance in a series of Zodiac emblems. However, it looks more like a goat. Besides that, its face is flat as if it was run over by a road roller. It is as if the artist could not decide which perspective to go with and kind of mixed them all.
The bull has a similar problem with its face, and moreover suffers from dislocated joints in the hind legs, its knees pointing the wrong way. As JK Petersen points out, this is an attribute hardly found in other manuscripts, so it seems to set the VM apart in a pretty bad way. If these drawings are supposed to be reliable, naturalistic animal portraits, then they are pretty bad at their job. But luckily, they are not supposed to be naturalistic; knowing the context of the Zodiac series, we have enough to go on.
This changes when we don’t know the context we’re dealing with. For example, none of the “pond creatures” of f79v can be identified with certainty. Consider the yellow one:
What is this? Its feet appear like paws – with about four fingers on each foot they are certainly not meant to represent hooves. Its tail is long and slender, with a tuft at the end. It could belong to a large feline (lion) but also a cow, though the latter would be in conflict with the paws. The neck is long and curved, and together with the overall posture of the animal reminds me the most of a rearing horse. Certainly not a feline or bovine.
So those are three key aspects (feet, tail, neck/head) which are in conflict with each other to various degrees and point to different animal families. This leaves two possible conclusions:
- A specific animal is meant but it is badly drawn.
- The creature is a random “beast” or a fictional being.
The outcome is either way is that, like so many medieval works, the VM animals should not be taken as naturalistic representations. With this in mind, the reader will already realize how strange it is for proponents of American theories to lean so heavily on precisely a VM animal image.
Properties of the Strange Beast
The VM creature of f80v is particularly hard to understand, but still we can attempt to describe it. The being is suspended above or leaping out of/into what is often described as a basin of water. This apparent water is bordered by a typical VM “cloud line”, though it is one of the wavy variety. Higher up on the same page there is one of the more symmetrical variety as well, for contrast:
Maybe it’s a cloud, maybe it’s water, maybe it’s both – we don’t really know. On to the thing itself; here is the image again for easy reference:
It’s got three visible legs, with the fourth one presumably hidden by the contorted pose. It appears to have three visible toes on the hind paw and two on the front paw. The third leg, which is mostly lifted behind the body, is hard to read. The legs themselves connect very awkwardly to the feet/paws, converging in a point at the end.
The head is even stranger: it’s incredibly flat and it’s hard to tell whether there is a mouth, an ear, an eye, a horn…? The creature does appear to be scaled, with three neat lines of scales running along its body. The tail splits in two parts near the base. A stroke of green-grayish color has been applied along part of the body, legs and tail.
An armadillo?
Since the image is so strange and hard to interpret, it has given rise to quite a number of diverging interpretations, one proclaimed with more zeal than the other. The armadillo is the most famous one, and the most damaging to proper research.
From the wiki:
Armadillos (from Spanish “little armoured one”) are New World placental mammals in the order Cingulata. […] 21 extant species of armadillo have been described, some of which are distinguished by the number of bands on their armour. All species are native to the Americas, where they inhabit a variety of different environments.
[…]
Most species have rigid shields over the shoulders and hips, with a number of bands separated by flexible skin covering the back and flanks.
Our Voynich beast clearly does not have any bands. Its scales are also way too large to even resemble the multitude of tiny so-called scutes typical for the armadillo.
Proponents of the armadillo-theory often suggest that the being is seen in the act of rolling into a ball as a defense mechanism, but in actuality this behavior is only regularly observed in the three-banded armadillo. Other species will run for cover in the thorny undergrowth.
Additionally, the armadillo has long, sharp claws and does not have a split tail. Needless to say, the armadillo theory does not gain much traction in mainstream Voynich research.
An Old World mammal does exist which is in many ways similar to the armadillo: the pangolin. This adorable fellow has the unfortunate honor of being the world’s most poached animal.
Identifying the VM creature as a pangolin creates some of the same issues as the armadillo does: claws, long tail… But the pangolin has got two things going for it. One, it has very large scales, and two, it needs fewer convoluted theories to justify its presence in an early 15th century European manuscript.
Still, if it were a pangolin, it would be the only image of its kind, and this proposal is not without its problems either. Occam prefers it over the armadillo, but he’s still not quite satisfied.
A sea monster
Last year I spent quite some tome studying medieval bestiary traditions, and I concluded that there is some connection between the VM animals and the images in Thomas de Cantimpré’s De natura rerum and its rich tradition. See A network of faulty lobsters: Scotus, Cantimpré, Megenberg and the Voynich Manuscript.
One chapter in these works is titled De monstris marinis, “of sea monsters”. It is not entirely clear to the modern reader what exactly constitutes the difference between fish, sea creatures and sea monsters. The latter are always partially or entirely fictional.
To get to the point, some of these sea monsters look rather familiar to Voynich researchers. In Pal. lat. 1066 (1424, Bayern), there are two in particular, here and here. The second one is labelled “tuna” (apparently a sea monster) but I suspect the image belongs to a different paragraph, especially since a more conventional fish is depicted above it. The first is called the Kylion, and Marco Ponzi kindly translated its paragraph as follows:
Kylion is a rather marvelous sea animal, as Aristoteles says, in which it is believed that either nature erred or changed its usual order. But it is not the case to believe that nature erred: indeed it designed everything well and all things were created in a right and appropriate way. In fact, while in all the animals on earth, small all large, it placed the liver at the right and the spleen at the left, in kylion it placed the spleen at the right and the liver at the left.
Similar beings are found in Valenciennes MS 320, the mother of the illustrated Cantimpré tradition. On f116v we encounter the kylion again, as well as the karabo (bottom).
The karabo appears to be doing something which requires it to bend its head down, but I don’t have a translation for its text yet. The VM being shares the facing direction of the Valenciennes creatures, but is stylistically more alike the German manuscript.
Similarities between the “sea monsters” and the VM “armadillo” are:
- Position: not quite swimming, but rather above or on the water
- In case of the karabo also pose
- body shape
- fish tail
- scales
- paws
- apparent mix of species, confusing head
- often grey-green coloring
- found in early 15th century manuscripts
Conclusion
I started this post by showing that the VM creatures cannot be relied upon as naturalistic depictions of animals. Next, I provided some images wich I believe form convincing parallels for the type. I’m not saying that the VM creature is a kylion or a karabo or any of the other beasts depicted in this manner. It’s impossible to know which creature is meant without a text. What I am saying is that the Cantimpré tradition offers a convincing medieval parallel for the iconography of this image. It seems likely to me that the VM illustrator wished to depict some aquatic creature, whether real or imaginary, general or specific, and they found an example in a book related to the Cantimpré tradition. No armadillos or pangolins required.
The Voynich Temple 
Koen, First of all – my congratulations. You’ve produced a post which as so stimulated the jaded appetites of Voynich readers that they speak not only to you but to each other… Is anyone other than Nick able to claim 142 (now 143) comments to a post they’ve written?.
Up the line you responded:
“…without convincing parallels in imagery, it won’t help us get much closer…”
Now, this isn’t quibbling – it’s a vital aspect of iconographic analysis – that because such analysis isn’t depended on logic so much as previous study, investigations are properly less concerned to present conclusions in a ‘convincing’ light than to demonstrate the process of that research and (especially) the role of *self-critical* thinking.
That’s what seems to be so often absent in Voynich writings and arguments: the ‘how do you come to think that’ part of it.
For example – Nick mentions above (as Rene as been mentioning for years) the ‘Buch der Natur’ which as we know was a derivative offshoot in Germany of the Thomas of Cantimpre’s earlier work (once regularly mistaken for a work by Albertus Magnus). But what we are not seeing is any effort to recognise that Cantimpre’s work owed as much (or more) to the ‘Book of Marvels’ genre as it did to Pliny’s Natural History.
Not have I seen any effort to argue the case for any sequence of text, or of images, from any copy of any of those constantly mentioned texts – one wonders quite what point is being made about the Vms itself.
As for “parallels in imagery” – who has here shown evidence of having thought carefully about what the phrase might mean.. might imply?
It’s actually a highly-charged, historically and culturally dependent, and fairly fraught question, yet most seem to think it self-evident. Indeed, many seem still to be at the most basic level of art appreciation: the idea that the aim of a drawing is to make a ‘picture of a thing’.
Not only is that notion problematic for a discussion of imagery in a book bound in European fashion and on vellum dating to before 1440, but it is a simplistic notion which even a moment’s thought should show too clumsy a tool for the task at hand.
I mean – how does one judge what is a ‘convincing likeness’ of a dragon, or an angel or a Centaur?
How does one decide if the apparently horned head of the beastie, or its apparently split tail was a defining (or the defining) element for the original makers… when so very little effort is devoted to seeing clues about those people within the primary evidence? Knowing who they were, and why their tabus and priorities – expressed through these images – so little accord with Latin Europe’s is surely one important step towards locating the time and place ‘Voynichese’ was created.
I don’t think we need convincing arguments so much as the sort of reasoned examination which waits to draw conclusions until all the evidence is considered. So what about the fact that soon after we see this little creature, we see another whose originally long tail has been artificially shortened. Did the original makers mean both for the same creature, or not? What does it mean that it appears in proximity to an equine-looking creature given feline/leonine claws? Whose cultural traditions and habits of drawing are we seeing?
I don’t much care where the manuscript’s parts were copied in the early 15thC. I do care where the content originated. As usual, I say too much about methodology – in which so few are interested. But that’s another compliment to your ability to stir readers’ interest in your topics 🙂
LikeLike
The ibex does have thick fur during parts of the year, and especially just before changing to a new coat, looks a lot like fleece.
LikeLike
Cute, looks a bit like the VM goats :]
Ah well… if there’s anything I’ve learned from all these comments it is that we just don’t know what it is, and are not at a point where we can make a good call.
There’s only one thing I’m willing to conclude for myself and that is that all the evidence points away from the armadillo possibility.
There’s one more post I have to finish first and then I’ll move on to that other crumbling pillar of the New World theorist.
LikeLike
Hi Koen: Well as you probably noticed, I backed away from the discussion. But I do have to address your last comments, here:
“There’s one more post I have to finish first and then I’ll move on to that other crumbling pillar of the New World theorist.”
I was under the impression, from another comment of yours, that you conceded that you did NOT mean to say that there were “only” these two “pillars”, the sunflower and the armadillo (that they were only representative of any speculative comparisons). But now you have doubled-down on this contention.
These two issues are far from the only ones. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of “pillars’, and all of those anachronisms and anomalies would have to be addressed to make your case for the 1420 paradigm to survive.
As I wrote on the VMs-net, “Post-Columbian relies on a good many dozens of “pillars”, like the sunflower and armadillo… dozens of plants, items like the “bird glyph”, iconography, graphical similarities between the writing and structure, and various attempts at representing different Native American languages, and more.”
J&T have over 60 plants native to the Americas, and unknown to the Europeans before 1492. I don’t personally agree with about half of their comparisons, but do believe that a good many of them are “rock solid”.
By continuing to insist, incorrectly, that it is “only” the sunflower and armadillo that need to be explained away, I have to say it undermines your overall point, because you are clearly avoiding uncomfortable counters to your theory. And you are giving your readers a false impression in order to do so.
“Ah well… if there’s anything I’ve learned from all these comments it is that we just don’t know what it is, and are not at a point where we can make a good call.”
I’m working on my own post, which points out that none of the arguments used to dismiss the amradillo are logical or valid, and many of them are admittedly based on the practice of narrowing one’s search to a time when Europeans could not know about an armadillo… simply removing that possibility from the range of animals, then saying it can’t be one. Well clearly this is not a valid argument, because ALL animals must be looked at, not just the ones wandering under the light of your lampost.
“There’s only one thing I’m willing to conclude for myself and that is that all the evidence points away from the armadillo possibility.”
If you only look at animals known to 15th century Europeans, if that is “all evidence” you use, then of course you would conclude “for yourself”. But you have not made the case for anyone who is willing to include the armadillo in their sights.
I need to add another point, which is vital: Note how everyone here, who all seem to be genuinists, were willing to ignore the issue René brought up: The “internal” Radiocarbon report. He never explained how he has data from that report, unless he owns a copy; he never explained why he claims it was “published”, when it has not; he never tells us why he or other will not share the report… why they want it kept secret.
This goes to the armadillo, and the construction of the Voynich, and all the great many serious flaws in the paradigm, the anomolies, the anachronistic content, and so on…
If I meet people who are not willing to confront those problems, and filter their vision to only those things they CAN explain, then it undermines their conclusions as a whole. Because science is not about cherry picking that evidence you like, and rejected that which you do not, in order to taylor the result you desire… it is about confronting even the difficult issues, and either explaining them satisfactorily within your paradigm, or creating a new paradigm instead, if you cannot.
LikeLike
Koen, indeed nothing should be filtered out, all possibilities should be kept open. But one can not hold it against someone who spends his time foremost on the most likely theories. Like it being a 15th C. manuscript. Which I would reject only after substantially more convincing arguments than your armadillo. And the sunflower with leaves that have not even seen the America’s.
Personally I am finishing my favorite theory that the Rosettes actually map a region on Titan, a Saturn moon. I expect to get final proof after completion of the coming NASA drone expedition there. That will shock the world, not only the Voynich community!
LikeLike
Koen, I addressed you in my previous reply, but obviously it was meant for Rich…
LikeLike
The f80v animal could well be Linda’s ibex. My only objection could be that it is not drawn in its mythical “upright” position. with horns pointing down.
Fighting goats are in a similar position as the f80v creature.
It could be a goat, about to attack…
And for that matter also an ibex about to attack.
The goat has the same type of short pointed horns:
Ger Hungerink.
LikeLike
Hi Ger, your attack stance example may well be the case, in the 1420s Venice was actively taking over the areas that would be represented by this drawing, and may be indicative of their opponents. The mouth is located in an area just north of Verona, which had submitted to Venice in 1405, the eyes are rivers that drain on either side of Venice itself. I take the castle in the rosettes to stand for the western end of the Po valley, ie a gateway over high ground (the alps) to somewhere with dunes (France). The ibex shows the route in the tail, which is analogous to the river Durance, which rises in the same area as the Po, flowing southwest and joining the Rhone at Avignon.
LikeLike
I’m willing to admit that an attack stance is possible, but in that case a Ram is more likely since it’s known for its wool and.. ramming
There’s even a Wikihow about it 😀
https://www.wikihow.com/Defend-Against-a-Ram
LikeLike
Indeed, even the VM itself displays two rams in its Zodiac, both having wiggly lines indicating the fur. Have a good look and notice a similar “split” tail on the one to the right.
LikeLike
What about the “missing” Capricorn?
Capricorn was drawn as a goat and often woolly. That might explain the scales pattern of f80v. More about this here: https://hungergj.home.xs4all.nl/catoblepas/Lamia.htm
It has straight(er) horns like f80v in contrast with rams. It is also known as the “Sea-goat”. It is drawn sometimes as a terrestrial goat, sometimes half goat half fish. That might explain why the scribe associated the fur of his goat with the scales of a fish.
See how compelling that idea seems to be…
.jpg)
Capricorn – Claude Paradin, DEVISES HEROÏQUES (1551)
More about the Sea-goat:
http://www.celticmythmoon.com/zodiac.html
So would the f80v be the capricorn from the missing(?) January (and February) page? Please see more examples here: https://hungergj.home.xs4all.nl/catoblepas/capricorn.htm
Ger Hungerink.
LikeLike
A complication here is that the VM “Aries” aren’t rams at all (an age-old point of discussion), they look more like goats. If you’re looking for a decent ram’s horn in the VM, you won’t find one.
So if the VM illustrator drew goats where we would expect rams (well, a ram) then how are we supposed to know what the creature is supposed to represent? It’d say the focus on dense fur (if indeed it represents fur) and the attacking posture point towards Ram, while the shape of the horns and hints of marine hybrid point towards Capricorn.
As far as I can see, there is no reason why Capricorn should be drawn in this bent way, unless this is supposed to evoke the shape of a horn (Capricorn means “goat-horn”, half goat half horn).
But again, all we can do for now is list and rank possibilities.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It well could be that the (seemingly) later inscription of “april” was done by someone who could not read the VM. The creator of the MS might actually have meant “January” represented by a capricorn.
Anyway, both goats (capricorn) and rams were depicted with thick fur at that time…
LikeLike
In some browsers the text of my “catoblepas-tail” page was invisible (black on black). That has been dealt with:
https://hungergj.home.xs4all.nl/catoblepas/catoblepas-tail.htm
My thoughts on the f80v creature have been put together now:
https://hungergj.home.xs4all.nl/catoblepas/f80v.htm
LikeLike
Indeed Koen, only someone who desperately wants it to be an armadillo does not see it is most likely a goat or something like a goat. E.g. a capricorn, an ibex, or a catoblepas – which could have almost any shape anyway as long as it confirmed legendary stories like having its head down. The armadillo defenders look to me like members of the Flat Earth Society who desperately want to see the Eiffel Tower from London but blame the weather conditions. Ger Hungerink.
LikeLike
Hi Ger:
“… only someone who desperately wants it to be an armadillo does not see it is most likely a goat or something like a goat. E.g. a capricorn, an ibex, or a catoblepas – which could have almost any shape anyway as long as it confirmed legendary stories like having its head down.”
I think you’ve repeated and combined several arguments in the above statement, ones which inspired my new blog post:
A little like #4 and #5, but maybe others thrown in.
I mean, just think for a moment, the weakness of your argument here… your claim that your animals do not even HAVE to look like f80v, after all… after all the attempts to make your round pegs fit the square hole of f80v, all the photoshopping, all the ignoring of features or explaining them away, after all that, it is like you threw your hands up and simply say, well, it doesn’t matter that my animals don’t match, because, my animals can, “have almost any shape at all”.
Well, ALMOST anything at all… just NOT an armadillo, that is, apparently… the one thing f80v actually does look most like?
As for “The armadillo defenders look to me like members of the Flat Earth Society who desperately want to see the Eiffel Tower from London but blame the weather conditions.”
That is a cheap old cliché, the practice of grouping one’s debate opponent’s positions with unsavory or insane or otherwise ludicrous concepts, in order to unfairly color their ideas with the same brush. Easy as they are to hurl such insults at each other, you might notice those in the armadillo camp don’t seem to have a need to do it. Why do you suppose that is? Think about it for a moment, and the answer may come to you.
LikeLike
Rich, again I do not recognize my views about the f80v creature in anyway the way you present it.
LikeLike
So it seems that I have to spell it out.
I apologise to Koen for all this “noise” and for wasting my, his and everyone’s time. It is also my last message on the subject.
> Rich P: “Rene: proto57 never questioned your analysis of the C-14
> report”
> Maybe you should ask him if you have understood that correctly.
Well, Rich did not oblige.
Never? Maybe not recently, but as soon as I brought up my web page on the C-14 dating, Rich wrote a lengthy argument about it why this was all wrong and biased etc.
I know it, you know it, and I know that you know it.
I have lots and lots of information that I prefer not to share, and some that I cannot share because it isn’t mine to share.
It’s as simple as that.
With respect to the radio-carbon dating, *all* information is out there.
LikeLike
Rene — Is that an admission you can’t share that internal report? If so, why not? Rich says earlier in this thread that all permissions have been granted.
“With respect to the radio-carbon dating, *all* information is out there.”
So we just have to trust you, right?
LikeLike
“Never? Maybe not recently, but as soon as I brought up my web page on the C-14 dating, Rich wrote a lengthy argument about it why this was all wrong and biased etc.”
“I know it, you know it, and I know that you know it.”
René, you are again purposefully conflating two different issues here: The overall point Rich P was referring to, my acceptance of a 15th century dating for the samples (I do); and my objection to the “combining” the sample dates, based on a biased “assumption” that the book was made in a short time. The bias is admitted on your page. Without that bias, we would have five samples with at least up to a 60 year range, and possibly as far out as 200 years. Again, I’m not making that up, that is all right there on your page:
http://www.voynich.nu/extra/carbon.html
“The uncertainty in age for each folio is some 50-60 years, and in the case of fol.68 even spans two centuries due to the above-mentioned inversions of the calibration curve. These folios have been bound together into one volume centuries ago, and the book production process is LIKELY to have taken considerably less time than these 50-60 years. Under this ASSUMPTION, and in particular the obtained result that the dating of the folios is tightly clustered (as shown above), each sheet provides a measurement or ‘observation’ of the MS creation. Since they are likely to be from different animal hides, these are indeed independent observations. COMBINING THESE OBSERVATIONS leads to a COMBINED un-calibrated age of 1434 ± 18 years (1 sigma).”
(caps mine) So no, I do not challenge the dated age of the individual samples, and accept them fully. But no, I do not agree that the preconception, the “bias”, and/or “assumption” as worded, that the book was “likely” created in “considerably less time” is a proper scientific procedure. The evidence in this case actually implies that the Voynich was created from different pieces of calfkin, from different ages. That is the “inconvienient truth” right there.
But furthermore, knowing this “assumption” was applied, I think it fair to ask what other “assumptions” have been made, to the original data that we are not allowed to see… what data, if any, was rejected? How was it all processed? What other anomolies were found, but “assumed” to be erroneous “purple cows”, and simply ignored?
We are clearly only to accept the processed version, colored and adjusted by the opinions of others, into their choice of dating… that fits their version of what the Voynich is, and how it was made, and so on. This is not right.
“I have lots and lots of information that I prefer not to share, and some that I cannot share because it isn’t mine to share. It’s as simple as that.”
That is not so “simple”, first of all. You are being vague again. It seems you are referring to the internal report, but not willing to admit that is what you are referencing here. But I will assume, unless you deny it, that you do have the internal report, and are choosing not to share it.
“With respect to the radio-carbon dating, *all* information is out there.”
And now you contradict your previous paragraph again: You say you have “lots of information that [you] prefer not to share”, some you “cannot share”, so that means all information is NOT out there… then you turn around and say it is.
This is what I glean from this: The internal C14 report is in the hands of a few people, including you, René, who for unknown reasons choose not to share it: Despite the permission being granted by the producers who paid for it, and despite the Beinecke being OK with it since the producers are. You try to evade that core issue, and deflect from it, and attempt instead to convince everyone they should only accept your analysis of the report, unquestioningly… and without seeing all the data and process used, nor how you and others came to the decisions you did.
This is only one of many such issues which do not stand scrutiny, and so, once again, I see you will remove yourself from the conversation without actually answering it. Why? I think it is obvious that this, like many of the carefully constructed elements of the “official” Voynich storyline, it cannot stand scrutiny, and you full well know that, which is why you deflect, then withdraw, rather than debating. Most of what people are being told to believe, like this, is really a house of cards, relying on others simply believing and trusting in the opinions of others, without question.
Sorry, I question. I want to know why you or anyone believes what they do, on what basis. I even question those who agree with me, in the same way. Agreeing or disagreeing has no value, knowing why is everything. So no, I do not accept your refusal to share the basis of your opinions, and think it is wrong of you to do so.
LikeLike
When I wrote”E.g. a capricorn, an ibex, or a catoblepas – which could have almost any shape anyway as long as it confirmed legendary stories like having its head down”. that seems to need clarification. It meant to say that the qualification “any shape… legendary… head down” only applies to the catoblepas. To be precise:
Now that the goat or capricorn seems likely, could it be a catoblepas anyway?
The catoblepas is an imagenary legendary creature and could take almost any shape as long as it confirmed old descriptions. sometimes rather vague and even contradictory. There is one reason for f80v to be one. Taking the “scales to be fur, it is the combined observation of
1. It confirms more or less to the description: head down, horns, the tail could be bovine.
2. Its body with “scales” looks very much like that of Topsell’s catoblepas (the Gorgon) from 1607. which raises the possibility both were copied from a similar older image of a “catoblepas”.
LikeLike
I find it rather sad that the same ‘armadillo-catepoblepas-pagolin’ musings/ideas are still unresolved, fifteen years after they were first being floated.
http://www.voynich.net/Arch/2004/10/msg00258.html (14 Oct 2004)
On the ‘goats not sheep’ in the Voynich calendar – it seems the first observation was again Stolfi’s (thanks to Koen for the reference) though by 2010 there was no mention of any but ‘Aries’ in the discussion and Stolfi’s original observation had been forgotten to all intents and purposes… to suppose them ‘sheep’ was taken as “common sense” – that deadly idea which stifles debate and is wrongly imagined to render unnecessary the presentation of any reasoned, non-subjective and evidence-based case for or against.
It has been interesting, though, to see the old ideas revived; and thanks to Koen for directing me to their origin: in Stolfi’s discussions of 2004.
LikeLike
In my opinion, calling the “armadillo or not” matter unresolved is kind of like calling the veracity of the moon landing or roundness of the Earth “unresolved”. There’s a consensus (no armadillo) but a group of people use specific shaky arguments to argue against this.
Now what it *is*, as opposed to what it’s not, that’s a different question. After this whole discussion I’ve gotten less certain. In fact, I don’t understand how anyone can pick a specific solution at this time.
LikeLike
Diane: sure, people can propose possible identifications all they like (e.g. catoblepas etc). But until someone then goes out and actually works their way through tons of manuscripts, incunabula and printed books to see how things *had been* drawn (rather than *might have been* drawn in a best-case scenario), idly throwing an idea out remains a tremendously cheap option.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nick, I wish it were possible to have a multi-star “like” for that comment. I’m just about to write a post about it, with the ‘sheep versus goats’ as example.
LikeLike
Do you still have more to post from your Catoblepas research, Nick?
LikeLike
Yes, I do… sort of. I started on two other posts: one was to cover all the instances of hand-drawn catoblepas not from the series of manuscripts I had previously mined, while the other was to cover all the instances of printed catoblepas images preceding Topsell.
However… even though I expected there would be loads of manuscript catoblepas images in bestiaries and mappae mundi, I didn’t find a single one (though I found a few that were mislabelled in the literature). And even though I thought there would be loads of early printed catoblepas images, I only found the cat-like pair that Ger Hungerink had already found. 😦
I concluded that I needed to take a break from it and come back fresh with a *really long list* of catoblepas spellings (there are at least twenty). So now you know.
LikeLike
Nick, you could start with the list of spellings in this same thread and add Catablepas 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes Nick, I noticed too that the catoblepas seems to be quite rare in Medieval illuminated manuscripts. And often drawn differently. That is why I thought it was important to find “the” MS that has a similar catoblepas to that of the VM (and Topsell). It might very well tell a lot about the VM.
LikeLike
Nick: thanks for pointing this out, I removed the comments, I didn’t want to give this bot a chance of linking its website. Clever one though, I had no idea I was being fooled 😦
LikeLike
Koen writes, “Clever one though, I had no idea I was being fooled 😦”
Can I QUOTE you?? Just kidding! I actually came here to make another comment, but I can’t find it… from my email,
“This fits in the bigger picture where some parts of the VM draw much more attention than others. These parts are used to spawn theories, which are then expanded to the rest of the MS. ”
I agree that this does happen, and I don’t particularly think you do it. Your making this statement reflects, again, your mistaken notion (in your OP) that post-Columbus theories have only two “pillars”.
But in this case, this animal identity as an armadillo, it was not the origin of modern fake theories, or even the New World theories (Bax, Tucker, Zanick, etc.). It didn’t start with this identity, then “expand” out into that theories.
It is just one element in a great many other elements. In fact, the interesting thing… which your comment caused me to realize… is this: Different people got to post-Columbus and beyond by noticing other items: For me, it was the optics. For Bax and Tucker and Talbot, it was the plants. For the Comegys brothers, it was the Nahuatl-like appearance and structure of the script. For O’Neill and others, it was the sunflower and pepper. And there are others…
So it had not occurred to me before, but that is a strong argument, which counters your “armadillo expanded out” representation: No, this didn’t start with the armadillo, nor any one object, but many of the elements were noticed by different people, all of whom then realized what they must mean.
“Expanded in”, then? Focused in, maybe.
Rich.
LikeLike
… in fact, thinking about it, and to add: The armadillo is not the origin of ANYONE’S theory, that I know of. It was briefly mentioned on the VMs-NET years ago (before I was there), and I made an independent note of it, myself… and somewhat “popularized” it. But it is the origin of no theory that I know of.
LikeLike
Interesting, I stand corrected then about the armadillo as theory-generator. This should certainly apply better to the supposed sunflower.
Now when different objects launch similar theories, it is worth noting that most of those theories are still very different. The unifying factor is American contents. But one guy sees native influences, the other a colonial product, the third a much later forgery. So it is not like these people independently came to the same conclusion through different ways. They merely have theories with some overlapping aspects.
LikeLike
Hi Koen:
“But one guy sees native influences, the other a colonial product, the third a much later forgery. So it is not like these people independently came to the same conclusion through different ways. They merely have theories with some overlapping aspects.”
Well that’s not something to gloss over, with “some overlapping aspects”. All the theorists… me, them… do have in common this: It’s post-Columbian. That is huge, not “merely”. And I disagree, it is very much that they came to that aspect independently, for the most part.
But also, it is splitting hairs to differentiate between “native influences” and a “colonial product”, because both would be from the same era, both from the New World, both with Native content… how much is recorded by colonial interests from Native American sources, how much is direct Native American? Anyway, I can’t speak for those New World theories, as I don’t agree this is that old…. but I read them all, and we all have happy communications… because we are…
“Brothers from different mothers”. We have more in common, than not. We know this thing looks nothing like, and is probably not, a 15th century document. How much newer than 1492 is our only disagreement. I’ve even written on the New World influences, before I was “all in” for modern forgery… in my blog. The one on Harriot and Algonquin (no, I was not influenced by the Comegys, this was again an independant observation), and also noting the “bird glyph” was a Meso American paragraph marker, and the Armadillo… other little things, too…
I see them, we all agree they are there, it’s just the “why” of it.
LikeLike
Rich said: It’s post-Columbian. That is huge, not “merely”.
Yes, that’s not merely a mistake it’s a huge mistake.
Only because some apothecary jars vaguely reminds someone of microscopes and a goat looks to him somewhat like an armadillo, it is PROVEN that they are actually microscopes and actually armadillos and can’t be apothecary jars and can’t be goats. Proving that way merely carbon dating to be totally wrong. Just like science is completely wrong about global warming. We don’t like it so it can’t be true.
LikeLike
Rich – I must say that, with few exceptions, your readers take responsibility for their ideas and that’s such a nice change from the ‘anonymous assertion shall be deemed fact” approach found in other Voynich-related writings.
PS – Ger is right to notice the variety of spellings for Catoblepas.. but my spelling, I admit, was a smile in the direction of Edward Lear… who wrote a nonsense entitled ‘The Pobble who has no toes”.
Now, an armadillo is drawn with claws as a rule, and a goat has a cloven hoof, but about this idea of the catob’lepas, tell me what was the proof?’
LikeLike
Ah, the Pangolin. I have heard about them recently. Could the drawing be a warning, not to eat Pangolins, especially if it has been bitten by a bat? This is very relevant contemporary medical advice.
LikeLike
It does not matter what, He who created the manuscript, drew at all. Although his imagination is better than Tolkiens’ who created much worse stylised fictional font. Artists from deviantart also draw stupid or crazy shit. Furries. Fetishes. Also Edith Sherwood deciphered the stylised font. So why to linger?
LikeLike