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.
Or it could be a catoblepas, as per my 2009 post here: https://ciphermysteries.com/2009/05/29/is-this-the-way-to-armadillo
LikeLike
It could be, there’s no “or” required 🙂
The iconographic evidence I discussed here strongly suggests that they wanted to depict an aquatic “monster”, and they borrowed their visual vocabulary from the Cantimpré tradition. Since your catoblepas was apparently associated with the Niger river, it remains on the table.
LikeLike
Indeed. In my opinon it almost certainly is a catoblepas. To be fair, the first reference I found to that is by Andrew Sweeney on 13 October 2004:
= “To business: On folio 80v, in the left-hand margin, the second figure from the top appears to be a catoblepas. A catoblepas is an imaginary creature described in Pliny’s Natural History and later in medieval bestiaries. Essentially it’s an armoured bull that always looks downward”.
http://voynich.net/Arch/2004/10/msg00241.html
Then Sweeney gives two images with links that went dead by now. However they have “catoblepas” in their url, so I don’t think they referred to the image of the Gorgon I found on the title page of “The Historie of Fovre-Footed Beastes by Edward Topsell (1607)
It shows the Gorgon (Catoblepas): https://i.imgur.com/ZBH25wb.jpg
To me it beats all other proposals since both with Voynich and Topsell it has its head down, a “regular” tail – not a fishtail, it is armoured, and it was well known in Europe of that time. Afterall it fits nicely in with the Voynich mermaid. The Topsell image would then be a copy of an earlier picture, maybe even the same image from which the VM writer had it copied…
Ger Hungerink.
LikeLike
Actually the wayback machine gave after trying several versions of the second of Sweeney’s links a page including the original image:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160616183014/http://www.eaudrey.com/myth/catoblepas.htm
And indeed it is Topsell’s title page illustration from 1607.
LikeLike
A compelling reason why it is indeed a catoblepas and a picture copied from the same source as Topsell’s is the striking similarity. For ordinary real life animals that is no big deal – different artists would paint more or less the same picture – but since this is a mythical creature only fantasy dictates what it looks like. A search on the internet for medieval representations of the catoblepas shows quite a number of beasts, all totally different in design. Leaving a strong case for the Voynich and Topsell beasts being copied from the same source.
LikeLike
Hi Ger: A few points about the Catoblepas from Topsell: Here is the image linked again:
It is very different than the VMs animal, and different from real and illustrated armadillos, in many ways: First of all, it stands higher, on long legs; it has a mop of hair on its head; it is never described, and not illustrated, with the most interesting armadillo feature, “defensive curling”, the snout shape is very different (pointed like an armadillo on the VMs drawing; the tail is a corkscrew; and the scales do not line up into rows like the VMs animal, and armadillos do. About the only thing similar is that the Catoblepas has scales, other than that it is entirely different in proportions and features.
I did link to Nick’s page on the Catoblepas back in the day, in my own comments section. I’m not sure if Nick had seen one, not sure if I did, either. But thank you for linking it, because it does clear that up for me.
As for the disclaimer that it is a fantasy animal, they could describe or illustrate it anyway they wanted to… that is a frequent excuse for substituting lesser comparisons for better ones, i.e., the VMs drawing is not a good illustration of the This or That, because the artist had leeway (or was a poor artist, or a child, or didn’t care, or never saw another picture, etc.), and so they CHOSE to draw it this way.
http://www.santa-coloma.net/voynich_drebbel/armadillo.html
LikeLike
Reply to Proto57
Hi Rich,
Quote: “It is very different than the VMs animal, and different from real and illustrated armadillos, in many ways:”
Indeed I did not say the pictures are identical. Please understand that the 1607 woodcut would have been a (handpainted) copy (of a copy, etc..) from a picture dating from before the Voynich Manuscript, i.e. reasonably from before 1440. Or even much older. For such a long time I think it striking that the resemblance is that high. Like I said, the many other medieval pictures of catoblas are far more different, making the same source likely.
Even if the resemblance of f80v with Topsell and Armadillo was about the same, the advantage is no need to suppose a 20th (or even a 16th) century hoaxer would portray an armadillo to make his work of no value with such an obvious mistake.
Ger Hungerink
LikeLike
To Proto57
Rich, why for heaven’s sake of all animals draw an Armadillo in the margin when the whole manuscript breathes Greek and Roman Astrology and Mythology. Next to the Zodiac and a siren or mermaid one can expect a catoblepas. Who would ever have ordered an Armadillo?
Ger Hungerink.
LikeLike
Hi Ger: I did answer this on the VMS-List, but will copy it here for Koen’s readers, since you posted the same points:
Hi Ger: First of all, don’t get me wrong in my tenor of response, or my level of intensity in arguing this point. I appreciate and respect your viewpoints, and enjoy discussing it all.
“Indeed I did not say the pictures are identical. Please understand that the
1607 woodcut would have been a copy (of a copy, etc..) from a picture dating
from before the Voynich Manuscript, i.e. reasonably from before 1440. Or
even much older. For such a long time I think it striking that the
resemblance is that high. Like I said, the many other medieval pictures of
catoblas are far more different, making the same source likely.”
Well I would like to see those catoblas pictures, also.
But to your other points above: It is often said, in choosing to compare an image that is not so close to a Voynich image, that it is just badly drawn. In this case, you say it is “Please understand that the 1607 woodcut would have been a copy (of a copy, etc..) from a picture dating from before the Voynich Manuscript, i.e. reasonably from before 1440. Or even much older.” In other cases I’ve heard, the artist is just a bad one, or they didn’t know what it was supposed to look like, or didn’t care, or were a child, and so on…
… all as a means of explaining away an undesired, much better, comparison, to replace it with a worse one. Sure it could be a bad copy of a copy of an unseen (by us) earlier image of catablepas…. but to me, that is a complex unreasoning of the simple and reasonable obvious: It’s just an armadillo, the thing it actually looks most like, and has the most features of.
“Even if the resemblance of f80v with Topsell and Armadillo was about the
same, the advantage is no need to suppose a 20th (or even a 16th) century
hoaxer would portray an armadillo to make his work of no value with such an obvious mistake.”
I’m guessing from that that you are not aware of my own theory, because putting an armadillo in there is EXACTLY what would have been done to make it valuable. I do not believe it was a “mistake” to put one in the Voynich: https://proto57.wordpress.com/2016/03/23/the-modern-forgery-hypothesis/
I wrote, “I further propose that is was created first as a Jacob Horcicky botanical, which was meant to appear as though it was created in the Court of Rudolf II in the early 17th century, and as such was falsely “signed” by him.”
Dried, stuffed armadillos were all the rage, along with many other New World animals, plants, to the early 17th century collector, including Rudolf II. In fact the first image of a sunflower was in an early 17th century depiction of a Kunstkammer.
For your second comment: “Why for heaven’s sake of all animals draw an Armadillo in the margin when the whole manuscript breathes Greek and Roman Astrology and Mythology. Next to the Zodiac and a siren or mermaid one can expect a catoblepas. Who would
ever have ordered an Armadillo?”
As above, for the “why?” on the armadillo. But all the other influences you cite, I don’t argue with, and they very well could be, some are obviously, represented in the Voynich. The Court of Rudolf II (at least through Bolton’s eyes) was very much interested in all the sciences, and proto-sciences… and the astrology, of course… of the time.
LikeLike
Hi Rich,
In judging the validity or likelyhood of a theory I stick to Ockham’s razor. If a simple theory easily explains all observed phenomana there is no need for a speculative complicated theory based on highly improbable assumptions. Turing compared proving the (non)existence of God to proving the (non)existence of a teapot circling the Sun directly opposite the Earth. It can (could) not be seen so it is impossible to prove it does (not) exist, Ockham explains the obersvation of “no teapot to be seen” in the absense of any other reasons simplest as “there is none”. Same goes for this supposed “God”.
A sloppy copy (just as sloppy as some of the zodiac images) of a previous version of the Topsell catoblepas would easily explain the f80v picture along with other well known astrological creatures and the also mythical siren. No need for extraordinary, highly improbable theories that do not even explain why the writer chose to draw an Armadillo and not a Penguin or a Kangaroo.
A small collection of medieval catoblepas images will follow later.
As it has been long since I discussed the VM on the internet I lost track of where most of the discussion takes place, so for now I copy this to the list and Nick’s and Koen’s site where the catoblepas is an issue.
Ger Hungerink.
LikeLike
Hi Rich [and Koen],
There are numerous handmade copies of several different bestiaries. Most of them it seems are (originally) without illustrations but a lot do have a picture of each animal. Since all was copied by hand at the time these images are often quite different. Most are not available digitized for free so there must be dozens more pictures of e.g. the catoblepas. Of special interest would be finding the illuminated manuscript older than the VM that has a similar catoblepas. (Much?) more things from that book might have been copied!
Please see the older images of the catoblepas I found:
https://hungergj.home.xs4all.nl/catoblepas/catoblepas.htm
I found many stories about the catoblepas – and its “20” ways of spelling it at least 🙂 – in old digitized manuscripts. But it is going to be quite some work to organize it. Well, who knows…
Ger Hungerink.
LikeLike
Thank you Ger, that’s the kind of images I wanted to see. If these are representative, I find the Cathoblebas proposal a bit problematic though.
The VM-relevant features only show up in the printed image that’s way too late. Maerlant and Cantimpré are relevant, but their creatures share little with the VM one. It seems that in several cases they drew a cat-like creature, going by the first syllables of the name.
So it seems that either cathoblepas images are:
– Of relevant date, but nothing like the VM creature or…
– too late and decidedly bovine
Both cases are problematic, especially since better candidates are presented.
LikeLike
I’m collecting together catoblepas images for my post on the subject, lots of surprises along the way and a complicated story to bring out…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Looking forward to it Nick.
LikeLike
Hi Rich [and Koen],
Clarification to the previous post: ” Of special interest would be finding the illuminated manuscript older than the VM that has a similar catoblepas …
Add: … to the one on folio 80v and the one from Topsell.
Since this representation of the catoblepas seems rare – it might have been an example for the VM …
(Much?) more things from that book might have been copied!
Ger Hungerink.
LikeLike
Hi Koen,
In my opinion the two images, Topsell and f80v, are so strikingly similar, and so completely different from other representations of the catoblepas or of other animals well known at that time, that they must have been copied from the same original drawing – obviously from before the VM was written. Finding that MS might be a clue to the VM.
Ger Hungerink.
LikeLike
With all respect, Ger, with this post you almost seem to be trying to argue away this Catoblepas, and helping the armadillo along. First you say,
“Of special interest would be finding the illuminated manuscript older than the VM that has a similar catoblepas as f80v. (Much?) more things from that book might have been copied!”
So now you are suggesting… hoping?… that there may be some yet unknown and unseen image of a Catoblepas that is “similar” to the f80v animal? Well yes, there could be lots of unknown images that prove anyone’s theory… the core problem being we don’t know they even exist! No, I think I would rather rely on what we do have in front of us, and make comparisons to them, instead of imagining other animals that might be better than the armadillo. Your hoping for this imaginary image to surface is also a concession that the images you link are far from convincing:
“Please see the older images of the catoblepas I found:
https://hungergj.home.xs4all.nl/catoblepas/catoblepas.htm”
They look absolutely nothing like either the f80v animal or armadillos (which look quite the same as each other). So if all you have to go on are the images you offer, and those others that we have so far seen, or this unknown, hopefully better, comparison that does not exist, or which is so far not known to the world… then I can only say you have not only not made your point, but actually strengthened the armadillo identification by showing us just how bad the Catoblepas comparsion is. In more than one way, at that.
Rich.
LikeLike
Hi Koen: You wrote,
“Thank you Ger, that’s the kind of images I wanted to see. If these are representative, I find the Cathoblebas proposal a bit problematic though.
“The VM-relevant features only show up in the printed image that’s way too late. Maerlant and Cantimpré are relevant, but their creatures share little with the VM one. It seems that in several cases they drew a cat-like creature, going by the first syllables of the name.
“So it seems that either cathoblepas images are:
“– Of relevant date, but nothing like the VM creature or…
– too late and decidedly bovine
“Both cases are problematic, especially since better candidates are presented.”
I agree on all points, and thought most of what you wrote. Of course I myself would not worry about “too late”, but otherwise… and add to that what I said above, about waiting for a better, as yet unknown, image of the Catoblepas… I don’t think we will advance any argument by comparing any image to one unknown to even exist. We have enough trouble as it is…
LikeLike
Hi Ger: This has been brought up before, in this very thread in fact, and I addressed it. In fact Occam’s has been brought up many times, for just about any argument, and often… ironically… on polar opposite sides of the very same argument:
“In judging the validity or likelyhood of a theory I stick to Ockham’s razor.
If a simple theory easily explains all observed phenomena there is no need
for a speculative complicated theory based on highly improbable assumptions.”
As I’ve said before (and actually have a draft blog post from several years ago, called “The Simplest Theory of All”), the 1910 Voynich theory only requires: That a person with access to a large and diverse amount of illustrations, scripts and literary knowledge (which Wilfrid unarguably had); and access to the raw materials (which Wilfrid arguably had); and ink mixed from medieval recipes (Wilfrid’s associate Reilly signed out a book on medieval inks from the Cambridge Library), a modicum of artistic ability (ever see the Sessa logo, by Voynich?), and a few months spare time here and there (it has been shown pages could be created from 15 minutes to about an hour, each), decided to make a faux botanical from the Court of Rudolf II, probably after reading Bolton’s “Follies of Science at the Court of Rudolf II”.
That is it, in a nutshell. Very simple. And it explains every illustration, as seen.
For it to be genuine, though, one must explain why the illustrations come from many different genres, and times? Why no match to the images or script, for the most part, are ever found? Why it cannot be translated? Why it has foldouts, which don’t belong to the era of the parchment? Why it has no, or very poor and contradictory, provenance? Why it appears in NO catalogs, no descriptions? Why the marginalia, seemingly from a different time, by a different hand, is written in the same ink as the main text?
And then, for the very many seemingly anachronistic images, for each one, such as the armadillo, the cylinders that look like optics, the sunflower, the pepper, the PM moon curve, the advanced celestial images, the seemingly microscopic organisms, the images just like from the later Atalantia Fugiens, the heraldic images, and many, many, more… must EACH be explained, by complex, often mutually exclusive and contrary means?
And so much more: Let alone deciding on any one other theory than modern forgery… as really, no theory outside of “1420 Genuine” (if that is even a theory in itself) has ever explained all this… even AFTER all the complex rationalizations used to try and explain the hundred of anomolistic and anachronistic features of it. But there is one, only one to my knowledge, hypothesis which perfectly explains everything we see, every problem noted, ever image in it… thus fulfilling Occam’s perfectly: 1908-1910, Wilfrid with a pen in his hand, surrounded by books filled with all those influences everyone has noted for a hundred years.
“Turing compared proving the (non)existence of God to proving the
(non)existence of a teapot circling the Sun directly opposite the Earth.”
You are off on a different argument there, and I’m not sure how it applies. I’m not trying to argue a negative, I’m explaining what it is we know… the teapot in front of us. Unless I got your point wrong there.
“A sloppy copy (just as sloppy as some of the zodiac images) of a previous
version of the Topsell catoblepas would easily explain the f80v picture
along with other well known astrological creatures and the also mythical
siren.”
Again, Ger, I’m afraid you are making my point, almost exactly: You are forgiving the bad comparison of f80v with a Catobelpas, by suggesting it is a bad copy of one, thus admitting it does not look like one. I’d rather choose the thing it looks like, right now, and that is an armadillo.
“No need for extraordinary, highly improbable theories that do not
even explain why the writer chose to draw an Armadillo and not a Penguin or a Kangaroo.”
Again you are confusing me… or perhaps you don’t know my theory? Are you reading my posts at all? I explain this, in the context of my hypothesis: An armadillo, as all things New World, were of great interest to the people of the early 17th century. Armadillos were in the collections of many a European Kunstkammer, along with alligators and many other stuffed animals, kayaks, Native American garb, samples of minerals, plants, and on and on. Anyone forging a work meant to appear as a document of the items and sciences from the Court of Rudolf II would certainly want to include such things… and the armadillo made it in. A kangaroo would not, but perhaps a penguin and a puffin or two would… they just didn’t happen to make the cut.
You are welcome to disagree with me, of course… I do welcome it, and enjoy the conversation and even, the criticism. But please read what I have written first, so you don’t force me to repeat myself. I spend a great deal of time looking at your work and arguments, as I do for everyone else. Please do the same, or we will continue to waste time we could be spending on advancing our understanding of each other.
Rich.
LikeLike
Hi Rich,
In citing Ockham I said: “If a simple theory easily explains all observed phenomena” and further on “in the absence of any other reasons”. A hoax by Voynich does NOT explain all(!) observed phenomena easily(!), and when explained they make things extremely complicated and unlikely. Like the carbon dating of the manuscript and all other objections you will have found. Assuming the existence of the teapot I mentioned might be a simple theory, but it fails in explaining why there should be this teapot and how it came there. Same with an American creature like the Armadillo. No compelling(!) reason whatsoever why it would be in a 15th century European manuscript, even more so when there are (mythical) creatures well known in Europe at the time that could equally well be it. If the writer intended it to look like an existing animal at all! To me the plants look more like fantasy. To make it even more complicated you come with “cylinders that look like optics, the sunflower”, etc. things that do not need to be that at all, but are riddles like the whole MS is a riddle. Only when solved you can claim it to be “sunflowers” etc.
For the same reason the very simple theory that the VM was created by aliens to make fun of us fails on the point of highly unlikely and totally unnecessary to explain its existence.
As to the sloppy copy what I meant to say is that the Voynich creature is not drawn in much detail, certainly not to prove it to be an Armadillo. And then I did not compare it to a “catoblepas” which is non existent anyway, I compared it to the 1607 image named as Gorgon (and in the text alternatively as catoblepas). In my theory it does not even make any difference what creature was meant – it is simply the striking resemblance of the two pictures that makes me conclude they very likely have the same original source. And tracking that could lead to a manuscript that might have more similarities with the VM.
Ger Hungerink.
LikeLike
Hi Rich,
You wrote:
“So now you are suggesting… hoping?… that there may be some yet unknown and unseen image of a Catoblepas that is “similar” to the f80v animal? ”
No, not “hoping” – expecting!
Like I wrote to Koen:
In my opinion the two images, Topsell and f80v, are so strikingly similar, and so completely different from other representations of the catoblepas AND of other animals well known at that time, that the only reasonable explanation is that they must have been copied from the same original drawing – obviously from before the VM was written. Finding that MS might be a clue to the VM.
Adding:
Now I am not saying that I proved this. I am saying it is extremely likely and for that reason very much worthwile to backtrack the Gorgon from Topsell to its original source. Topsell gives many authors from which he copied his bestiary but I could only trace back about fifty years without finding older versions of his woodcut. Simply because all these books and (earlier) manuscripts are all over the world in libraries and mostly not digitized, and if then often not freely available. Or lost…
Ger Hungerink
LikeLike
“No, not “hoping” – expecting!
“In my opinion the two images, Topsell and f80v, are so strikingly similar, and so completely different from other representations of the catoblepas AND of other animals well known at that time, that the only reasonable explanation is that they must have been copied from the same original drawing – obviously from before the VM was written. Finding that MS might be a clue to the VM.”
I’m very sorry, Ger… “hoping”, or “expecting”, or whatever, that a Catoblepas which makes a convincing comparison to the f80v animal is, or at least, even, a better one than the existing armadillo images in front of us, is less than a bad argument, it is no argument at all.
I don’t need it, but I could just as easily say, then, that I would match your imaginary Catoblepas, and surpass him with the even better, much closer even, armadillo in another manuscript that we also have not yet seen. And then you could say there is an even better one, ALSO unknown, and so on, and so forth…
I’d be glad to see it if you ever find it, but until then, I think we all ought to work with those things we know even exist, and not argue argue with non-existent “evidence”. It is a waste of time.
LikeLike
Hi Rich,
You wrote: ” I think we all ought to work with those things we know even exist, and not argue argue with non-existent “evidence”. It is a waste of time.”
Not to compare me to Einstein but he had concluded theoretically that gravitational waves should exist, even though evidence was completely non existent at the that time. They were found eventually. If it was a waste of time is a matter of opinion still…
I think it likely, not as conclusive as Einstein’s waves, that the two images have a common source and that looking for it is not a waste of time for someone trying to get nearer to what the VM is, even though it might never be found.
Ger Hungerink
LikeLike
Hi Koen: A couple of points:
“The armadillo is the most famous one, and the most damaging to proper research.”
First of all, I’m really glad the armadillo identification has become so well known. I also consider it one of the hardest to explain away, because it is the best identification for that animal. Whenever I see the complex arguments against the Armadillo, thou “… doth protest too much, methinks” jumps into my head.
As for “… damaging to proper research”, I disagree. Anomalies found in any paradigm properly call into question that paradigm, so that they can either be explained within it, or cause a new paradigm to be formed. That IS “proper research”. So far only lesser comparisons have been found to the armadillo, such as above, usually with the reasoning that, as Andrew Sweeney wrote way back in 2004 (http://www.voynich.net/Arch/2004/10/msg00248.html), “I decided an armadillo was less likely. I don’t think armadilloes were known to Europe until after the European settlement of America. I’m all for a post-Columbus date for the VMS, but not that late.”
That is backward reasoning… a pre-conception as to dating should not drive identification of evidence; rather the evidence should steer the investigation into the proper dating. There are many anachronistic (later than 1420) features of the Voynich, not only in illustrative comparisons, but in construction… such as the admittedly unusual foldouts.
The “Genuine 1420 European Cipher Herbal” paradigm is rife with such anomalies, and inconsistencies, errors and omissions of normally considered evidence, in the content, construction, and the very shaky provenance. The armadillo is far from lonely, it is in a crowded room of serious problems for 1420. These are not pesky annoyances to be brushed aside, they are challenges that must be properly addressed, in order to validate that paradigm’s scientific right to exist.
LikeLike
I’m sorry Rich, but I stand by my statement that the armadillo ID is not proper research.
This is true *even* if we ignore the image’s origin and just look at it as any drawing of an animal. Then, still, one would only suggest armadillo because the properly scaled pangolin is lesser known in the West.
But the pangolin is a moot point, as I argue in the post. There are iconographic parallels in widely spread medieval beast books, so the armadillo is a violation of Occams razor in the truest sense: to prefer an explanation which requires more unknowns to be true.
LikeLike
As for this, “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).”
That is incorrect. There is much more evidence supporting a New World dating and identification than those two items, and even more supporting later dating and origin, and even forgery, up to my own theory of 1910, by Wilfrid. Among them are:
– Other plants, such as the pepper, as identified in “Unraveling…”, and other works
– Characters and structure similar to texts meant to emulate the phonetic structure of Native American Algonquin and Nahuatl, as in “Unraveling…”, and the work of the Comegys brothers and others
– The f1r “bird glyph”, which is virtually identical to a Mesoamerican paragraph marker
– My own optical instrument comparisons
– Long noted microscopic organism comparisons, including sea life and cellular structure
– Comparisons of many features to 19th century anatomical illustrations
– The foldouts, which Yale itself calls “unusual”, in an anachronistic sense (while clumsily dismissing it as evidence AGAINST modern forgery!)
– Many other individual anachronistic comparisons, such as the puzzle root, flush toilets, swimming girdle, heraldic symbolism, alchemical symbolism, Rosicrucian symbolism such as the rose garland and Fleur-di-Lis, and many dozens more.
That is a short list, off the top of my head… with copied links, of course. A tremendous amount of evidence actually supports a post-Columbus dating, and much, even up to 1910 and everything in between. So in answer to your claim, “You can imagine what would happen to the figure and his theories if the sunflower, armadillo or both were to be taken away…”
Yes, I can and have long imagined, and your figure would still be standing on a large raft of problems, all of which have to be, and so far have not been, satisfactorily addressed. As for the popular evocation of Occam’s Razor, I agree, but would… and have, countered, “The simplest explanation for all the inconsistencies, anachronistic content, the multitude of diverse and contradictory expert opinions over such a long time, the lack of any reasonable comparison to anything else in the history of literature, is just that a guy with lots of books, with all that varied content right at hand, penned a bunch of that stuff on some old parchment, on or about the year 1910”.
Forgery is by far the simplest theory of all… all these blogs, with all the thousands of comparisons, taken from all over the globe, from sources covering hundreds of years, all come together in one single place and time: A desk in front of Wilfrid Voynich, while surrounded by 500,000 books, and a jar of medieval inks mixed for the purpose. And once that hypothesis is applied, all these problems, complexities, rationalizations, hypocrisies, denials, constructions, inconsistencies… they all evaporate, because it all suddenly makes sense.
LikeLike
So the question that occurs to me is WHY would there be any animal raining down on a nymph?
As you say only reading the text is going to tell us for sure, but in my own interpretation, no animal would make sense since the page is all about travelling the Alps from Lake Garda to Lake Constance via the Alpine Rhine. I see it as a sheep or ram, mainly because the shape and colour of the winter Alps resemble one, which is what i think is meant.
LikeLike
I think there are two ways to look at the VM images: through a theorist’s eyes and through scientific eyes. It’s only recently that I’ve been learning to separate the two.
Looking like a theorist is fun and can be useful, and the MS invites us to do so. Which overarching theory could make sense of these things? For me this would be that the animal represents one if the Ursa constellations, it desires to be in the ocean but is not allowed to. The wavy line represents both waves and an astral border, the always-visible-line.
I think we’ve all got our preferences, even those who’d claim otherwise. I also think a good theory may be what is needed to understand everything.
But first we need to know more about what’s behind the images. In this post I was doing my very best to approach the thing in the other manner. What can we learn from actual medieval imagery? Which visual vocabulary is being drawn on? With that in mind, I think it is reasonable to assume that the being was modeled after an aquatic beast, a “sea monster”. And we can’t say much about the rest: the whole composition with the nymph and the wavy line or “basin” or whatever. We also can’t say what it means.
But in my opinion (as of late) the scientific step should precede the theorist step as much as possible. This is especially difficult for this image since many people have dug in their heels in various directions: armadillo, sheep, lizard, whathaveyou… Especially those who espouse a New World theory have a lot riding on it, even though their theory about this beast is among the least likely. But I have no illusions about convincing anyone on this subject 🙂
LikeLike
With all respect, I believe this is backwards,
“But first we need to know more about what’s behind the images.”
No, we should use the images to know what is behind them. Your phrase’s order implies preconception, that the identification should be driven by what is “behind it”.
But I’ve seen several disclaimers here, now… in one comment you posit that it is only due to the familiarity with the viewer that drives an armadillo reference. And now you are saying that people are being “unscientific” to see the armadillo, that they have an agenda (“dug their heels in”, “a lot riding on it”). That their seeing an armadillo is theory-driven only.
But then, you write, “Which visual vocabulary is being drawn on? With that in mind, I think it is reasonable to assume that the being was modeled after an aquatic beast, a “sea monster”. ”
Why not, instead of trying infer what is behind the images, trying to find another “vocabulary”, and going to those things it actually looks LESS like… such as a “sea monster”….
Why not let the image tell you what it is? Point by point, that is the best comparison, despite all the protests to the contrary. It is not agenda driven to see the curl, the scales, the ears and eyes, the shape of the head… to not see the pangolin’s tail, nor any of the other things that others say it is, a sheep, a goat, a wolf…
There is nothing at all unscientific about simply seeing the thing for what it is. The complexity comes in when one does not want it to be what it actually looks like, in order to preserve a pre-conception of what one wants the Voynich to be. THAT is not scientific, in my opinion.
LikeLike
Once you have done the kind of scientific analysis of a drawing described here, you then need to reconcile that with a block of external historical evidence, e.g. the families of visual representations that ‘flow’ (Intellectual History-style) through documents. This is, of course, time-consuming and difficult: but it is a necessary step, and can be done quite dispassionately.
However, a significant source of difficulty is collecting together all the source material. For the catoblepas (which I’m currently revisiting, ten years on from my original post), I now have the added dimension of Ulrike Spyra’s interesting book on Konrads von Megenberg’s “Buch der Natur” to work with. This lists a number of 15th century German manuscripts containing drawings and/or mentions of the catoblepas, though unfortunately… well, I’ll have to leave the gory details to the Cipher Mysteries post when it goes up.
LikeLiked by 1 person
BTW, you know I’m not new to this game, and I’ve seen these same sort of arguments about anachronistic content in the Voynich for over a decade. Anything newer in the Voynich was either “added later”, or paradielia, or coincidence, or driven by preconception. Then, like the armadillo, other, less fitting visually, but fitting the preconception the Voynich must be old, are substituted.
Famously this happened with my microscope comparisons. Point by point, many of the cylinders in the Voynich match features on early microscopes: Recessed, tinted lenses; multiple, segments of different sizes; parallel sides; knurling; legs… even 17th century “delphini” shapes, as microscopes sometimes had; decorated red and green and blue coverings, just like the embossed dyed leather seen on many early instruments.
And some even admitted that they did look an awful lot like microscopes, but told me that the instruments I “saw” were “too new”. Or, that I had an agenda, and wishing them to be so. One researcher tried very hard, believing they could be microscopes, to find a history of optics OLD enough to fit their idea of how old the Voynich was.
Then alternatives were given, just like the armadillo, like so many other “unpleasant” images, that don’t fit “old”: Perpetual candles, inkwells, soft-soap containers, and many others, in addition to the “pharma” and “herbal” jars they are usually still called. Despite the fact that, point-by-point, there are far more similarities to early optics than to any of those other things.
And like now, I feel we ought to… I know I have long done this… let the pictures tell US what they are. Because despite the often repeated charge against me, of an “agenda”, I do not give a rat’s butt what the Voynich is, when it was made, or by whom. But I cannot refuse to see what is right in front of us, and that is optics and an armadillo, for starters, and a train of many other images behind those, which fit with, and support those, along with a faux document meant to reflect the interests, sciences, and proto-sciences very much in vogue in the early 17th century.
Everybody who was anybody had a stuffed armadillo hanging in their kunstkammer, and a microscope on the shelf. No good forgery of the times would be without them.
LikeLike
I understand the limitations of a theorist’s view. Sea monsters, for instance, are hard to reconcile with my theory based interpretation that this page f80v discusses mountainous routes. I also believe a theory based view does not preclude a scientific view. I can see the resemblances you note in the scales and the tails of the kylions, i just don’t think that what is drawn in the vms is attempting to reference those creatures in particular. They are not in the same pose, if anything they are opposite. I might be convinced if you had a better match and also explained exactly how it works with the rest of the page, and how that page interacts with the next, etc.
However, i don’t think many actual imagery precedents will be found, as i find the imagery is either corrective, ie draws things in new, more realistic, but obfuscated ways to correct odd yet oft-copied imagery such as, for instance, the way the Alps are drawn on portolan maps, like some bumpy boomerang, or else they draw things using better known imagery but which is combined or used in different ways, like nebuly cloud bands that stand for earthly clouds, instead of ephemeral wormholes into heavenly spacetime, and shingled semicircles or stacked wavy lines for mountains as used in maps, in a format not immediately recognizable as map-related.
I think the Alps are drawn again on f82v, in more recognizable mountain format, however it is combined with a less recognizable rainbow-as-river-basin (the Po valley) with my best guess as to the red and yellow as excess iron and sulphur deposits found therein. Or maybe it is rubies and gold. I think the sheep version may incorporate a story about the golden fleece, not in particular the Jason and the Argonauts story , although that may get pulled in too, but one where fleece was simply used to make a gold sluice, hence capturing the minerals in the wool, thus it is painted green, instead of the blue of most of the mountain imagery. The nymphs’ green hair on the bottom of that same page bears witness to this idea as well, it is caught in their hair too. I think that if the f82v version of the Alps can be accepted as such, it can be seen now that they did know its shape, and the sheep version only adds a bit more detail to this rendering
LikeLike
Rich, the “pepper” plant could just as easily be a caper plant, and the book-shaped weirdo also occurs in European manuscripts (I posted examples on my 24 Feb. 2017 blog), so neither the “pepper” plant ID nor the scribal glyph add any particular weight to a New World argument.
LikeLike
I have a fundamental difficulty here.
The figure isn’t that clear that it could be said to be this or that with any level of confidence. It also doesn’t completely match any of the proposed identifications completely. So what happens most of the time is, that the details that match any particular proposed explanation are emphasised, and the details that don’t match are either not mentioned or considered not important.
Given all that, I can see how the proposed identification as an armadillo might be used by proponents of a ‘New World’ theory, as indeed Janick and Tucker are doing. I do not see at all how it would be in favour of a ‘fake Roger Bacon MS’ theory.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi René: Hope all is well with you. I wished I could have caught you in Belgium, but it was not to be.
“The figure isn’t that clear that it could be said to be this or that with any level of confidence. It also doesn’t completely match any of the proposed identifications completely. So what happens most of the time is, that the details that match any particular proposed explanation are emphasised, and the details that don’t match are either not mentioned or considered not important.”
Yes it is a matter of judgment. I feel though, in the case of the f80v animal, that it is a simple matter of point-by-point comparison. On more points it is more like an armadillo than any of the proposed alternatives. I reject that to doing that is “unscientific”. In a cold vacuum, with no other context, I believe it holds up.
So one can argue, as we all are, that this is or is not meant to be an armadillo. Discard “armadillo”, if one genuinely thinks it is not, but it should be on the basis of the image alone, and the numbers of similarities it has to one. For many such comparisons, I always hear these rejections: You don’t know enough about the item, not familiar enough with the item, too familiar with what you think it is, it is too indistinct to know, or the artist was bad at drawing, or they were good enough at drawing to make a better one if they wanted to, so it is coincidence it looks like one, or paradielia, or you “want” it to be to fit your theory… and so on…
Instead I’d love to see a better comparison, on all points, but I don’t. I see tangential rejections, which do not apply to the actual image and the features we do see. It is a case of being asked, “Who are you going to believe? Us, or your own eyes?”. I trust my eyes in this case.
“Given all that, I can see how the proposed identification as an armadillo might be used by proponents of a ‘New World’ theory, as indeed Janick and Tucker are doing. I do not see at all how it would be in favour of a ‘fake Roger Bacon MS’ theory.”
I can’t speak for anyone with a “fake Roger Bacon MS” theory, because I never had such a theory. I don’t believe the Voynich was created as a Roger Bacon work, and never did. My hypothesis is that Voynich (or someone close to him), created the ms. based in a large part on the very popular 1904 Bolton book, “Follies of Science at the Court of Rudolf II”. And as though it were either owned or created by Horcicky, Rudolf’s chief botanist and physician (and why it was “signed” by him). When one reads that book, it is almost like reading a “primer” of the Voynich, with many references to all the very many things seen and suspected in it.
As some point Voynich dropped that idea, and decided to “make” the authorship by Roger Bacon… a bad choice, it looks little like anything by Bacon.
I believe many of the New World theories of the Voynich do see many of the features they suspect in it. As you know Europe was fascinated with all things New World, the culture, objects, languages, plants and animals, and so it was a reasonable choice to include these influences when creating a faux work meant to come from the early 17th century court of Rudolf.
That’s the hypothesis, not Roger Bacon:
Best of luck in Belgium… have a great time…
LikeLike
Rich: as I attempted to demonstrate in the first half of the post, VM animals are drawn really badly. As Rene says, the figure isn’t clear. It’s almost like a Rorschach test. Are you most familiar with an armadillo? Then you’ll see an armadillo, even though the thing has got no claws, no bands and the wrong tail. Had you shown this to a person from India who knows pangolin but not armadillo, he’d say it’s a pangolin, even though it’s got the wrong [ears? horns?] and tail. And so forth. But it’s a really bad armadillo. To you it just seems obvious that is is one because “armadillo” came out as the result of your Rorschach test.
But, and this is also as a reply to Linda, what I tried to find out is what a 15th century person would see. Yes, the drawing lacks clarity. But if I draw an ugly square with an ugly triangle on top, you’ll still know I tried to draw a house. So what are the cues? And in that sense, it’s quite clear to me that to the medieval eye, this thing would have been an aquatic “monster” (a wide category). It combines features of the aquatic and the terrestrial realm: scales and a split tail but also legs and paws. Moreover, I have shown that a template like this existed in popular medieval beast books.
What it looks like to us is completely irrelevant but even if it were, it would have been a very inaccurate armadillo. Because we also rely on certain visual cues to understand what is meant, and for an armadillo a major cue are its bands: https://www.google.com/search?q=armadillo+kids+drawing&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj_s874o9fiAhXEUlAKHaJMDmEQ_AUIECgB&biw=1920&bih=969
Nobody, not now not ever, would draw an armadillo with huge scales and a split tail. Nobody.
LikeLike
Hi Koen: Well we disagree, and that’s fine… but as I’ve said, any disagreement ought to be on the image in front of us, and the number of features… points… that relate and do not. You’ve given many different reasons is is not an armadillo, and many reasons others may think it is one that you reject.
And yes, it may be an “inaccurate” armadillo, but I stand by the comparison, just as strongly as you reject it. In my opinion, and the opinion of many, it looks, and has specific, identifiable features, far closer to an armadillo, than any of the alternatives*:
(I only follow up with my link each time, because in my experience, comments are often read selectively, and out of context by new viewers)
But my root complaint to the methods you use to discard it, I also need to emphasize again. And it is again apparent in this statement, “… what I tried to find out is what a 15th century person would see.”
Why? You have applied pre-conceptions, filters, narrowing down your choices of what the thing could be, based on those limits. Why not look at the image, and all the things it “could be”, from 1404 (and before, if it were copied), all the way up to 1912? If you limit yourself to what your belief as to the time it was created, and who might have seen it, then you have rejected many other possibilities… and that is not a good basis to reject anything, including the armadillo.
*”Then you’ll see an armadillo, even though the thing has got no claws, no bands and the wrong tail. Had you shown this to a person from India who knows pangolin but not armadillo, he’d say it’s a pangolin, even though it’s got the wrong [ears? horns?] and tail.”
It does not have a pangolin’s fat tail, which begins the width of that animal’s body, and is a key feature of it. F80v does have the ear, although the tail is a bit fuzzy, it is there.
So yes, show the image to a person from India: BUT IF you do, do what we do, also: Show them ALL the images of armadillos we see, and all the other animals we know, and see, and all the engravings we have looked at.
See my point? It is disingenuous to keep claiming that it is only my familiarity with an armadillo which causes my mistaking it for one, because I am familiar with many animals by now, and that is the proper test to make… not an isolated me, or an isolated Indian… it is any person, who sees all we see, then makes a judgment based on that.
LikeLike
Rich, to be clear, when I was writing this post, I had those people in mind who claim the VM was made shortly after Columbus, I wasn’t thinking of your theory.
Since you think the VM is a relatively modern document, you can look at the image the way you do, as if it were a modern test to match it with the best candidate. That’s fine, and a sensible approach within your framework.
But yours remains a fringe theory. I think the imagery has all semblance of being appropriate for the early 15th century. So I’m trying to follow the rules for the study of historic imagery. This means learning as much as possible about the visual vocabulary of the time, which is what this post is about.
I think this discussion can go back and forth forever, and is essentially more about the modern forgery theory than about the creature.
LikeLike
Hi Koen:
“Rich, to be clear, when I was writing this post, I had those people in mind who claim the VM was made shortly after Columbus, I wasn’t thinking of your theory.”
No matter, I did understand that. Everything I said still applies… and as I said, and also wrote in my Amazon review of the Tucker book you are referring to, while I recommend the book, I don’t ascribe to their theory. But I do accept there are a very many items in the Voynich which were influenced by New World language, flora and fauna. I have that in common with them, which is why I was quoted in that book.
“Since you think the VM is a relatively modern document, you can look at the image the way you do, as if it were a modern test to match it with the best candidate. That’s fine, and a sensible approach within your framework.”
You are still claiming that which I have explained, and shown, I do not do; and ironically, the thing you profess you do: Being theory-driven. Why do you keep claiming this? I think I made myself clear. You are newer to the scene than most, so I do cut you some slack… not knowing the history of Voynich research in the last decade or more. But I have not used any theory to drive my identifications; I have moved through several radically different ideas, based on the images. The opposite of what you claim I do, which is the way it is supposed to be done.
I don’t mind how you go about your analysis of images, and I actually admire the work you do: But throughout your work you do make it clear, over and over, that you first determine who would have seen the images, and when the items they are based on would have been seen, and THAT narrows your possible candidates.
I have made it clear I do not do that. I am not using any “modern test” to drive my identifications; it is the identifications which drove me into the era I am in. So it is fine if you think I am wrong in my identifications, but please refrain from assigning inaccurate actions and motivations on my part.
“But yours remains a fringe theory. I think the imagery has all semblance of being appropriate for the early 15th century. So I’m trying to follow the rules for the study of historic imagery. This means learning as much as possible about the visual vocabulary of the time, which is what this post is about.”
About “fringe”. If you mean you think my hypothesis unusual, or bizarre, or whatever, that is your opinion and I cannot argue with it. But if you mean “fringe” in that it has few followers, that would not be correct. For forgery in general, not specific to my hypothesis, it is a very common idea. For my particular 1910 Voynich Theory, I do have many who believe it makes perfect sense, and often write and tell me so… in private. They are very aware of the unfair negative connotation it evokes among those in the 1420 Genuine Paradigm, and the stigma cast on those who openly espouse their support of it… who wants to be called “fringe”? But whatever the label you choose to use, and although it is outside the paradigm, it is a valid theory, and one which not only has much supporting evidence, but also starkly points out the weakness of the genuine paradigm.
Now what I have found, here and elsewhere, is that those who object to the idea of a modern forgery, or my theory in particular, actually don’t know 1) what it entails, and 2) the problems and anomalies with the theory they hold dear, “genuine”. Do you? So it’s fine to disagree with a theory, but one should know just what that theory entails. René for instance, does not seem to know, although he often speaks out against it. In the comment above, he wrote that he thought it was a “fake Roger Bacon manuscript” theory… when it nothing of the kind. And that is an important distinction. Hell I would reject a fake Roger Bacon theory right along with both of you!
“I think this discussion can go back and forth forever, and is essentially more about the modern forgery theory than about the creature.”
Yes the discussion did go that way. But they are absolutely related, and irrevocably intertwined, which is why I stuck with it. “the creature”, and all the myriad of comparative identifications like it, and how they are determined, you yourself have agreed here, is of major importance. All we have are the images, really, and it is where we look for the identifications that influenced them that will determine whether or not we find them.
I note, in concluding this, that so far, something went wrong in the way it is being done… that is, by assuming this is from the 15th century, as you and others readily admit you do. It goes round and round, with literally hundreds, if not thousands, of comparisons, to everything seen under the sun in the world of art and literature. And NO identity has been reached: No genre, no persons, no reason or purpose for creation… it is just sort of like this, sort of like that, and sort of like a million other things.
If you keep looking in the same place, and don’t find an answer, isn’t that an indication… as it was for me, years ago… that you are looking in the wrong place?
I freed myself from looking under that 15th century lamp post long ago, then freed myself from the 17th… and my critics actually moved me forward, by pointing out the images I compared to, and others compared to, were even newer! Where I am now, where those images have taken me, is the only place where there is a reasonable, cohesive theory that explains them all. Every. Single. One. The only hypothesis that does this, which is the only reason I am here now, why I got here, now.
LikeLike
Rich: the sooner you accept that what you put forward is just as much a theory as all the rest, the better.
LikeLike
Hi Nick:
“Rich: the sooner you accept that what you put forward is just as much a theory as all the rest, the better.”
I never have claimed, or claim now, otherwise Nick. I’m not sure how you got the idea I’ve been doing anything else, here or elsewhere.
If you re-read everything Koen and I have been saying, this is about the difference between limiting a search to a preconceived set of possible influences from assumed places and time; as opposed to looking at the VMs images, and choosing the best match for that image, from ANY place and any time. And who does which, and why.
Nothing here about anyone claiming their ideas are anything but a theory, hypothesis, whatever, certainly not me.
LikeLike
“…this is also as a reply to Linda, what I tried to find out is what a 15th century person would see. Yes, the drawing lacks clarity. But if I draw an ugly square with an ugly triangle on top, you’ll still know I tried to draw a house. So what are the cues? And in that sense, it’s quite clear to me that to the medieval eye, this thing would have been an aquatic “monster” (a wide category). It combines features of the aquatic and the terrestrial realm: scales and a split tail but also legs and paws. Moreover, I have shown that a template like this existed in popular medieval beast books.”
It is known that at this time many Greek and texts were being collected and translated. So i see it as a time that someone in the business of copying and translating these works would see a good chunk of the worlds wisdom.
I think the drawing lacks clarity for several reasons. 1. It does double or triple duty in what it portrays. 2. It is just a sketch from memory and is not an attempt at perfection in terms of what it portrays. 3. It is hiding in plain sight, its meaning becomes clearer once various other predecessors (or copies thereof, especially from our perspective) are seen and the details become evident through the vaugueness, so to speak.
Yes, i can see your house, and i can see the vms land animal, and i can see the mountain, the water, and now to some extent i can even see your aquatic animal. To me the clues are the shape of the overall animal, the specific shapes of its appendages, the scale motif, the green colouring, and the placement amongst the rest of the imagery on the page. I understand that others don’t necessarily see what i do in it, but it works for me. Funny you should mention the combination of aquatic and terrestrial features, because that is what i think the entire quire is about.
What is even more interesting is that the books you mention are compendiums of other earlier works, many of them also encyclopedia in themselves based on earlier info and so on. When you go back far enough, the authors we are speaking of in our various theories are the same ones, and it all comes down to understanding the nature of the world.
I don’t think many actually matching precedents will be found because i find there to be a theme of correcting oft-copied imagery, and the rest is well used imagery but used in new ways, such as ethereal cloudbands being used for actual clouds or water, shingled circle mountain imagery being tweaked to reflect different types of geologic processes, rainbows for river basins.
But your sea monsters are definitely growing on me.
A note re the 1910 forgery theory, i actually do keep this in mind when looking at imagery published after the carbon dating, since a lot of the later maps and such match better than do the earlier findings, but for the most part, i find there are almost always earlier exemplars from which the newer imagery came, insofar as the type i look at.
LikeLike
In accordance with the inherent idiosyncrasy and the historical context of the MS, it seems to me that the animal could be an imp, a kind of little demon found in ancient German folklore.
Well, the imp was not exactly a demon in a Christian sense but a naughty creature related to witchcraft (i.e. witchcraft as pagan science about natural medicine taught by women).
LikeLike
Your kylion and karabo (and my catoblepas :-p ) are all interesting medieval monsters with connections to water, that are all connected to the same Thomas of Cantimpre manuscript tradition. Yet Q13 seems far less likely to be a bestiary than a book of secrets within the general 15th century balneological tradition. (Though there might well be a mention of a mermaid too?)
So perhaps we should be looking for 14th / 15th century manuscripts within the balneological tradition that include a specific textual mention of a kylion / karabo / catoblepas? That stands a good chance of narrowing the list of possible balneological manuscripts to look at down to as few as one or two. And that might give us a plaintext! 🙂
LikeLike
Yeah there are several “sirens” in the same chapter (book VI if memory serves) and I’ve seen a few that are not unlike the one in the VM.
As for what Q13 is, I think it draws from several sources. One of those must have beem something like Cantimpre, and I think another was balneological. Marco has shown some very convincing and detailed Balneis parallels.
The thing about q13 is that it combines thus source material into something new, so we’re not quite there yet…
LikeLike
Ah, my point was that these literary monsters might give a way in to unillustrated balneo mss, somewhere we haven’t been able to consider sensibly up until now.
LikeLike
Koen, some people are so heavily invested in theories that it’s better to ignore them than to flatter them with attention. Take their research or leave it, you’ll never argue sense into them.
(This goes the same for me, of course.)
LikeLiked by 2 people
A wonderful coincidence occurred just two nights ago, while all the arguments from this terrific discussion were still swirling in my head: I had not yet finished (for probably the 3rd or 4th time) the 1904 Bolton book, “Follies of Science at the Court of Rudolf II”, which I have come to believe is the main primer and influence used to create the Voynich Manuscript (as a faux botanical/science reference from the Court).
I was just finishing it up, and came across this: Bolton first describes the earlier efforts by Pliny to describe animals, then on page 212 writes, “This was the first attempted in a scientific spirit by the ‘German Pliny’, Conrad Gesner, Professor of natural history at Zurich, whose ‘History of Animals,’ published in 1551, is the basis of all modern zoology; his younger contemporary, Ulyssses Aldrovandus, who held the chair of natural history at Bologna, published six large folio volumes illustrated with wood cuts of many of the animals, his descriptions being in part taken from the work of Gesner.”
This is interesting for several reasons. First of all, Voynich claimed he knew this book “by heart”. Also, René discovered a list*, by Voynich, of 16 names from the book, in order, in Voynich’s notes. This can be interpreted innocently, or otherwise… I believe otherwise, as in reading the Bolton book, one is struck by the vast number of items and incidents in that book, which parallel speculative and real images in the Voynich… and even, the very story of the sale itself, as proposed by Voynich.
So back to Gesner… his book, mentioned in Bolton, has what I have considered one of the closer “looking” armadillo images to the Voynich animal. No, the tail is not sharp like the Gesner beast, but then no scaled animals are offered with such a fuzzy tail. But the proportions, the snout, the ears, and so on, are all very close. You can see Gesner’s armadillo on my page of reference images:
http://www.santa-coloma.net/voynich_drebbel/armadillo.html
If this was the only case of a work, or item or incident either in, or only one or two degrees of separation from Bolton, it would still be of interest to me… but there are dozens like this, and to me, that is far too many to be a coincidence.
LikeLike
* Here is René’s annoucement of his finding of the Bolton connection:
“There is still a goldmine of information in the Beinecke. When I was there in 2012, I found
this list of names that Voynich wrote down in one of his notebooks. Since I had not heard of quite a few of them, I noted them down. I did not write down all of the more familiar names. (I regret that now). They were (in this order):
“Christ von Hirschberg…. [etc.]
“Checking in the Bolton book, these names first appear on pages:
“Christ von Hirschberg. p.19
Daniel Prandtner, alchemist p.19
Magister Jeremias p.19
Salomena Scheinfplug p.20
Claudius Syrrus p.20
Ch.Guarinonius Ital. alchem. p.23
Wresowitz p.37
George Kretschmar p.39
Drebbel p.93
Typotius Libr. To Rudolph p.160
Sebald Schwertzer p.65
Sendivogius p.123
“There really can’t be much doubt that Voynich consulted this book when he made
these notes.”
I agree with René that Voynich “consulted” this work… but he and I disagree on the reasons and implications of this. I don’t think Voynich was genuinely trying to find out “who might have sold his book to Rudolf II” (as he claimed); but rather used that book to create the Voynich in the first place…
LikeLike
Ger: I’d be interested in any manuscript images that may exist of the catoblepas (or any differently named equivalent). I’m also looking forward to Nick’s post on the subject.
It would certainly be a good explanation for the VM creature’s marked posture, though there are other possibilities as well. The thing may be somehow suspended/hanging… It may be jumping or charging in an uncontrolled way. It may be eating or trying to drink from the water below.
The “karabo” I posted above has its head bowed because in the description it is said to be eating mud. So something as simple as that may have influenced the pose. Also, the red “pond creature” on f79v has a similar pose but different shape, so the pose might signify something less specific than “this is a catoblepas”.
But I’m keeping open all possibilities for now. Well, almost all…
LikeLike
Names found for the catoblepas, including several languages and declinations:
Catablepon
Catapleba
Cathafeba
Cathafeben
Cathapleba
Catheblepa
Cathepleba
Cathoblebas
Cato Blapas
Catoblep
Catoblepa
Catoblepas
Catoblépas
Catoblepones [pl.]
Catobleponta
Catobleponte
Catoblepton
Gorgon
Katoblepas
Katobleps
Katoblepones
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s a pity that an interesting blog post about a possible identification of the animal on f80v gets sidetracked into a ‘Voynich faked it’ discussion. This is especially true since the tentative identification as an armadillo is good evidence (somewhere down a long list) *against* the modern fake theory.
After all, Voynich proclaimed all his life that this MS is a Roger Bacon cipher MS. If it included a drawing of an armadillo, he would have had to remove the page (especially if he put it in himself). Unless he thought that it did not actually look like an armadillo.
So, the argument that this drawing looks more like an armadillo than anything else kills this hypothesis.
More importantly, and more fitting to the subject of the post, is that the underlying argument is invalid. It is *not* correct that one can derive what the draftsman intended to draw, based on what the drawing most looks like to modern eyes.
Anyway, there will always be people who believe that:
– the MS is a modern fake by Voynich
– the MS is a New-World product
– and a couple of others …
so the best one can do is to live with that.
LikeLike
Hi Rene,
Indeed, identification of the f80v beast should not be about the MS being a hoax because then everything in it can be disputed and then defended as an error by the hoaxer. Unless it is needed to prove the hoax theory – preferably elsewhere…
For the same reason identification should not assume the plants and animals to be from undiscovered regions of that time, unless one intends to prove the manuscript to be of a later date. Or to be written by aliens – preferably elsewhere…
In my discussion I depart(!) from the assumption that the MS was written in the 15th century, before Columbus. Finding a drawing dated 1607 of a Gorgon (catoblepas) that is as far as I know the only drawing that might reasonably identify f080v as a catoblepas (all other representations are very different) led me to the assumption that the VM draftsman had his animal copied from a similar (older) representation. After all he would not have drawn the mythical beast from nature, but according to a description, or, as I think, copied it from another book. Now in my opinion f80v and Topsell are too similar to be accidental and the only conclusion with all assumptions(!) would be a common original drawing from before the VM. In that case it would be worthwhile to try and find out what the history of the Topsell image is, and maybe find a common original drawing in a MS that could tell us more about the VM.
Of course there are animals OTHER than the catoblepas that might be the f80v beast. But I do not know of medieval drawings that come nearer. Either they have no scales (armor) or they have a fishtail, or another thick tail as a smooth extension of the body like lizards, Or a different pose in case f80v was copied.
It is tempting to attack other theories to which my assumption would be a danger on the way. Even if it is more or less needed to make my point, it is much more confuses it.
Ger Hungerink.
LikeLike
René:
“It’s a pity that an interesting blog post about a possible identification of the animal on f80v gets sidetracked into a ‘Voynich faked it’ discussion.”
The f80v is certainly a battleground, and will evoke much contentious discussion. There is very good reason for that, it is not random, and it is not a “pity”. This creature is an acid test of the 1420 Genuine European Paradigm, perfect representation of only one of what is a very great many anomalous, anachronistic features of the Voynich, which that Paradigm cannot or refuses to satisfactorily explain. So it is valid and appropriate to discuss any hypothesis which has a later dating to about 1500 along with this animal. It is actually what this animal is all about, like it or not.
It is representative of dozens, if not hundreds of anomalies which 1420 Paradigm cannot explain without delving into speculation, founded often on provably incorrect, and/or questionable information, and much faulty reasoning. Although those promoting it “wish” these problems, and the people like me who strongly oppose it, would stop discussing them, we feel it is important to continue to insist they are answered. That is the way it is done, or should be done. Otherwise, the very many claims, on your site, and in print, will continue to be accepted as factual, when they are anything but. Is that fair? I think that is the “pity”, if anything is… the time and life wasted by so many, trusting that what they are basing their research on is valid, proven, information, when it is anything but that.
“This is especially true since the tentative identification as an armadillo is good evidence (somewhere down a long list) *against* the modern fake theory.”
That is patently untrue. As for this list “against” a modern fake theory, only if one accepts as gospel so many things that are simply unsupportable:
… and there are several more which need to be added to that list, for new ones are created all the time:
“After all, Voynich proclaimed all his life that this MS is a Roger Bacon cipher MS. If it included a drawing of an armadillo, he would have had to remove the page (especially if he put it in himself). Unless he thought that it did not actually look like an armadillo. So, the argument that this drawing looks more like an armadillo than anything else kills this hypothesis.”
Well that is an interesting new spin on this! Now, if it is good enough to look like an armadillo, Voynich would have taken it out, to support Roger Bacon, so therefore it shows he thought it didn’t look like one? So therefore it is not an armadillo? So he believed Roger Bacon saw Andromeda, but not an armadillo? Maybe he trusted someone would believe his Roger Bacon, and defend that strongly enough to call it a pangolin, or catablepas, wolf or sheep? We know that would have worked, as it is working right now. We know he trusted many ridiculous “facts” would pass inspection, and many of them survive to this day, and are still defended as vehemently as he did, in the day.
This sort of “reasoning” has no place in any discussion. At that level of logic, any story can be concocted, based on what Voynich may have thought, or done, or not done. Anything anomalous or anachronistic in the Voynich, can be “explained away” by, “It must not be evidence of forgery, whether or not it looks like it to us, because if it was really good evidence of forgery, Voynich would have removed it before we saw it”.
I’ve been told now:
– It looks too much like an armadillo to be one, because the artist was too inexpert to draw one accurately, therefore it is something else badly drawn (you, years ago)
– It looks nothing like an armadillo, and the artist was good enough to draw one if they wanted to, so it is X, Y, Z (which look less like an armadillo)
– It looks much more like an animal it was copied from, but we have not found or seen that original drawing yet (Ger)
– It looks more like an armadillo than X, Y, Z, but the Voynich is too old for it to be an armadillo (all who believe the 1420 Paradigm)
– It only looks like an armadillo who have a post-Columbian Voynich agenda
– It only looks like an armadillo to those who are familiar with one (well lets show those other people some armadillos, problem solved)
– It does look like an armadillo to our modern eyes, but would not, to a 15th century viewer, therefore it is not an armadillo (you, in this thread: then, we can say it is anything at all, since we cannot question a 15th century viewer)
And now this new one, above:
– It does not look enough like an armadillo, because Voynich would have removed it, if the manuscript was fake; therefore the manuscript is real, because he left it there (so that anything that is evidence of fake is not that; because if it were what we think it is, it would have been removed by the forger, therefore what is left must be real)
None of these are remotely acceptable, I’m sorry. What needs to be done, very simply, is find the animal this is meant to represent, by finding an illustration that is closer to that animal than an armadillo, on a point by point basis. That is proper procedure, that is what should be done to defend pre-Columbian origin of the Voynich, nothing else.
On the contrary, many of the means of defense in this issue, and the many other challenges to your paradigm, are not “proper science”, to use a phrase Koen evoked, and hugely unfair to all those thousands of people who put trust in the people who create the foundation of knowledge on the Voynich, that that information is worth believing in. Much of it is not, and so forgive me, or not, but I will speak up to make certain that this is understood.
LikeLike
Rich: you believe that your hoax/forgery/whatever theory explains away every historical difficulty, and that’s OK. We get it.
What it doesn’t explain is why you are unable to resist commentbombing a nice sensible chat the rest of us are trying to have about even the tiniest historical detail.
LikeLike
Hi Nick:
“you believe that your hoax/forgery/whatever theory explains away every historical difficulty, and that’s OK. We get it.”
Thank you.
“What it doesn’t explain is why you are unable to resist commentbombing a nice sensible chat the rest of us are trying to have about even the tiniest historical detail.”
What you portray as a “tiniest historical detail” is of monumental importance, which is why I am here, commenting. And this importance is clear because of yours, and the others, very insistence that I not argue the point; along with the very heated arguments pro and con.
If it were a “tiny” issue, I would not care, nor would you, nor would anyone else. And if it were “tiny”, it would be easy to come up with an appropriate, logical, acceptable response to the question. No one has come close to doing that, so this is why I am still here.
But I am interested in seeing anything you have to add that can do this, such as the new catablepas images you are going to post. I’m always interested in any new information that can explain the questions and problems of the Voynich. I don’t ask my opponents to remove themselves from the conversation, that is not helpful, nor polite.
LikeLike
Rich wrote: “What you portray as a “tiniest historical detail” is of monumental importance, which is why I am here, commenting.”
It is only when you think it to be an armadillo – not when you think it to be a catoblepas, or for that matter any other creature known to our European medieval world of the VM. By arguing more and more f80v is not going to look like an armadillo more and more. For hoax or America theories you need more than one maybe armadillo.
Anyway, I do not claim to have proven it is a catoblepas, I find the resemblance striking enough to think checking for the origin of Topsell’s gorgon promising. You seem to be afraid someone succeeds. Why would one be against such an attempt?
LikeLike
Well, I have no intention of putting more oil on the fire . . .
I am sure that numerous readers here fully understand the point why an armadillo has no place in a faked MS that is supposed to be from Roger Bacon.
I remember the catoblepas discussion from when it was first posted to the Voynich mailing list. It is an interesting possibility, but I am not too convinced about it (FWIW).
Another imaginary animal, as per the topic of the blog post, is also interesting. Of course, there are cases where such imaginary animals were copied between manuscripts, but there are also many where they were simply (re-)invented from written descriptions.
LikeLike
Rich: all the while you continue to consider everyone else your “opponents”, your presence here really sucks. You have the capacity to do better, but it seems that this is something you simply don’t want to do.
LikeLike
Hey Nick:
“Rich: all the while you continue to consider everyone else your “opponents”, your presence here really sucks.”
My only “opponents” are the ideas themselves, and I never consider those people with opposing views to mine any sort of “opponent” in the sense you seem to mean. I don’t confuse the two, while it seems that you do, and others do. Nothing I can do about that, it is not up to me how others perceive my rebuttals to their ideas. As for your comment about what my “presence” means to you, above, I’d say it is not a good idea to take the opinions of others so personally. This is a dispute about an image, and what that image means, it should not offend you on such a personal level.
“You have the capacity to do better, but it seems that this is something you simply don’t want to do.”
I think my reputation is pretty established… certainly as a fierce debater, and of course that will annoy you, and many others. But Nick, I politely suggest that “those in glass houses…”, and you know the rest. I might treat those who I argue with, with insistence and firmness, but I do a pretty good job of avoiding personal attacks… much like the one you just now lobbed at me, I’d point out.
I’m sorry that you don’t appreciate my approach, my ideas, or my very presence. But really, what should everyone who disagrees with you do, just be quiet and go away? I and others should pretend the Voynich is what you think it is? Who does that help, except for you and those who agree with you?
Why not instead, as I’ve suggested many times above and elsewhere, address the real problems with the Voynich, with real facts, and proper reasoning. And keep the personal insults out of the discussion, that helps no one.
LikeLike
Rich: “opponents” was your word (see above), not mine. And your attempt to spin it away from people is one of your worst arguments for a long time.
Saying that you can do better than this is hardly an ad hominem.
LikeLike
Nick: In using “opponents” it is obvious, from the context, I am referring to the ideas, not the person holding it. You are choosing to cast it in this way, attempting to turn this into a personal issue, which it is not and never was, for me. I should not be necessary… and I don’t require this of others… to phrase each term in order to avoid a baseless criticism such as this.
Your doing so is only to deflect from the real issues here… your points, and the others, remain, weak and unsupported. Deflection to a accusation of a personal factor on my part is clearly deflection from questions you cannot adequately answer.
And look… it works! You have managed to cover for the weakness of your argument, by a personal charge, causing me to waste time and address it. But again, I point out is is both unfair, and not productive, for you to delve into personal charges. That’s why I have not, and do not, do it. Nothing is gained. I want people to know the ideas both of us hold, only, and why we each stand behind them… or cannot, or do not.
LikeLike
Rich, I must agree with Nick and Rene on this matter.
There’s a guy in Belgium going by the pseudonym of Mark Peeters https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Peeters , though colloquially known as the “space travel is fake”-man. He’d pop up at universities, music festivals… to confront people with his his theory that man has never been in space. He uses some scientific formulas to demonstrate this, and he has some convincing-sounding arguments, mainly that man has never reached the speed needed to escape the earth’s gravitational pull.
Now imagine there’s a NASA conference where they are trying to solve a specific problem, and this man would take the stage and say that their methods are unsound because we cannot go to space in the first place. This would have a very disruptive effect on the conference. They would all have to argue with this guy, explaining why we can be sure that man has been in space.
Can he be convinced? Of course not.
Now I’ll grant that comparing you to a full-blown conspiracy theorist is unfair since you are more reasonable (I think this is what Nick was referring to as well). But the way you steer this discussion is felt as similar to the scenario of the ruined conference.
Transmission of medieval imagery is a complicated matter since the evidence is fragmented and often incomplete. Not all manuscripts are digitized, and even more simply don’t exist anymore. reconstructing what may have happened is a delicate and difficult task. If we simultaneously have to defend that no, Voynich did not write the VM, we won’t get anywhere.
LikeLike
Koen: Comparing ideas you disagree with to a “conspiracy theory” is one of the common tactics in any argument… the casting any opposition as a personal attack, just above yours, being another one… that amount to a diversion only. The allegory you use does not fit this situation, but I won’t waste time going down that rabbit hole… I’ll try to stick to your very own issue, in your very own OP.
Because it is all deflection, and I point out, again, that the only important issue here is what the f80v animal might be. That’s it. And then, that identity VERY much does reflect on what the Voynich is, despite Nick claiming it is a “tiny” issue. In fact, scrolling up to the actual image you use…. the stick figure with one foot on an armadillo, and your accompanying text… makes it clear you understand fully well this is far from a “tiny” issue, and it is far from an unimportant consideration as to what the f80v animal is.
It is exactly at the dividing line between pre- and post-Columbian origins of the Voynich. You have asked the question, right here, right now. Then it seems you and others are demanding only answers that suit your preconceptions, and rejecting others on inadequate, unsatisfactory grounds.
Thank goodness the Catablepas seems to have walked back over the horizon… there is that which came out of this, so far, as both you and René agree with me that it is far from an adequate comparison. It is, in fact, no comparison, and barely rises to the bar of serious consideration. Barring Ger finding that “lost” image, and Nick turning up some new images of one, that satisfy, or finding some new animal or image of one that does fit better, I’m all ears.
I’m willing to see this, have asked for this… nothing “personal”, no “conspiracy” charges, no insults, no hard feelings, and with all respect, I’ve been, and continue to, stick to your very own stated purpose here: Examine that animal from all angles, and offer valid proposals for what it is, why, and what that means.
LikeLike
Rich: we gave you the benefit of the doubt at the top of the page, but you squandered it. And now it’s everyone else’s fault? Yeah, right.
LikeLike
Trying to get to the origin of the Gorgon print (Catoblepas) on the title page of Topsell’s four-footed beasts (1607) I found a similar work by Gesner (1551) who is mentioned by Topsell as his main(?) source. The catoblepas is extensively described there too, but with no picture. From another promising writer, Michaël Herus [De Quadrupedibus], I found his Vierfüßige Tiere, but no catoblepas.
On a sidetrak I found Jan Jonston (1603) has another well known picture of the catoblepas. Two other pictures of a (cat)oblepas (1496 and 1536) are in Julia Czapla but not like Topsell’s.
https://hungergj.home.xs4all.nl/catoblepas/Gesner%20etc.htm
Ger Hungerink.
LikeLike
Read instead: “Two other pictures of a cat(oblepas) from 1491(!) and 1536 are in Julia Czapla but not like Topsell’s.”
LikeLike
Is this a private argument, or can anyone butt in? 🙂
As so often, the arguments appear to be to be a bit back-to-front. That is, they begin with the theorist feeling (deep down) pretty sure they know the answer before undertaking research, then letting that deep-down certainty dictate the parameters within which they hunt ‘something like’ .. and this is then taken as if it were self-evident and proof beyond any reasonable person’s doubting that their pre-research gut-feeling is proven.
This is the pattern that emerges whether the pre-emptive position is that the work is the product of a central European, trained in the Latin works, or whether it is a ‘New world’ theory certain the drawings are an attempt to record hitherto-unknown critters, or whether it is a theory that the work is a fake and the drawings sure to betray anachronisms etc.
The thing is a drawing. Normally we start by asking who drew a critter in this style, with what are depicted horn-like (horns? ears? something else) lying parallel to the face – and a tail thus and so, and proportions of head-body-tail similarly. To say the drawing is ‘badly drawn’ presumes a standard-and-default of ‘well drawn’ but that in itself carries a whole mass of assumptions and baggage. The thing isn’t to decide how it might have been drawn, or how the maker *should* have drawn it… that’s the thinking which saw gothic churches demolished because they *ought* to have conformed better to Vitruvius’ text.
So – none of the drawings shown above reflect a similar style of drawing.
First find where, and when, similar style occurs… not in the ‘New world’ images, whether by natives or by Europeans. Not in European printed works of ‘natural history’. With all due respect to Koen… not in the images of kylion or karabo.
This study has always been bedevilled with back-t0-front’ism, by which what begins as an effort to locate the time and place from which the manuscript’s content came, soon mutates into an effort to convince everyone that you actually KNOW the answer and your only problem is convincing others to believe that images paired according to your theory (because the theory says they should ‘look alike’ ) do closely resemble one another when in fact they don’t so much, whether in their parts, or (most importantly) in their style of drawing.
Remember, the only thing which distinguishes a cat by an anonymous ancient Egyptian from one by Leonardo is ‘style of drawing’. It matters.
And an unprovenanced feline image is not explained by a snapshot of one’s own pet moggie.
I understand why some want the thing to be supposed an armadillo and others a kylion etc… but all their reasons have to do with their pet theories, not the manuscript. Find me a manuscript containing both a [kylion/armadillo/etc.etc.] and a sun drawn like something from a Hellenistic coin… and again which depicts plants as we see … say, a dozen… from the botanical section… and which uses asterisks/flower-stars to mark lines or paragraphs… then you’re talking.
So now having (I fear) successfully drawn all fire, I hope Koen’s comments may return to their usually peaceful tenor.
LikeLike
Diane
I’m not saying it’s a kylion or karabo or whatever – in fact I think no particular beast may have been intended.
What I tried to convey in this post is that we appear to be dealing with a specific type – that of the aquatic “monster”. This was a wide category that could include fictional beings but also whales and so forth.
The split tail, scales, body shape, paws, color… all point in that direction.
Cantimpré’s work, although anonymous or wrongly attributed before modern times, was one of the most popular of the middle ages. Anyone who was present in Europe, whether Latin or not, could have had access to it.
Therefore I stand by my claim that this VM drawing was most likely influenced by a drawing from a Cantimpré-tradition manuscript.
Stylistics are another matter entirely. If you know of a similar image in a more appropriate style I’d like to see it.
LikeLike
Cantimpré? Have a look for yourself … 🙂
http://cabrio.bibliotheek.brugge.be/browse/webgaleries/MS411/index.html
Although other copies might have (substantially) different pictures.
To me fishtails are out considering they are an “uninterrupted” extension of the body like lizards, dragons, pangolins, etc. F80v clearly has a thin tail protruding from its bum. It looks split but might well be meant as hairy.
Ger Hungerink.
LikeLike
Having done some photoshopping, please have another look at the f80v creature which I think looks very much like the Topsell Gorgon aka Catoblepas.
https://hungergj.home.xs4all.nl/catoblepas/catoblepas-tail.htm
The pictures were shadow corrected.
In the first image move the mouse over the picture to see an accentuated tail, or off it for the actual drawing.
It does look like a hairy tail…
Added are two rotated pictures of the Catoblepas for a better view at its head. It has a pointed snout and pointed ears or horns? No discussion as to it having its head down. According to legend, ready to look up and kill with its breath or eyes…
Ger Hungerink.
LikeLike
When I look at it in a proper scale I can really only see the fish tail. The further part you see might be an erased line.. or a smudge. Either way you did a good job of pangolinifying it 😉 The upside down perspective is rather original.
LikeLike
Koen, I really don’t understand where you can see a fish or pangolin tail. Isn’t it obvious that the tail is far to thin where it protrudes from a thick bum? With a fish, salamander, pangolin, lizard,… tail one can not tell where the body ends and the tail begins apart from the position of the legs.
LikeLike
Hi Ger: You’ve posted your efforts both here and on Koen’s blog, so I’ll copy my response here, also:
Ger: I’m afraid by your efforts you have only managed to distance your Topsell catablepas even further from the f80v animal. It’s like quicksand, the harder you try, the deeper you go.
“Having done some photoshopping…”, and, “The pictures were shadow corrected.”
No, your photoshopping made the image shadow “modified”, not “corrected”. But in doing so, you have emphasized the wispy tail of the f80v animal, making it more like an armadillos tail, and less like the porcine corkscrew tail of your Topsell catablepas:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160616183014/http://www.eaudrey.com/myth/catoblepas.htm
And, https://i.imgur.com/ZBH25wb.jpg
The tail is nothing like the f80v animal, even after you modified it with your graphic “enhancement.
https://hungergj.home.xs4all.nl/catoblepas/catoblepas-tail.htm
“Added are two rotated pictures of the Catoblepas for a better view at its
head. It has a pointed snout and pointed ears or horns?”
Yes, the f80v animal does have a pointed snout, like an armadillo, and unlike the snout of the catablepas that are illustrated. That animal has a very stout, bovine snout. This was even agreed to by both René and Koen, in that last big discussion at his site. And furthermore, your Topsell catablepas has a furry head of hair, while yes, the f80v animal has ears like… drumroll please… an armadillo.
“No discusion as to it having its head down. According to legend, ready to look up and kill with its breath or eyes…”
OK I have discussed it, and will again: Yes, the f80v animal does have its head down, because IT IS CURLED UP, like an armadillo does, and like the Topsell cablepas does not. Furthermore:
The f80v animal has short legs, as armadillos do, while the catablepas animals stand high on four legs, very bovine-like.
So for every reason, including your need to photoshop an image in an attempt to force the image closer, and failing to do so… for every reason, the f80v animal is very close to an armadillo, and very far from a catablepas. Barring your finding the “expected” better image, which will prove the very un-catablepas f80v animal must actually be one, you have only managed to strengthen the armadillo comparison.
Sometimes an armadillo is JUST an armadillo.
Rich.
LikeLike
I meant, of course, both on the VMS-List and Koen’s blog.
Koen, I meant to say the other day, I don’t see a comparison to the fish-like tail of your sea monsters. I’d say the wispy tail of the f80v animal is the least armadillo-like feature, but in my opinion is is not at all like a fish tail, nor the corkscrew of the the Topsell catablepas, nor the fat continuation of the body like the pangolin. It is still closer to the amadillo tail, in that it is smaller than the rest… but granted, a bit “wispy”.
LikeLike
The curly tail is a difference but neither has the f80v beast the snake-like tail of an armadillo. And f80v does not have the obvious vertical armadillo pattern in the middle nor does it have the large scales or the horn-like “ears”.
The difference between you and me is: Your whole America theory fails when it is not an armadillo. Actually many other animals known in 15th century Europe come just as close or closer than your armadillo, so there is no need for an American theory at all. Same goes for the sunflower.
My “theory” is that because of the likelyness of Topsell and f80v it would be worthwhile to backtrack the history of Topsell’s. The original might have been an example to the VM scribe and where that example came from could tell us more about the VM. If my theory fails nothing happens to the status of the VM: either the original can not be found or it is not a catoblepas. And I really don’t care about what animal it is – I just hope the search for the original picture leads to solving a bit of the VM mystery.
LikeLike
“The curly tail is a difference but neither has the f80v beast the snake-like tail of an armadillo.”
Well I do admit that the wispy tail is probably the least armadillo-like of all the features, but my point is that it is not at all like the Topsell catablepas, which is clearly a scaled corkscrew shape. So the tail is clearly a problem for any identification but “horse” maybe… but in my opinion far from your image, and not at all like the fish tail or pangolin or other that I have seen it compared to.
“And f80v does not have the obvious vertical armadillo pattern in the middle nor does it have the large scales or the horn-like “ears”.”
Well it does have the ears, not sure why you cannot see them there. One is shown, as it is a profile… standing tall above the head, along the body. A long, slender ear, just as armadillos possess.
As for the “obvious vertical pattern in the middle”, not all armadillos, or armadillo illustrations for that matter, have this. Some have just rows of even scales:
http://www.santa-coloma.net/voynich_drebbel/armadillo.html
Look at the Giant Armadillo (Tatou) for instance. But you get the point, that center band is not a deal breaker, it is not on all the critters.
“The difference between you and me is: Your whole America theory fails when it is not an armadillo. Actually many other animals known in 15th century Europe come just as close or closer than your armadillo, so there is no need for an American theory at all. Same goes for the sunflower.”
You have that backwards, logically, I’m afraid: First of all, my theory is not an “America” theory, you are mixing it up with the various New World theories… but in any case, my 1910 forgery theory is happy as a clam with any illustration or item known before 1910. So whether or not f80v is an armadillo or not matters not at all to that theory.
On the contrary, any theory the Voynich must be pre-1492 is destroyed if that IS an armadillo. Simply impossible for it to have existed before then.
Another thing… as I pointed out, the premise of Koen’s OP is incorrect, these are far from the only two identifications that indicate this is probably post-Columbus. You ought to read that book, “Unraveling…”, so at least you realize the vast amount of possible and even probable New World content in the Voynich. I find the book very well researched, and sensible, and that it makes very good comparisons. They have made some that I myself have… for instance the “Bird Glyph”, from f1r. The placement and form are almost identical to a mesoamerican paragraph marker, such as found on the Codex Mendoza and other works. There are so many other… so you may disagree with all these comparisons, but first you ought to know what they are at least. And also, so you no longer incorrectly claim that it is “only” the armadillo and sunflower. No, those are two of a great many.
“My “theory” is that because of the likelyness of Topsell and f80v it would be worthwhile to backtrack the history of Topsell’s. The original might have been an example to the VM scribe and where that example came from could tell us more about the VM.
That is great. I would only encourage you to do so.
“If my theory fails nothing happens to the status of the VM: either the original can not be found or it is not a catoblepas. And I really don’t care about what animal it is – I just hope the search for the original picture leads to solving a bit of the VM mystery.”
I don’t feel your previous actions, claims and stated aims has reflected this, so far, but I’ll take your word from it, and again, encourage you to pursue it. I’m not at all interested in changing your, or anyone’s mind, only vehemently arguing what I consider bad comparisons, incorrect understandings of mine, and other’s, positions and arguments. After that, all’s good.
LikeLike
(I just also needed to point out… since my tone has been questioned here, and my presence objected to, and I’d hate to have that happen again: “Sometimes an armadillo is just an armadillo” was a joke, a play on the apocryphal saying by Freud, “Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar”. I don’t actually presume to tell anyone what the animal actually is, only give my strong opinions as to what I think it is, and why).
LikeLike
Armadillos are interesting animals and I enjoyed reading up on them. In the course of that, I found that there is quite a bit of mis-information going round in armadillo-related Voynich theories.
This old blog post by Rich may be a good starting point:
http://www.santa-coloma.net/voynich_drebbel/armadillo.html
At the bottom is a 1526 report about Armadillos. This does not mention its capability to roll into a ball.
Gesner in 1551 does not mention this either, as far as I can tell.
As Rich’s post says, the only armadillo that can actually roll up is the 3-banded armadillo. Janick and Tucker argue that the animal in the Voynich MS is a 9-banded armadillo, which never does this. So how important is the number of bands?
9-banded armadillos are the only species that also live outside of South America, namely in Mexico and the Southern US. Their bodies are 40-60 cm long without the long tail, 65-100 including the tail. These seem to be the animals that appeared in some of the 16t-17th century Wunderkammers in Europe.
3-banded armadillos are 20-30 cm long and the tail is only 8 cm.
It’s worth seeing them roll into a ball, which happens in a split second:
It’s also worth seeing their habitat in the wikipedia page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_three-banded_armadillo
That the Voynich MS depicts a 3-banded armadillo in the process of rolling up into a ball seems completely excluded.
Janick and Tucker propose the 9-banded armadillo, saying that this is the only species that lived in Mexico, and they don’t mention the rolling into a ball at all, even though that has been one of the key arguments in the tentative identification.
LikeLike
Exactly Rene, this is a crucial point. Taken together with the complete absence of bands in the VM creature, I simply can’t see how some people can be so convinced about this creature being an armadillo. I did not know the 3-banded armadillo was excluded by Y&T, which makes the whole thing even stranger.
So to be able to roll up it needs 3 bands, but to live in Mexico it needs 9. All the while the thing in the VM has 0 bands, but rather large scales (which appear to face the wrong side).
LikeLike
Hi René: Your counter argument is a clear case of applying dissimilar levels of acceptance for you own arguments than those you disagree with.
“”Armadillos are interesting animals and I enjoyed reading up on them. In the course of that, I found that there is quite a bit of mis-information going round in armadillo-related Voynich theories….”, and, “That the Voynich MS depicts a 3-banded armadillo in the process of rolling up into a ball seems completely excluded.”, etc.
No doubt the person illustrating the Voynich, whether old, new, genuine or fake, was never applying a high degree of technical accuracy to almost every item in it. It is hypocritical to demand (this is often done, though) that one person’s image be a perfect, unassailable representation of the thing they suggest it is meant to be; while offering comparisons which deviate far from the VMs illustration, and saying that is acceptable.
The f80v as an armadillo, even if combining some popular conceptions of what an armadillo looks like, and their behavior, is well within both the image that we see, and reasonably what someone would do in either 1530 or 1908, or any time in between. To know this, all you have to do is look at both the images that have been drawn and the descriptions, and how the Voynich artist drew other things that we can recognize.
But I have heard both that the armadillo looked “too much” like an armadillo from you, in the past, and also, that it does not look enough like an armadillo at other times, including now. You had told me years ago it looked to much like one, and since the Voynich artist was obviously of lower skill, that therefore the fact it looked like an armadillo was an accidental coincidence.
Now you say, and have said, that in order to be an armadillo, it must contain, in this one image, all the characteristics of one particular species of armadillo, with the proper set of bands for the curling type, or whatever, without mixing them.
No I disagree with both, and all of these objections. This is a rather simplistic drawing of an armadillo, based on pretty much everyone’s popular conceptions of what one looks like. Which is, of course, why it looks like one. And it is well within the level of technical accuracy and quality of other Voynich illustrations… actually, feature-wise is is probably a bit better than most.
LikeLike
Rich, it is not based on *anyone’s* conception of an armadillo, let alone a popular one. Google something like armadillo drawing, sketch, whatever query you prefer, and count the percentage of drawings that have no bands. Armadillos in popular perception have bands. Bands bands bands. This thing has huge scales. It’s not an armadillo, not a naturalistic drawing of one and most definitely not a popular perception of one.
LikeLike
Hi Koen:
“Armadillos in popular perception have bands. Bands bands bands. This thing has huge scales. It’s not an armadillo, not a naturalistic drawing of one and most definitely not a popular perception of one.”
Well that is again, as I said, applying a higher threshold of acceptance than that which is applied to your own, and others, alternatives for the image. Saying it must conform on all technical details before it can be an armadillo; while alternatively saying so many things are wrong for wolf, pangolin, catablepas, sheep, sea monster, and so on, but that is “OK”?
And you have decided that a person “would” represent bands on this image? How do you know that? That a person who drew an armadillo would be savvy enough to know that unbanded armadillos don’t roll up? That demanding a far too high a level of accuracy, one that is both not in the Voynich to begin with, and also, far higher than you or anyone else uses for their own comparisons.
And besides, as the saying goes, “The proof is in the pudding”… that is, whether or not the artist was scientifically precise in they way they represented it, they got the point across: Because if you strip away the pre-conceptioin that the Voynich must be pre-Columbian, to most people this is first seen as, and clearly is meant to be, an armadillo.
Often creatures are loosely represented, but still very much well enough to be recognized, and this is no example. A good allegory would be Mickey Mouse. Everyone knows he is a mouse. Technically accurate? Of course not. Mice don’t have fingers, let alone only three of them.
But we all know it (he?) is meant to be a mouse. Another allegory here would be to try and argue Mickey Mouse looked more like a cow, or chicken… I mean, that is what I am confronted with, and which I have been for years, “It looks not enough like an armadillo, because the features are not perfect for one; but it looks like A, B, or C, even though the features are FAR worse for those”.
LikeLike
Rich rote: “Well that is again, as I said, applying a higher threshold of acceptance than that which is applied to your own, and others, alternatives for the image.”
That is exactly what I think you don’t understand. Because the identification as an armadillo (like the sunflower) would be against all established facts about the VM, that threshold NEEDS to be higher than when the beast is a catoblepas or a hedgehog or whatever 15th century beast known to pre-Columbian Europe. Added to that a catoblepas is a mythical creature that could not possibly have been drawn from nature and only is known from descriptions and earlier fantasized versions and could look like almost anything as proven by so many representations. Whether it is one or the other makes no difference to the status of the VM. You yourself claim how vitally important your armadillo observation is – you yourself should know you to have apply a far higher threshold.
LikeLike
Exactly. When we say it may be a mythological creature, we also know the amount of variation we can expect. For an armadillo, there are also some variations we can expect, but it should definitely have bands. In some languages, like Dutch, the armadillo is *named* after its bands. Drawing an armadillo without bands is like drawing an elephant without a trunk.
LikeLike
“… this is no exception”, oops. You have no edit option, I must be more careful, sorry…
LikeLike
Here was your whole statement about this, René, from October of 2008, on the Voynich list,
“I know it may sound rediculous, but I would say that it looks too much
like an armadillo that it could be an intentional representation of one.
“Look at the picture from the late 16th C that Rich posted.
Look at any of the first illustrations of newly discovered animal
species. They just never look like the real thing.
“Ergo, it is a coincidental similarity.
“It’s not that I am biased towards the notion that the VMs has to
be mid-15th C. It’s actually the opposite argument: one cannot prove
that there is a much later earliest date of the VMs, from similarities
of the illustrations with later items.”
I was recently speaking with someone who asked how one knows when they have gone too far in any idea? I explained that since there are few obvious “landmarks”, or “anchors” in the Voynich, a person has to apply their own “self checks” to attempt to decide between what is correct and what isn’t.
I have my own list of them, which I won’t go into here. But one good one is when the counter argument to ideas contradict each other, because both cannot be correct at the same time. It is some indication that there is not a correct explanation to discard the contention.
LikeLike
I’ve also taken issue with this contention, which has cropped up from time to time, in various forms, “… one cannot prove that there is a much later earliest date of the VMs, from similarities
of the illustrations with later items.”
Image comparison is EXACTLY how items of unknown age are dated. It is often the only way, outside of material dating by scientific means, or finding a reference in history, to that item.
So looking for item comparisons in the Voynich, such as the armadillo, is absolutely proper procedure. In fact, I would say, if it were not, then both sides of this armadillo issue would not care in the first place. You all know, and I know, and Janick and Tucker and everyone else knows: This is a very important, pivotal issue. Foundational, monumental, to the Voynich dating issue.
LikeLike
My comment appears to have been misunderstood, though Koen seems to have gotten it.
I was not commenting on the drawing at all, in any manner. I was pointing out that the arguments why the drawing should be an armadillo are misleading.
Janick and Tucker (in fact: their zoologist Flaherty) simply write: “… that is clearly an armadillo”. Period. They then compare it to other drawings of armadillos, one by Sahagun and one from Europe. They refer to the large 9-banded armadillo and never mention the rolling up.
This was written years after Rich’s arguments, which base mainly on two points: the fact that armadillos were known in 16th century Europe and that they tend to roll up in a ball, which the drawing supposedly shows. However, these two points are inconsistent with each other. The armadillo that was known in Europe does not roll into a ball. It would be kind of interesting to know when these quite small animals from a corner in Brazil were first seen in Europe. Just out of curiosity.
LikeLike
Hi Guys: No, I understand perfectly your points, I just strongly disagree with them. You do affirm my objections above, though:
Ger writes:
“Because the identification as an armadillo (like the sunflower) would be against all established facts about the VM, that threshold NEEDS to be higher than when the beast is a catoblepas or a hedgehog or whatever 15th century beast known to pre-Columbian Europe….”
Ger, that is circular reasoning, and based on pre-conceptions. “… all established facts…” are far from “all established”, although that is what you and many have been led to believe. Most of what you think you know is incorrect, or based on incorrect information and assumptions. At least, not really known to be true, although it is projected as true.
So to use those “established facts” to help drive an identification is not only dangerous, but also, as I’ve also pointed out, doing science backwards. You don’t decide you know the age of a book, then choose images to fit it, and reject those (sometimes better ones) that don’t.
“…. Added to that a catoblepas is a mythical creature that could not possibly have been drawn from nature and only is known from descriptions and earlier fantasized versions and could look like almost anything as proven by so many representations.”
This is another excuse for a bad comparison, which I will add to the growing list: Your creature comparison is to a real one, so must be VERY accurate; mine is to a mythical or fantasy creature, so my comparison can be very bad, with much leeway”. All investigations into just about anything just ended, right there, if this was the premise used for identifying manuscripts. And it is often done with the Voynich. It has been used to discard many good comparisons to real items, while putting in their place some or other fantasy object it looks nothing like. For instance, the sunflower is not a sunflower, but does contain the disassembled parts of a 15th century automobile… which we cannot see, and it looks nothing like.
“Whether it is one or the other makes no difference to the status of the VM.”
And you add this, again… the whole post, Koen’s original premise, and all your arguing, mine, and the others, is because this is a MONUMENTAL issue, and you fully well know it. Or this would have ended a week ago, with none of you caring all that much.
LikeLike
The only thing circular here is this whole discussion – so I’m off.
Ger.
LikeLike
René wrote,
“Janick and Tucker (in fact: their zoologist Flaherty) simply write: “… that is clearly an armadillo”. Period. They then compare it to other drawings of armadillos, one by Sahagun and one from Europe. They refer to the large 9-banded armadillo and never mention the rolling up.”
There is far more to it than that, and in addition, to many other New World items, all of which would need to be explained away, and are not. Not even mentioned, as often happens. Some are cherry picked for dispute, such as the OP here, choosing only two, of many.
But Janick and Tucker make a very good case, with much more reasoning than you describe. Do you have a copy of the book? Have you read it? Or are you assuming the case is small?
“This was written years after Rich’s arguments, which base mainly on two points: the fact that armadillos were known in 16th century Europe and that they tend to roll up in a ball, which the drawing supposedly shows. However, these two points are inconsistent with each other. The armadillo that was known in Europe does not roll into a ball. It would be kind of interesting to know when these quite small animals from a corner in Brazil were first seen in Europe. Just out of curiosity.”
Well then that is yet another take… that “… if it is an armadillo, it is based on an understanding far later than the 16th century anyway”. OK… and thank you. Maybe that is the case, and this is far newer. I don’t myself hold this is a 16th or 17th century New World work, but an early 20th century one, and you have pointed out a good reason it may be.
This always happens, and happened with optics: You and other critics pointed out the optics I was comparing too were “too new” for an understanding of optics in the 16th century I was then proposing. I listened, and saw that much newer did make sense. My critics were correct. Perhaps you are correct here, too, that showing a curling aramadillo would not likely be in the 16th century, as that was too early for the type known to Europeans.
LikeLike
Hi Koen: We are both only repeating each other, but I do quote your objection, while you leave mine out. You wrote,
“Rich, it is not based on *anyone’s* conception of an armadillo, let alone a popular one. Google something like armadillo drawing, sketch, whatever query you prefer, and count the percentage of drawings that have no bands. Armadillos in popular perception have bands. Bands bands bands. This thing has huge scales. It’s not an armadillo, not a naturalistic drawing of one and most definitely not a popular perception of one.”
I’m not referring to the number of Google hits, for one. I am referring to the animal this will evoke, and does evoke, to anyone seeing it: An armadillo. And yes, as I do know your objection that this is more familiar to those people, but you do not know that this is a factor unless showing each person an armadillo and all other “contenders”. That is not a gauge of “popular conception”, it would be how it is perceived, when seen. It is irrelevant to the core point her, how many hits show the bands, that is, what the “popular conception” is to people.
It is a popular, accepted representation, because so far almost 100% of the people I know have been shown it, by me and others, think it is an armadillo… strikingly and suspiciously except those who believe the claim the Voynich is pre-Columbian. So clearly the popular conception is always armadillo, and only by filtering the possibles with a 15th century Voynich can one see it as anything else.
As for “bands, bands, bands”… again, this seems not to matter to the vast majority of people who see it. No one I know has ever looked at this and said, “Wow that looks like an armadillo, but cant’ be one, because they left off the bands”. No, as in my Mickey Mouse comparison, and really, all loose illustrative and cartoon art, and so on, there is a threshold of features necessary to identify any item, and the f80v more than meets the threshold necessary for people to understand this is an armadillo. Bands or no bands, that is what it looks like to most people, and so it is most reasonable to suggest that is what it is meant to be.
But I’ll add “Google hits do not show the features seen” to the arguments against list.
LikeLike
My point is that google hits give a better and more neutral overview of “popular representation” than the anecdotal evidence you collect by showing it to people.
But there can really be no meeting point between our views. I remain convinced that the VM is a historical, 15th century document and as such it is completely irrelevant what the thing looks like to the modern viewer.
LikeLike
Hi Koen:
“I remain convinced that the VM is a historical, 15th century document…”
Of course it may be that, too. I appreciate the discussion, and your allowing it. Keep up the good work, and keep an open mind. I promise I will, too.
All the best…
Rich.
LikeLike
As I said earlier, Janick and Tucker just write that the drawing is “clearly an armadillo”. They provide a drawing from Sahagun that is indeed clearly showing an armadillo and say that the two drawings are similar. For me that is wishful thinking. The Sahagun drawing shows the bands, and shows an animal that is standing on its feet, and is not in any way rolled up, even partially. It has a long tail.
They use the ears as the outstanding argument that it can’t be a Pangolin, and consider the absence of bands ‘artistic licence’.
Also the other illustration from a european book shows a ‘straight’ animal with bands.
This is a typical example of the way of arguing that I mentioned in one of my earliest comments here: the points in favour of a particular theory are stressed and the points against are considered unimportant, waived or not mentioned at all.
Other techniques of dealing with difficult adversary evidence include calling names. The C-14 dating is called ‘dogma’.
It is considered invalid evidence, either because it was never published (which is not true) or because the MS could have been a palimpsest (which it isn’t). The point of this is that it is called invalid without actually being able to tell for which reason it is invalid.
The only good point is that they have no issue with the compelling evidence for the provenance of the book, back to 1622 (latest).
LikeLike
Hi René: I thought I had sung a good Kumbaya to my participation in this thread, but since you are still interested, I’m game.
“As I said earlier, Janick and Tucker just write that the drawing is “clearly an armadillo”. They provide a drawing from Sahagun… [to] …Also the other illustration from a european book shows a ‘straight’ animal with bands.”
First of all, I am not here to explain, support or defend the Janick & Tucker book in every detail. I have my own arguments for an armadillo which in some cases overlap theirs, but I also have many of my own that they may not agree with. But in essence, you have supported my point that you were incorrect in showing that they only one argument. You’ve gone back and added more. But you still leave out the bulk of their reasoning on the armadillo issue. You have selectively chosen those points you feel you can argue, and posted those, and left the rest out. But as I said, I would recommend anyone with an interest in the Voynich have a copy of this book. Their armadillo argument is much more extensive than you claim, and also, as I pointed out and which has not been otherwise addressed, the book and theory is FAR from based on only the sunflower and armadillo, but has dozens, perhaps into the hundreds, of very good New World comparisons.
Again, I don’t necessarily agree with many of them, myself. Some, I do, such as the Bird Glyph, which I independantly (I could be the originator, I’m not certain) found is virtually identical in placement (seeming use) and look as the paragraph marker found only in some MesoAmerican documents, such as the Codex Mendoza and a few others. So it is fine to disagree with their comparisons, but it is incorrect to continue to portray the armadillo argument as so limited, or their theory in its entirety as consisting of only two arguments pro-New World, when this is grossly incorrect.
And it’s just a damned nice book, and a great reference. I disagree with their overall conclusion (New World document), but I appreciate their approach, their open-mindedness, and their in-depth research. After that, yes, we can all disagree. But we should open our minds to great arguments like this, and know what others are saying and thinking.
“This is a typical example of the way of arguing that I mentioned in one of my earliest comments here: the points in favour of a particular theory are stressed and the points against are considered unimportant, waived or not mentioned at all.”
And this? But René, they do not do this, at all, first of all. Their book is rife with counter arguments against their own theory, something that is rarely done, and refreshing. In fact, on page 360 they quote Nick on the armadillo, and even link his blog. They also quote me on that page, with my ideas. I do it, too, in my pages… state those things which rebut my theories, and then give my reasoning why I believe them incorrect. And Koen does this, too, here, by letting us discuss our pros and cons. So for you to suggest the book has only “the points in favour of a particular theory are stressed…” etc., is incorrect. I would point out that you are among those who do what you complain about, in fact, because your very extensive pages are almost completely devoid of arguments against your 1420 Genuine European hypothesis, and actually state many things as settled fact, when they are actually matters of opinion, sometimes based on incorrect assumptions and information, or on unknown, limited and even contrary evidence.
LikeLike
Continuing:
“Other techniques of dealing with difficult adversary evidence include calling names. The C-14 dating is called ‘dogma’. It is considered invalid evidence, either because it was never published (which is not true) or because the MS could have been a palimpsest (which it isn’t). The point of this is that it is called invalid without actually being able to tell for which reason it is invalid.”
Well first of all, I’m not sure how calling evidence “dogma” is “calling names” (if you are suggesting they are calling people names, I’m not sure). I have not seen them insult anyone, nor even “insult by proxy” which is often done, by stepping back and letting or quoting coarser people who hurl insults they themselves would not use. I think J&T are quite polite, and have avoided being at all personal in their work.
In any case, I believe they are quite right in stating that the C-14 radiocarbon report was never published. If you know where it was published, please by all means point to it. I and many others have long waited for it, as you know. I’ve written the Beinecke, who told me they would release it if the ORF documentary producers who paid for it would agree. So I got the producers agreement, and not heard back from the Beinecke when I requested it again. I wrote to the University of Arizona asking for it, and they wrote to you, and you answered for them, that it will not be released. I’ve sat across from Greg Hodgins (great guy, really knows his stuff), and discussed it, and written him, too (as others here should know, he actually did the tests, and prepared the report). He told me, “If I recall correctly, the Beinecke paid for the report. They own it and ultimately control its release.” And so on, around and around. Everyone who has it, will not release it, despite the fact that the producers are fine with its release. Everyone passes the buck.
But published, as you say? Not to any of our knowlege, so if you are now saying it was, very much please do tell us where… or, send me a copy, and I will publish it.
The closest thing we have to data from that report is ONE PowerPoint slide of it, that Greg used in his 2012 presentation in Frascati. If I didn’t have my camera turned on, so that I could QUICKLY snap a picture of it, we would not even have that! It was up for only a moment or two, then gone forever. This image, and the data on it, appears nowhere else on the web. Unless, again, your contention is correct, and the report was published somewhere:
Now another thing (you draw such a great many issues into this discussion, and they must be addressed. They are important, and others should know the real story behind them, rather than continue to accept them as… well you don’t like “dogma”, so I’ll just say “settled fact”. People can and should think for themselves, that is my mission if there is one): I absolutely trust the data from the University of Arizona tests, and absolutely accept that the calfskin of the Voynich manuscript was prepared in the early to mid 15th century. But what that slide shows, as you are aware, is that the samples taken have a very wide spread of date results, and then have been combined (averaged, however one wants to describe it, although you initially used “combined”, and “assumptions”) into one, much narrower date range. It was done on the assumption that the Voynich was prepared in a shorter time, all at once.. your own claim. And you are aware this has been a concern of mine and others, and something that was not known until I posted that image I took in 2012. In fact you changed the wording of your site, on that matter. See #8 in my list:
So yes, I fully accept that the radiocarbon dating shows the calfskin is from the 15th century. But the raw data has not ever been seen. The method and reasoning that was used to distill that data into the 1404-1438 range, has never been seen. The data that was rejected, if any other than the one line in the slide, is not known, and why and what basis it may have been rejected, has never been seen. There are many possible implications to knowing all this, not the least of which may be that the stack of calfskin used could have been from different sources, from very different times. There may be other implications, maybe there are none, and others will agree that the pages must be 1404 to 1438. But we just don’t know, not having seen the report.
So if this report has been published, this is fantastic news, and I’m sorry I missed it, and please post the link. And if you made a mistake here, and it has not been published, that’s fine, too… just send me the report, and I’ll publish it. Or if you like, publish it on your site, and please let us know.
But if it has still not been published as you claim, please tell us why it has not, and also, please stop telling people it has been published, as you do here, yet again.
LikeLike
One other point you bring up: Yes, the tests on the calfskin have so far implied it is not a palimpsest. But this is based on the assumption it is old, produced at a time when the surface would be scraped, not bleached. And there are no scrape or sanding marks, so it was not prepared that way, if a palimpsest.
But to my knowledge, the possibility it was bleached, using a chemical method newer than the assumptions made about a 15th century production would allow, has not been addressed, pro or con.
I do think this was blank parchment, and that it is not a palimpsest, for various reasons, but I admit I do not know, and suggest also, that it is not something known for sure, as often claimed.
LikeLike
I looked at many Voynich pages under glancing light and at magnification (I was specifically looking to see whether some particular pages were palimpsests), but saw nothing at all.
LikeLike
Rich, I am not sure why I need to spell this out?
J&T write it is “clearly an armadillo”.
They compare it to a drawing of an armadillo made in Mexico.
They point out (in a way) that the ears are similar, so this is apparently important. They admit that the typical bands are missing in the Voynich MS, but this is probably artistic licence, so clearly unimportant. The different tail is ignored.
See?
Similar points are important. (And there aren’t that many).
Differences are unimportant.
Subjective.
Being even more specific:
* Saying that the drawing looks like an armadillo is a subjective statement of opinion.
* That the drawing looks like different things to different people is a fact.
* Saying that the ‘artist’ intended it to be an armadillo is speculation.
* Speculation cannot be used as evidence for anything. It can be used as a basis for further speculation.
* That the drawing suggests that the MS was made in Mexico is therefore speculation.
LikeLike
“Speculation as the basis for further speculation” is what I intended to express with the “New World theorist” cartoon in this post. Take away the speculative premises and the whole thing comes tumbling down easily.
LikeLike
Hi Koen:
““Speculation as the basis for further speculation” is what I intended to express with the “New World theorist” cartoon in this post. Take away the speculative premises and the whole thing comes tumbling down easily.”
Well it was unclear, I’m afraid, since you clearly state, and the drawing shows, that New World theories are “only” using those two items.
“… ALL [my caps] 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…”. Which is the original reason I first responded (weeks ago? years? seems like it… JK) that there are actually far more reasons to believe the Voynich could actually be post-Columbian.
But I’ll accept your clarification, here…
In any case, this idea that thinking the Voynich is early 15th century is somehow NOT speculation, and anyone who counters that claim ARE the ones who are speculating, it totally wrong, and also, a projected concept that is dangerous to any attempt to solve the Voynich.
All we know for certain is that the pages are calfskin, which was prepared sometime in the 15th century, and that Voynich said he bought it about 1911/12. I think naked women and “some sort” of zodiac, animal and plant representations might be fairly safe bets that we can all agree on. BUT almost every single other thing everyone says is absolutely 100% speculation, and every thing they say is based on speculating on the illustrations and text, and making comparisons to other illustration, objects and text.
So very much “yes”, if speculation is removed, every idea so far proposed also disappears… but not just those ideas that any one person, you, me, or anyone, thinks better or worse “speculation”, but EVERYTHING , by everyone, “comes tumbling down easily”. 1420 Genuine European Cipher Herbal vanishes just as fast as New World or forgery and everything else.
|
And we would have to start again, because “speculation” is ALL we have. Then we would also start again with claims of “better” and “worse” speculations. But still, make no mistake (a dangerous mistake), that is all it is, for everyone. And also, for anyone to say, or believe, that they do not need to speculate, that only “others” do this, is a self-made trap that many will never free themselves from.
LikeLike
Anyway, I have said all that I can possibly say about this illustration. Continuing to look for precedents in pre-15th Century illustrations, or for other reflections of a similar source in contemporary or slightly later illustrations seems like a valid approach to me. One won’t know if they exist or not, as long as one has not made the effort.
As always, getting the opinion of someone who is familiar with old manuscripts on a professional basis is highly valuable, even if they might say that one cannot tell much really. While such opinions may not seem satisfactory, they do tell us something of value.
Of course, for all the side issues addressed in all the comments, there remains much more to be said, but it would be OT here. People familiar with how to navigate my web site may find considerable information on such topics there.
LikeLike
Hi, René:
“Of course, for all the side issues addressed in all the comments, there remains much more to be said, but it would be OT here.”
True, it would be and often has been, “OT”. But I note you have not addressed the claim you made, above, that the C14 Radiocarbon report has been “published”. Often, over the past decade, when this issue comes up, this claim is made. And every time I ask to see the report, or where it is “published”, or available for download, or whatever, either the question is ignored entirely, or we are told that it cannot be released until the producers and/or Beinecke and/or U&A give permission. I’ve even, on the contrary, simply been told that it won’t be released.
But the producers have given permission, which I’ve shared with you and the Beinecke, and yet it does not seem that it has been released.
Now again, in this thread, you make the claim that J&T are wrong to claim the C14 radiocarbon report has not been published, and now, again, I ask for a link to it, or for you to post it, yourself, if that was an oversight on your part… or send it to me, and I’ll post it. I hope you do not leave the conversation, again, without either doing that, or telling us why you will not, or cannot.
“Anyway, I have said all that I can possibly say about this illustration. Continuing to look for precedents in pre-15th Century illustrations, or for other reflections of a similar source in contemporary or slightly later illustrations seems like a valid approach to me. One won’t know if they exist or not, as long as one has not made the effort. As always, getting the opinion of someone who is familiar with old manuscripts on a professional basis is highly valuable, even if they might say that one cannot tell much really. While such opinions may not seem satisfactory, they do tell us something of value.”
Yes, it is valid to look there, but also everywhere, as I and others have done. I agree it is a “valid approach”… but not JUST THERE. Very much because, by not finding this and so many answers to the Voynich by only looking “there”, doesn’t that “tell [you] something of value”? It tells me… told me long ago… you are looking in the wrong places. How many more decades should people look in the same place and not find answers? And still look for that person who “is familiar with old manuscripts on a professional basis”… that right and proper “expert” who will finally recognize this thing for what (15th century genuine thing) it really is? Keep going through droves of “experts”, telling them to keep looking in the 15th century only, because we “know” it is from there, and when they can’t identify it, look for more experts… as has been done for over 100 years. Yes, that has told me… and anyone listening, “something of value”.
“People familiar with how to navigate my web site may find considerable information on such topics there.”
Many people… most people… do rely on your very well researched and informative site. The problem is, and the warning I give to those who might rely on it too much, is that much of what you write is an admix of facts, along with the personal opinions of you and others. But then you often use absolutes such as “this is known”, and “is certain”, and “we can safely say”, for points that are anything BUT known, and often… very often… based on either incorrect or questionable “evidence”. Much of your site interprets known evidence in a way that only supports your 1420 hypothesis, when there are often alternative ways of explaining these things… sometimes, better ways.
What I mean is… and I’m not sure if you are aware of this at all, or if you are not, because you have such a strong opinion that the Voynich is genuine and early 15th c.: but while your site is part a wonderful repository of vast amounts of information, but also a very personal, strongly held, speculative opinion as to what the Voynich is. So it has rightly generated and supported a great number of new researchers, but many of whom now incorrectly believe the questions of the manuscript’s authenticity and age are not mysteries at all, but settled science. They are far from settled, they are still very much unknowns… so I consider that unfortunate, and why I speak out about it when offered the opportunity.
Anyway, please point us to the radiocarbon report, if it is published as you claim it is. It would be wonderful to finally see it.
LikeLike
Apparently only the bits the people are allowed to know have been leaked:
http://www.voynich.nu/extra/carbon.html
The actual report will not be published since it proves as a side result the Non Existence of God.
LikeLike
Even if f80v represents an armadillo indeed, the simplest explanation would be that someone after Columbus drew it in the margin of this authentic mid 15th century manuscript.
Just to have a bit of fun 🙂
Ger Hungerink.
LikeLike
The results of the radio-carbon dating have been presented at the 40th annual meeting of the American Institutes of Conservation, 8-11 May 2012 in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
The programme is here:
https://www.culturalheritage.org/docs/default-source/periodicals/2012-final-program.pdf?sfvrsn=7
(see page 15).
The abstract is here:
Click to access bp31-15.pdf
It was presented again at the 15th seminar of “Care and conservation of manuscripts”, 2-4 April 2014, Copenhagen.
Programme of the relevant day with link to the abstract:
https://nors.ku.dk/cc/wednesday-2-april/
It was presented yet again in July 2014 in Philadelphia:
http://philadelphia.eventful.com/events/mysterious-voynich-manuscript-collaboration-/E0-001-071688629-6
LikeLike
Hi René:
“The results of the radio-carbon dating have been presented…, etc.”
Of course we are all familiar with these summaries, verbal and written, such as on your site. They are opinions, in the form of conclusions, based on the data and process which we have NEVER seen. Some data, yes, has been selectively shared. But not the report.
Your links are to talks and abstracts, and do not include, the C14 Radiocarbon report. It has not been published, as you continue to claim,
“The C-14 dating is called ‘dogma’. It is considered invalid evidence, either because it was never published (which is not true)…”.
It is absolutely true that the report has never been published. And again, you don’t answer the question “why?” it has not been, nor offer it up… only continue to claim it has been.
Why? is this important? There are very many different ways to interpret the raw data. Data considered erroneous, due to cleaning, or uncleaned samples, can be assumed and discarded, or included. Assumptions as to how it might be analyzed can differ: Case in point, even on your site the hint is given that a pre-conception (“assumption”) was used to “combine” the samples:
“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.”
You do not know “These folios have been bound together into one volume centuries ago”, that is speculation. You don’t know “the book production process is likely to have taken considerably less time than these 50-60 years”.
What has been done here is that the raw data has been processed to conform to those pre-conceptions. This would not be done if two blank sheets were found in a pile, nor done if one was a, say, German land deed and an Italian poem, found in a stack. They would not be “combined” into a tighter age.
There are many different implications to the wide spread of ages found in the samples that WERE taken, even with the small amount of information as to what the “assumptions” were made to process it. We have no idea… since the report still remains unpublished… what other implications may be derived from the results, by looking at the same information you and others have… until others have a chance to see it.
Now I’ll assume you have a copy of the report, as I doubt you wrote your “carbon” page from notes from one of the lectures, or from the abstract you link. So if you truly had believed it was published somewhere, and if you truly believe that the opinions that have been offered are the only correct interpretation of the data (so you should not mind others seeing it), I’ll ask again: Can you please share the Radiocarbon Report for the Voynich manuscript, so that we can publish it?
LikeLike
Koen,
In reply to your comment above (12/06/2019 at 16:21) – sorry to be so slow to reply. As you know, I’ve been occupied with other things for the past few weeks.
I agree with you on so many points, it’s hardly an argument in this case, but I did want to remind
those who’ve commented that we only find what we look for within the parameters we set ourselves and while I don’t think the creature is an armadillo, I do think it reasonable to begin by saying its appearance agrees in general with that of the class of armoured lizards (Cordylidae) of which the ‘armadillo lizard’ is one.
More to illustrate the ‘you find what you look for within the parameters you set’ than to argue for any of the following, I’ll add an illustration, noting that one of the creatures could have the odd looking tail explained by the fact of a long-established belief that the scales of the sun-gazer had magical and curative properties. In fact, when treating the ‘beasts’ in Beinecke MS 408 I discussed this creature in concert with the curious form of the horse-like creature with seemingly feline claws (folio ) which last I compared with the Singh/Sima on the one hand and the Aberdeen bestiary’s ‘Leocrota’ on the other. (‘Fauna in the Voynich 2: fol 79v ~ Quadruped and amphibian.’ Voynich imagery Notes – Sunday, December 11, 2011).
But here’s the composite I’ve just made to illustrate the ‘lamp-post’ principle. 🙂
youtube links are sources for pictures, not information used.
LikeLike
In my opinion a tail like a lizard, pangolin, “dragon”,… it comes nowhere near. It is worse than the supposed armadillo. I cut the beast out of its f80v and put a lizard tail on:
Ger Hungerink.
LikeLike
Diane: it’s all possible, but without convincing parallels in imagery, it won’t help us get much closer.
Ger: since the tail is forked, you’ll have a hard time finding any clean match in land dwellers.
General note: I just read that there are actually instructors for the illustrator in the Valenciennes MS. In the case of the Karabo:
“‘une beste […] queue […] grant […]’.”
Source: http://initiale.irht.cnrs.fr/decor/86773
This again underlines the originality of the influential illustrations in this MS.
LikeLike
Koen wrote: “since the tail is forked, you’ll have a hard time finding any clean match in land dwellers. ”
I don’t see it as forked. It looks to me like the hairy gnu or wildebeest tail. Actually the same animal as the catoblepas is thought to be.
My idea of the tail of f80v:
And this is an old drawing of the gnu or catoblepas:
To compare the tail of f80v with the original use your cursor on the top image:
https://hungergj.home.xs4all.nl/catoblepas/catoblepas-tail.htm
That the rather vague extension is a random stroke is very unlikely since it fits perfectly with the drawing, and with no other strokes nearby. And it has the same intensity as the clear vertical strokes underneath the curly line. A line by the way e.g. also present as parasol border and certainly not meaning water by definition.
If it were only the fish tail you see, it would be incredibly small compared to the animal and useless for its primary function: to swim.
LikeLike
Above I wrote “It looks to me like the hairy gnu or wildebeest tail. Actually the same animal as the catoblepas is thought to be. ”
What I meant was: the same animal the stories(!) about the catoblepas seem to have been based on (in part). As a mythical creature no one knew what it actually looked like. It was up to the fantasy of the artist.
LikeLike
Actually here is another catoblepas representation with an f80v-tail, be it longer. Bovines often have such tails:
LikeLike
But all of those are so late… There still isn’t an answer to the Catoblepas proposal’s specific problems:
– Early (and chronologically most relevant) depictions vary and don’t resemble the VM creature or the later Catoblepas much.
– Only one Catoblepas has scales, and this is a confusion between two creatures. So the specific image that got you all excited isn’t even a purebred.
– All images you put forward here are way too late, they exist in a completely different time frame than the VM.
Now it’s okay to hypothesized that there must be some missing link (this is something I like to do myself) but even this is problematic in this case. We know the early versions (pre-VM) and we know the late versions, but it’s hard to imaging that any missing link between these cat-like things and the bovines would look like the VM animal.
This must be considered together with the fact that other explanations are available for the pose. The beaver curling up do castrate itself, any of the creatures that do an armadillo-like roll to defend themselves, or even a dead creature hanging…
Don’t get me wrong, it’s a worthy hypothesis tot investigate, but for now it really doesn’t have much meat to it. Sticking with the printed images as Catoblepas-promotional material won’t be convincing to many.
LikeLike
Koen, “too late?”
I am not trying at all to prove f80v is any of the animals I gave. They are mere llustrations of the type of tail I think f80v has. It is pure coincidence I found some examples for reference only that were named “catoblepas” 😉 My point is: the tail is NOT fish-like and it is NOT lizard-like because these are fluent extensions of the whole body and not something thin sticking out of their behind – as the f80v obviously has.
See 19/06/2019 at 17:45 which goes for fishtails as well.
LikeLike
The scales of f80v might not be scales at all. Birds often have this pattern in feathers and four-footed beasts are sometimes depicted with hair in such a pattern. A striking example is the lamia with a similar f80v tail. And almost the same body as f80v.
For more examples see:
https://hungergj.home.xs4all.nl/catoblepas/Lamia.htm
Ger Hungerink
LikeLike
Fine, I’ll grant that the tail doesn’t have to be a fish tail. And you are right that this pattern was also used for feathers, as well as rough(er) fur, like a lion’s or horse’s mane.
All of those uncertainties just increase the necessity for proper image parallels though. Printed books can serve as a starting point for finding precedents, but aren’t sufficient by themselves.
LikeLike
The only people who have a problem with the C-14 dating of the Voynich MS are the ones who see their theories challenged by it.
I can only advise them to re-think about priorities.
I did not check my copy of Janick & Tucker to see how they argue about this point in print. However, I would be greatly surprised, and not a little amused, if they were to argue that conference presentations somehow don’t “count”. I’m sure they didn’t.
LikeLike
Hi René: You are making several incorrect assumptions here again, followed by one I apparently made. But first of all,
“The only people who have a problem with the C-14 dating of the Voynich MS are the ones who see their theories challenged by it.”
If you mean my own 1910 hypothesis, it is not at all challenged by 15th century origin of the calfskin. Voynich arguable had access to much old parchment, and old parchment has been available during his time and since then.
Yes, dating of the calfskin samples is all within a range of late 14th through about the middle of the 15th centuries. I never argued that, and still do not, and as I say, it is moot to my theory.
What is my point is that it was incorrect to use the “assumption” (your word) that the Voynich must have been created within ten years, and then that pre-conception, assumption, what-have-you, was used to “combine” the known data into a shorter time frame. As you said, on your site,
“The dating of each folio doesn’t allow a very precise dating of the MS. 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. The book production process is likely to have taken considerably less time than these 50-60 years. Under the assumptions that:
– The MS was indeed created over a time span not exceeding (e.g.) 10 years
– It was not using parchment that was prepared many years ago
“… 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 1435 ± 26 years (1 sigma).”
So as you explain, a genuine parchment book was “assumed”, and not the possibility that blank parchment leaves from different sources were used to create it.
Data should not have been manipulated into a desired result, rather we should look at it objectively, and let it tell us what it does. In this case, that the Voynich was assembled from calfkin prepared 50 to 60 years apart, and with one, perhaps, even 200 years removed. It makes me and others wonder what other “assumptions” were used on the data in that unseen report, and how it was used to come to the opinions we ARE allowed to see.
No, I didn’t say, and I don’t know that J&T would think*, that “conference presentations somehow don’t ‘count'”… It counts as opinion, distilled from data we are no privy to, and do not know if it has all been used, or some “culled”, and using reasoning that we cannot see. We only see yours, and others, opinions of that Report.
What I did say, and still contend, is that the report has not been released, and you have told me it will not be released in the past, while all permissions to having it released have been met. And then, in your statement here, on Koen’s blog, you claim it is false that it has not been released, “[C14 results are] considered invalid evidence, either because it was never published (which is not true)”
So again, I ask, since you don’t think that the release of the University of Arizona radiocarbon report is a problem to your genuine theory, or dating; and since both producers who commissioned it are fine with its release; and since you clearly have a copy of the Report, used to prepare your page on the tests on your site… and since you seem to be satisfied that the methods and data used in that unseen report are correct and proper: then please share the report with us. Post it on your site for download, or send it to me and I will post it, or however you wish to distribute it.
*(My error was in thinking you were referring to J&T stating it was not released, in their book, because it was in your same post on the subject of their book, and there was no segue to the generalization you meant. Explains why I could not find it in their book, after you made the point)
LikeLike
Well this is ironic. I did check my copy of Janick & Tucker, on this issue, and they actually use you as a reference on the subject of “publication” of the report. Page 54, “The samples dated from 1404 to 1438. Subsequently, Hodgins made several oral presentations and announcements with additional data, but the information has not been published (Zandbergen 2016)”.
So I went back to your page again to see what they meant (to make certain they were not only referring to Greg’s “oral presentation” on the Report not being published), and sure enough you state, “The radio-carbon dating was performed by the University of Arizona, and described in some detail in an internal report. It has been publicly presented at several occasions, but I am not aware of a published paper on this topic.”
So this is in contrast to your claim here, that the results, “… because it was never published (which is not true)”. It is you, yourself, who admit that the C14 (internal) report has never been published.
Hopefully you can end this long anticipation, and share the report with all of us. Unless you know of a good reason why you or anyone should continue to keep it private, it would be the right thing to do.
LikeLike
proto57 22/06/2019 at 03:51
proto57 22/06/2019 at 05:18
How do these massive posts relate to the creature on f80v, being the topic here?
Would not a reference to where you treat this on topic suffice?
LikeLike
Hi Ger:
“How do these massive posts relate to the creature on f80v, being the topic here? Would not a reference to where you treat this on topic suffice?”
First of all, René brought up the (incorrect) claim, right here, that the Voynich radiocarbon report HAS been published. I didn’t. It was logical to then ask him “where?” has it been published. Now you may not care about it, perhaps being content, and trusting of, other’s opinion about what the data means. But that opinion colors every single thing you believe about the Voynich, and which you argue so strongly, here and on the Voynich List. So it surprised me that it is of such little interest to you. Don’t you want to know “why” you think what you do?
How and when and from what age the pieces of the book the f80v animal was drawn on, very much affects everyone’s ideas about what the f80v animal might be, and every little other thing in the Voynich, for that matter. You don’t care whether the animal was drawn on 1365 or 1497, or some other age, parchment? Would you claim it makes no difference to your belief about what the animal is? Or do you simply object to any possibility that the book is not what you want it to be, an nice, cohesive whole, made within “ten years”?
So while seemingly off topic, it is not; and since while René brought it up, it is pertinent to point this out. Also note that like many questions relating to the story we are all told to accept… René didn’t like “dogma”… so, “story” we are told to accept, I thought it important to make note of the fact that the issue of the the location and lack of publication of the radiocarbon report has still not been answered. It never is, BTW, and has not been, for almost a decade. There is a pretense of answering it, but it is not answered, and it is never consistently nor completely answered. Don’t you care why that might be? No curiosity at all on the subject?
You may not care, or worse yet, prefer you just don’t know, but many others would rather have a clear view of what they are basing their opinions on in the first place. I’m one of those.
LikeLike
My question was not meant to invite for another lump of of topic text… it was meant as a rhetorical question. Asking where the c14 report was published can be done in one line.
LikeLike
This is both silly and boring. The internal report has not been published and I did not say that it had.
The C-14 dating exercise, its method, its results and its expected accuracy has been publicly presented at professional symposia and workshops on several occasions.
I consider it disingenuous from the side of Rich to argue against this, because he personally attended another presentation of this work at a less formal event, by Greg Hodgins. I was just talking about this presentation with Klaus Schmeh yesterday. He also attended it, and he agreed with me that the presentation clearly showed that Greg completely stood behind this work. Klaus was even aware of further public presentations that I didn’t know of.
There is nothing suspicious about this analysis. It is made suspicious by the people whose theories are challenged by it. I was not even thinking about Rich’s theory, when I wrote this a few days ago, because Rich’s theory is entirely unaffected by the age of the parchment. Everything that doesn’t fit is explained as an error in the making of the fake. See e.g. the presence of a supposed armadillo in a document he was trying to sell as an original Roger Bacon.
Which brings us back to the topic of the blog post. I think it has been beaten to death by now. Which also fits with the state of the animal of f80v. It doesn’t look too lively.
LikeLike
Hi René:
“The internal report has not been published and I did not say that it had.”
We are getting closer! So you have settled on calling the Voynich Radiocarbon Report by the University of Arizona the “Internal Report”.
So then I ask again, since you are finally so clear (took only a decade… you can’t say I’m anything but persistent, if not patient) in admitting the “internal report” has NOT been published:
1) Do you have a copy of the “internal” report? It seems you do, since you publish some data from that report on your page of analysis of the report. You must have gotten that from somewhere. Unless you took very good notes from those lectures, I’ve been assuming you probably have a copy of the “internal” report.
2) Can you please then send me or someone else a copy, or post this internal report yourself?
3) If you will not do so, please explain why you won’t do it.
“The C-14 dating exercise, its method, its results and its expected accuracy has been publicly presented at professional symposia and workshops on several occasions.
“I consider it disingenuous from the side of Rich to argue against this, because he personally attended another presentation of this work at a less formal event, by Greg Hodgins.”
That is a grossly unfair characterization of my position on this. You full well know I am fully aware of the various presentations, and do not in any way ever argue “against this”, so to call me “disingenuous” on the issue is wrong. You are also fully aware this has been about the original (you call “internal” report), and not these lectures and so on, I’ve made that very clear over the years.
“I was just talking about this presentation with Klaus Schmeh yesterday. He also attended it, and he agreed with me that the presentation clearly showed that Greg completely stood behind this work.”
And this is yet a new twist on this: Who ever said Greg DIDN’T “stand behind his work”? Not me, not anyone I know of.
“Klaus was even aware of further public presentations that I didn’t know of.”
That’s nice… and a totally irrelevant point to the matter of whether, or where, and why not, the internal report has or will be published.
“There is nothing suspicious about this analysis. It is made suspicious by the people whose theories are challenged by it.”
No one “made” the date range of the parchment 50 to 60 years, and possibly further, “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.”
No one “made” the people who “combined” the range of dates to a neat “1404 to 1438” based on an assumption, “The book production process is likely to have taken considerably less time than these 50-60 years.”
The limited information on your site, and in those lectures, even Greg’s, is all based on data and process that we have not seen, which is in that “internal” report: and those opinions… which is what they are, analysis, opinions, conclusions, what have you… uses various decision making processes we do not yet know about, possibly based on assumptions that not everyone would agree with.
Unless we see that internal report, there will remain these questions. There may be, as there already is just from what we know, many possible FURTHER implications to the data that was gathered. That is, different conclusions to that unseen report that others may come to. If not, so be it. But without seeing that internal report, we will never know. So please share that report, so we can put an end to this issue once and for all, and “move on” as they say.
“I was not even thinking about Rich’s theory, when I wrote this a few days ago, because Rich’s theory is entirely unaffected by the age of the parchment.”
And that is wonderful, that you finally concede this point… especially since it is correct. In other places, in many ways in the past, you have incorrectly said a modern forgery is “impossible” because the parchment is “too old”.
The issues with not being able to read the Internal Radiocarbon Report are about relative age of the various samples, what that raw data is, and how and why that data has been used, rejected, analysis, processed, etc. (all of what was actually done, whatever that may have been) by the time the opinions we DO SEE have been written and spoken about.
So again, please either share or publish that internal report, or tell us why you will not do so. That is all I’ve EVER been asking, this last decade or so.
LikeLike
Another 800 off topic words added to the several thousands here already, only to get a c14 report. What makes you think people here, discussing the creature on f80v, are interested in your private problems? Please go “outside” and fight there, ask for his e-mail.
LikeLike
Rene: proto57 never questioned your analysis of the C-14 report — he simply asked you for a copy of it. Do you have a copy of it or have you seen it?
LikeLike
Rich P: “Rene: proto57 never questioned your analysis of the C-14 report”
Maybe you should ask him if you have understood that correctly.
LikeLike
René: I understood Rich P’s comment, and will address that in a moment.
But first of all, I again note that you will not answer these questions, which I have repeatedly asked:
– Do you have a copy of the “internal” C14 report? Your page on the subject seems to imply you do, as it has many figures not seen elsewhere.
– Will you share that report, either online, or send it to me or someone to post?
– If you will not, then why not? Why are we only to be allowed to see various analysis OF the report, and not the actual, internal report itself?
So hopefully you will finally let the Voynich world know the answers to these important and long awaited questions.
As for Rich P’s statement, “proto57 never questioned your analysis of the C-14 report”:
The thing is, it is impossible to cover all the intricacies of this problem with a simple statement, and I think you know that. This issue is far from black and white… there are subtleties that would take many paragraphs to parse properly. Rich was quite correct in the overall sense that I do not, and never have, disputed the claim that the C14 results show the calfskin of the Voynich is from the 15th century. It is often wrongly charged that I do dispute this, over and over in fact, no matter how many times I make this clear.
In fact, you have done it again, by taking what Rich said to imply this.
The two major things I do challenge are:
– The combining of the widely diverse ages of the individual samples into one “pat” age range of 1404 to 1438, based on your’s, and others, “assumption” that the Voynich was made within a shorter time than those individual samples might imply.
– The avoidance of release of the original (you call “internal”) report to the Voynich community of researchers at large, and instead, releasing only some data, some of it processed and analyzed into “opinions”. Many of us do not want only your opinions, we want the data so that we can form our own. And our wanting the data is fully justified by the evidence it has been processed with biased preconceptions, as these are actually admitted by you, on your website: “Assumed” and “combined”.
So you often state that there are certain things you will not talk about… but I don’t think it is fair that you pick and choose those things you will answer, and those you will not. It is not fair to us. You’ve done it again, here on this list of comments.
You know I answer any issue, any question, and critique of me or my ideas, and always have. I never ignore any difficult issue put to me, whether or not others agree with the answer. And I ask only the same of you, nothing more, nothing less: Where is the internal report, can we see it, and why not, if not?
LikeLike
Rene — let me improve my wording: Rich doesn’t oppose you offering up an opinion on the report. That’s the sense I was trying to convey.
Now let’s try this again: Do you have a copy of the “internal report” or have you seen it?
LikeLike
Rich —
Thanks for responding here. You’re right, when I said “never questioned your analysis”, I didn’t mean to suggest that you fully agreed with Rene’s interpretations of the C-14 report but simply that you’d really like to get your hands on a copy of the report and draw your own conclusions. (I rephrased my question above to clear up any confusion).
Rene has consistently avoided answering the “internal report” question after being asked multiple times by you and now a few times by me. Near the top of his web page discussion of the report [http://www.voynich.nu/extra/carbon.html] he says:
“It is not copying information from the internal report (except when specifically stated) … ”
So if he can assert that some parts of his page are copied from the internal report then he’s at least seen a portion of it.
Just today on this thread he’s clarified that:
“With respect to the radio-carbon dating, *all* information is out there.”
This further implies that he’s familiar with the *entire* report because how else would he know that all of the information about it is out there?
Rene’s consistent evasiveness about the “internal report” and the lack of any other source where it can be found should raise everyone’s eyebrows. Maybe there’s some information in it or aspect about it that would call the VM’s authenticity into question.
I’m glad you brought up the issue of the 1404 to 1438 date range because I seem to recall that not long after the C-14 tests were conducted, media reports characterized the results as confirming that the VM was indeed a 15th-century work. But we seem to be far away from claiming that as certain fact.
LikeLike
Since you added this, René, I will address it also,
“Everything that doesn’t fit is explained as an error in the making of the fake.”
That’s not entirely incorrect. No forgery is perfect, that is why they are found out. In some cases, errors in a forgery can actually help it pass inspection as real. This is why many things are “fudged”, and somewhat vague, in forgeries, and in stated provenance. The Voynich is rife with such vagaries… judged by those who feel it is real as forgivable errors or variations from other real things; and judge by me an others who feel it is a forgery as an indication the artist and author was not interested or able to be perfectly accurate in their depictions.
Really, we are not far apart in that, in principle if not in quantity, of “forgiveness”.
Where we are VERY far apart is in the number of things we must excuse, to see it the way we each do. The amount of offset from the expected I need is very, very, small. You made a big deal about a 9 banded armadillo being the only one that curls, and this one does not depict 9 bands, “therefore” it is NOT an armadillo. That is practically splitting hairs, especially considering the vast amounts of anomalous and anachronistic imagery that must be forgiven to force this thing to look remotely genuine.
It is usually done with a broad stroke, by simply saying “we must only look in the 15th century, because that is when it is from”. Thus simply dismissing, rather than explaining, each and everyone of the hundreds of problems with the Voynich as real. So I would take your sentence, and say it would be more accurate to say,
“Everything that doesn’t fit is explained as error, or ‘too new’, ‘too good’, ‘too bad’, ‘coincidence’, or a myriad of other ways, in the making of this as an unidentifiable, but real, 1420 cipher herbal”.
“See e.g. the presence of a supposed armadillo in a document he was trying to sell as an original Roger Bacon.”
That he was “later” trying to sell as a Roger Bacon. As you know, there is evidence this was seen earlier, by Charles Singer, and he apparently was not at that time told it was a Roger Bacon, or we might assume he would not have called it “Paracelcian” in nature. But it goes further than that, into the entire history of the manuscript in the 20th century, and its content as seen… it is wrong to assume it was created as, or first meant to be marketed as, a “Roger Bacon”.
“Which brings us back to the topic of the blog post. I think it has been beaten to death by now. Which also fits with the state of the animal of f80v. It doesn’t look too lively.”
Yes I’ve said pretty much everything on the subject, also. I continue to watch the arguments unfold, because HOW people argue their positions is more interesting to me then what I might personally think about any particular issue. It tells us more. For instance, I was started alert again by,
“The beaver curling up do castrate itself, any of the creatures that do an armadillo-like roll to defend themselves, or even a dead creature hanging… ”
Continuing to look for an animal, other than an armadillo, that does an “armadillo-roll”? So consider this, then: Lack of an accurate representation of bands means, to you, it cannot be an armadillo, because only banded armadillos “roll”. But we must, and are “allowed”, to still look beyond armadillo, to creatures mostly much further out than one, identifiably, who do the “armadillo-roll”?
So I will chime in when I think it appropriate, and also continue to thank Koen for allowing me to do so. But as for lively, I know you were joking, but I still think it does look very much alive, as this issue always will be. It is just that important, to all of us.
LikeLike
The page showing hairy animals that have their fur drawn like “scales” has been updated to include many more examples. Even the Voynich rams more or less show a similar pattern:
https://hungergj.home.xs4all.nl/catoblepas/Lamia.htm
This ram from the Aberdeen Bestiary MS 24 ca 1200 is one of the examples:
Ger Hungerink.
LikeLike
How about Capra ibex? I think now that rather than a ram, we have a female ibex. If you look at real pictures you can see why the tail would be drawn as it is. There are many bestiary drawings and they are all about landing on its head. Feet are drawn in various erroneous ways. Several examples in the link.
http://bestiary.ca/beasts/beastgallery154.htm#
LikeLike
Linda Snider wrote: “How about Capra ibex?”.
An interesting possibility indeed. Certainly regarding its tail too. I have updated the page on the f80v tail to compare it to lizards and fish, showing how unlikely these proposals are:
https://hungergj.home.xs4all.nl/catoblepas/catoblepas-tail.htm
LikeLike
Wonderful images, Linda. One problem, in my opinion, is that we really need some form of explanation for the scale pattern. This means we are looking at a scaled, feathered or long-furred animal.
LikeLike
Koen, in my opinion, the “scales” are not the problem here: the ibax is thought to have fur and since that was often represented by a scaled pattern, the scribe of the VM could have done that (or copied).
My problem is the mythical property of surviving a fall on its head. The ibax pictures all show the animal in vertical position, having just “landed”. F80v looks at least as having fallen over after that… A mythical creature would be imaged in its characteristic pose. In that sense the catoblepas is preferred. Other options are: it is a ram, sheep, goat, capricorn, … (partly) rolled up, lying down resting, or asleep. Or dead 🙂
LikeLike
The biggest problem here by far is that our modern eyes are not a reliable guide: what we ‘see’ is almost never chat someone 500+ years ‘saw’.
All we can do is take a single hypothetical detail – whether that’s a catoblepas or whatever – and do the work to collect together as many contemporary representations as we practically can, to see what story emerges from them.
LikeLike
Nick, indeed, the scribe from the 15th century might have had all sorts of associations and he had a totally different “database” of imagery, mostly his fantasy, based on 15th century stories. We will only know possibly what it is after translation. Right now identification with our mind set to the 15th c. would help to solve the riddle of the VM. E.g. by finding manuscripts from which the author copied his drawings.
LikeLike
For the scale pattern of the ibex, i see Guillem Soler’s 1380 portolan chart to be quite analogous, however, there it is not drawn as the pelt of an animal, but as a mountain range, the very one which is the range of the Capra ibex species, the Alps. If you recognize the ibex, then you know you are talking about the Alps, since that is the range of the species and any like it are far removed. When you recognize it as the alps, you can see details in it which match the geography. As the rest of the drawings on the page are all about subalpine lakes, this makes perfect sense.
But the gist isnt that it is about the ibex, nor about the alps, per se, it is a story about watererflow, ie the tail end represents a flow to the west, everything else flows either north or east. This is why the scales are backwards in comparison to actual scale, feather, or wool directions. It is not a real animal, it is a combination of imagery.
I believe the purpose is partially to discuss the direction of water flow, and partially to correct the imagery from whence it came. The ibex horns would not save it by pinning it to the ground after a fall, instead they help it roll off sharp obstructions it may meet with its head. By the way, it is interesting that what it meets with its head is basically Venice. The portolan alps are shaped like a boomerag standing on one leg, not analogous with reality at all, and generally placed too far west or north. The ibex drawing is far superior in showing the shape of the Alps, and the positioning with respect to the shore, indicated by the cloudband, (which design is often used in maps to denote shorelines) is far better than most portolan placements of the alps, and has the additional information supplied about waterflow direction.
LikeLike
Ger, the scales are part of the problem, because this pattern is only used to depict relatively long hair: sheep’s wool, manes… They don’t draw it for just any fur.
LikeLike
Koen, my examples show differently: even an elephant with “scales”. And since the ibax is a mythical creature how would you know what it looks like? Let alone the scribe who just wants to indicate “fur”. The ram on 24/06/2019 at 16:06 certainly does not look “woolly” despite its scales. Even the rams in the VM zodiac have their fur indicated with wiggly lines.
LikeLike
For the mythical ibex’ fur I can refer you to google:
https://www.google.com/search?q=ibex&oq=ibex&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.734j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
About the pattern, we can make an observation about the vast majority of the cases: when it does not indicate scales or feathers, it is used to draw fur that is relatively thick, long or course. There are surely exceptions but it will be most helpful to us to first learn the general rules for the medieval usage of the motif. Exceptions like a furry or scaly elephant don’t decrease the value of the general observation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
But if the VM scribe would have drawn his beast according to the “vast majority” it would be obvious what animal it is…
LikeLike
That’s true, there is no satisfying parallel for the entire creature. But if we want any chance of learning what it’s actually supposed to be, I think it’s in our best interest to see which explanations fit best within medieval custom. Given the evidence we have, “a creature entirely covered in thick fur” is one of the more likely options.
LikeLike