A challenge for my fellow Voynich enthusiasts: without skipping ahead, how quickly can you tell where I’m going with this post? 🙂
Let’s start with an odd question: which were the most famous wounds in history?
To many, and certainly to the medieval mind, these would have been the Five Holy Wounds suffered by Jesus during his crucifixion. Nails in hands and feet, and a lance to the side. Images of the wounded Christ on the cross were on display in every church. Similarly, the ostentatio vulnerum was a common theme: Christ revealing his wounds to affirm his identity and resurrection.
From the 13th century onward, interest shifted from Christ’s divinity on the cross towards his humanity and suffering. A common depiction of Jesus, drawing specific attention to his suffering, is the so-called Man of Sorrows.
Devotion of the Five Holy Wounds
Modern viewers can still easily understand these images and their meaning. But during the late middle ages, a more specific type of devotion reached its peak in popularity. While the images I posted above always included the Christ figure, we now get more abstract depictions of the wounds themselves. Sometimes, as in the examples below, the wounded body parts are shown in isolation: hands, feet and heart. Inclusion of nails and lance is optional.
These developments fit within the broader shift of attention towards Christ’s humanity and immense suffering. In the 14th century, the wounds were being addressed specifically during mass. And in imagery, the portrayal of the wounds took an even more abstract turn when they became entirely separated from the body. Depictions of the wounds were meant as very direct and empathic confrontations with the suffering of Christ. The side wound (to the heart) was the most important, and accompanying text would often assure the reader that the image of the wound was true to size.
I will now post more images of this wound, before addressing the question that will inevitably come to your mind upon confrontation with this imagery.
All five wounds:
Sometimes the side wound accompanied the Arma Christi (Instruments of the Passion):
In writing this post, I relied on Martha Easton’s The Wound of Christ, the Mouth of Hell: Appropriations and Inversions of Female Anatomy in the Later Middle Ages. She writes (p. 396):
For the most part, these images have been ignored in art historical scholarship, and until recently very rarely had been published or reproduced; thus few modern viewers are familiar with these images of the isolated wound of Christ. Part of the reason for this oversight seems to be a kind of censorship because of the potentially erotic nature of these wounds; at least to a modern audience, such depictions are almost inescapably vaginal. In my experience discussing such images in the public venues of the museum, the classroom, and the conference session, these images can provoke profound discomfort.
She adds that “the link with female genitalia […] suggests a series of associations that would have been entirely appropriate in the context of fourteenth-century piety and social thought.”
Obviously, there is a purely physical similarity, already noted by Hildegard van Bingen, who saw some connection between female menstruation and men’s bleeding wounds. But also on a more symbolical level, the wound of Jesus “births” the Church (ecclesia):
There is evidence that images of this wound were used physically in devotion. In some cases, actual slits were made in the parchment. And Easton mentions a manuscript (below) of which “the pigment of the wound is worn away from repeated kissing or touching”.
During the 15th century, the wound would often be oriented horizontally, shifting the focus away from the female connotation and towards the Sacred Heart. Still, “in the fifteenth century, representations of the wound of Christ were used in association with vaginal problems; the user of an amulet containing the “measure” of the wound with an entreaty to Longinus expected to end a problematic period”.
Longinus
I need one more digression before we can move on to the VM: Longinus. Much like the three Magi, he was one of the many biblical nameless who received a name and more fleshed-out backstory in later traditions. Longinus was the Roman soldier who used his lance (the “Holy Lance”) to pierce Jesus’ side during crucifixion, inflicting the fifth and most important Holy Wound.
The name first appears as Loginos in the 6th century. After the 10th century, an additional element enters the tale of Longinus: bad eyesight. In various versions of the story, Longinus was now “dim-sighted” or even blind. When some of Jesus’ blood fell on his eyes, he was healed, and now believed in Jesus.
To be fully prepared for the VM analysis, let’s recapitulate. Around the figure of Longinus we find:
- the Holy Lance
- the side wound of Jesus, which in its isolated veneration was intentionally drawn to resemble female genitalia
- restoration of eyesight
Lanceolate leaves and bloody roots
Voynich folio f17r is mostly known for the faded inscription in its top margin:
But the plant on this page has also garnered quite some attention, because there are clearly non-botanical elements in its roots. Let’s zoom in on these first:
When I first saw this part of the image, it reminded me of female genitalia, especially the bottom one. I was not the only one who got this impression, for example Ellie Velinska thought the plant could be “wild tarragon – used to induce woman’s monthly cycle.” However, most researchers saw in the root a set of eyes, which might refer to the name of the plant or its use in treating afflictions of the eyes.
I think neither solution answers all questions. If they reference female genitals, then why two? And if they represent eyes, then why not set them horizontally? And why the difference in size? Why the slit pupils? Why the blood apparently running down?
So is it possible that these root elements are actually wounds? And that they refer to, or at least were based on, the holy wounds of Christ?
If they literally refer to the Holy wounds, then the difference in size might mean that the side wound and one of the lesser wounds are meant (which still doesn’t explain why there are only two).
It is possible that the reference is to wounds in general, and the Holy Wounds were just used as the most available exemplar. Or because their particular appearance would have most readily brought “wound” to the mind of the medieval observer. In this case, the plant might be meant for one that is used to treat wounds, like one of the woundworts.
I will, however, argue that the entire plant is a more direct reference to crucifixion imagery.
Look at the shape of an individual leaf:
Such leaf shapes, of which this is a rather dramatic example, are called lanceolate, because they are shaped like a lance head. This somewhat exaggerated lance shape might be a reference to Longinus’ weapon, the cause of the wounds. Or to “things that cause wounds” in general.
There’s more to consider though. Look at the shape of the complete set of leaves. Do they, as a whole, bring to mind a particular part of the human body?
Maybe a ribcage?
—
If Longinus is alluded to, then the resemblance of the roots to eyes might be relevant as well, since contact with Christ’s blood fixed his eyesight.
I’d like to mention one final detail here. Note how the red line only runs along the bottom part of the stem, connecting to one of the “wounds” or “eyes”.
Now compare this to the bottom of the cross in many medieval crucifixion images:
There are two ways to connect this to the Holy Wounds / Longinus concept. One, if the red line represents Christ’s blood hitting Longinus in the eyes.
But I think there’s a better way of looking at it: upside down. Then the small “eye” becomes the one visible wound at the feet, with the nail. And the large one is the side wound, halo included.
Remember that for the medieval viewer, images of the wounds detached from an actual Jesus were a familiar sight, well accepted in religious imagery.
Conclusion
I have come to argue, to my own surprise, that f17r references the Crucifixion and perhaps the figure of Longinus. To show this, it was first necessary to introduce the veneration of the Holy Wounds as it was common in the 14th and 15th centuries. Because of the suggestive way these wounds were drawn, they fell out of favor and have become unfamiliar to modern eyes. The medieval viewer, however, would have recognized them without difficulty.
The Voynich Temple 
It would be neat if one could suggest the plant meant for myrrh, frankincense or an oil-producing plant – these being associated with wounds and myrrh especially with Christ’s.. but manuscript won’t agree in this case.
For what it’s worth, I identified the chief plant for f.17r as being, despite its boll-like flower, s not the cotton-plant but the silk-tree, noting that it is another used as a remedy for eye-problems in eastern (specifically Ayurvedic) tradition. How long people have been calling the ‘silk-tree’ (an Albizzia) ” silk-tree” I’m afraid I don’t know, but the point here is that, with regard to those lance-like leaves you notice, silk proper was a well-known protection against piercing wounds. It didn’t prevent wounding but kept the wound clean and helped remove the blade or arrowhead smoothly. I won’t stop now to hunt up the references, but thought it might be worth mentioning.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Haha, I guessed it! I did not guess it when I saw the title and the first picture (I couldn’t remember if f17r had lance-like leaves), but when I saw the mandorla shape in the second picture, I knew where this was going.
I’m impressed you found so many good examples so quickly. I was unaware that there was so much imagery on disembodied wounds, so thank you for making that apparent. I have been collecting more conventional images of wounds and stigmata and clearly not searching broadly enough.
Turning the root upside-down was inspired (I hadn’t thought of doing that with f17r, even though I frequently invert the text) and you found a good example of the ray style of nimb to complete the analogy.
Very intriguing idea.
To take it a step farther, I like the idea that the leaves might be ribs (which were pierced by the lance), but is there even more to it? Could the 12 leaves be the 12 apostles and the three flower-heads the three crucifixes?
LikeLike
I didn’t think about the significance of the 12 leaves, I guess it would make sense. I did consider the three flowers as three crosses, especially since the middle flower has a cross-shaped green section below the blue.
My idea is that some plants are impregnated with references to a certain scene or narrative. And this one references the most successful narrative of all time. Just how far they went with it, and which correspondences are on purpose or not, is hard to determine…
The disembodied wounds are a rare topic to come across these days, I only saw them for the first time some weeks ago, which caused me to research this post. The many remaining examples show that they were well known in the 14th and 15th centuries, especially in manuscripts meant for private use.
LikeLike
The leaves representing a rib cage is a nice idea. After all I think the plants are never meant to be real plants. Some seem to have been identified, but never convincingly, all likeliness is pure chance I’ld say, no wonder even New World flowers pop up. It’s fantasy, allegory, hidden meaning,…
But then christianity is completely absent in the VMs, barring a few doubtful cases. And why two separate wounds, in the center, distanced and in line, there had to be one in the side. No dripping blood.
So if a rib cage at all, I’ld say not Jesus ‘rib cage.
LikeLike
Christianity is not overtly present in the VM, but the VM was present in Christianity, so to speak. By which I mean that Christianity was all around the makers, provided they were somewhere in Europe.
Look, up until last week I was of the same opinion as you are, but one always has to be prepared to change one’s mind when necessary.
I’m not saying this image refers to the crucifixion as a “confession of faith” by the makers. Rather, I believe images of the Passion were present in their library. Such images were included in many books, even non-religious ones. For example, the manuscript where I took one of the better “Instruments of the Passion” images from is here:
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b84526412/f294.item.zoom
Even though this particular page is about the Passion, the whole manuscript isn’t what we’d call religious. It’s rather scientific: rhetoric, astronomy, grammar and so on.
Just because the VM isn’t overtly Christian, this doesn’t mean that the makers would have avoided any reference to Christian content entirely.
LikeLike
Koen: “Christianity was all around the makers, provided they were somewhere in Europe.”
That may be so, but in my opinion the VM does not show that in any way. Many peoples roamed Europe and had partly retained their old beliefs. E.g. the Roma. The Wikipedia says:
“Most Romani people are Christian, others Muslim; some retained their ancient faith of Hinduism from their original homeland of India, while others have their own religion and political organization”.
That is today! In the 15th Century there could have been less Christians. And Hinduism gets through in the Voynich mermaid, like the first incarnation of Vishnu: half human half fish and especially the torso held in a fish beak. I would say the VMs has more reference to Islam and or Hinduism than to Christianity.
LikeLike
About my proposal for the plant’s ID – it must be one that relates to the narrative.
“Later, knowing that everything had now been finished, and so that Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, “I am thirsty.” A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus’ lips. When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.” (John 19:28–30)
LikeLike
As to the identification of plants:
A friend of mine is connected to university as a scientist. During his research and numerous expeditions he has dicovered thousands (and even that is an understatement) of new species of flowers in all continents. His opinion about the VM is very decisive:
Although some drawings might look like some existing flowers, the impression of the herbal as a whole is definitely that of being the result of imagination. Any resemblance to existing herbs is purely conincidental. For that matter they might just as well look like American, Australian, Papua, Galapagos,.. plants. That’s where creating 131 different plants inevitably leads to.
When using the plants in recipes – as is clearly meant to be done by this book – there must be no chance of picking the wrong herbs or fate would strike. This in itself proves that the VMS was never meant for that purpose. Copying can’t be that bad. Whether as a fantasy, purely random, or allegorigaly meant, remains a mystery.
I can’t give the scientist’s name here, not having asked permission, but I am sure many scientists think the same way anyway.
LikeLike
Ger: the VM does not look like it’s soaked in any major religion. Mermen were depicted in many books of nature, and this one is European style, not Indian.
What I’m saying is that any Christian elements might be referenced as something the makers saw in their environment. It is certain that they had access to a library, which would have contained Christian imagery. It is 100% certain that they *knew* about Christian imagery (unless they lived in a cave) so they may have referenced it. Excluding this possibility a priory just because there’s no Jesus in the MS is not justified.
As for the plants, your contact is wrong, though his reaction is understandable. A few of them are recognizable as natural species, like the water lily, hemp and castor oil plant. The water lily in the VM has an even much more naturalistic root than that in other medieval mss. About the other plants, current belief among many researchers is thay they may be real plants that are altered in some relevant way. So it is normal that a modern botanist doesn’t recognize them.
LikeLike
Koen, when I said “I rather see Islamic or Hindu influence than Christian” that was only because of Christianity I see none. And from other religions maybe(!) one or two tiny examples. And of course you are right: because of this mermaid it is not suddenly Hindu, just like when you compare the plant to the crucifiction you don’t say it suddenly is a Christian MS.
In my opinion you sound a bit too certain about these modern botanists being wrong. E.g. if someone were to go and find the Castor plant in nature from the Ms picture that were quite a task. The flowers (and leaves) are positioned completely different. And what about the very obvious “ball” (flower?) half way the stem? And that herb is considered to be one of the few “most certain” identifications. Far more likely this image is one of the few that resembles an existing plant, because that is what happens when you would fantasize 131 different plants putting arbitrary properties together.
These ID’s only “work” because one thinks they MUST be real plants. Even if there are differences the scribe is to blame and not the person identifying. They are not real, or, like in any herbal, the majority would easily be recognizable “even” by a modern botanist. Send someone with the VMs into the woods to collect ingredients for some recipes in that same MS and he returns with nothing.
LikeLike
Ger, this reasoning ignores the fact that most plant manuscripts were not meant as naturalistic representations, and even fewer were drawn directly from nature. Just because they don’t look like exact pictures doesn’t mean they don’t refer to real plants.
LikeLike
I hope Ger won’t mind if I say that I find myself astonished by the number of things on which his opinions and mine are as one.
The chief difficulty I encounter when trying to deal with certain long-established ideas associated with this manuscript is that the implied defaults are so very national-chauvenistic, and/or simply way behind current thinking on a subject.
This isn’t so noticeable in other areas of study but a massive barrier to advance understanding of the imagery, and of the historical context.
I’m willing to accept for argument’s sake that our present manuscript was put together as it now is, within western Europe somewhere, and during the early 15thC.
Koen is right when he says you didn’t have to be particularly religious to be able to read emblems and tokens of meaning derived from Europe’s Christian culture; it saturated society from top to bottom and you couldn’t walk down a street of Europe without seeing it. No mattter who you were or what belief-system you might have.
However – for there to be *none* of the elements of medieval Christian *thought* reflected in this imagery is a very different matter. It’s not that it lacks crosses and halos, or Christ and his apostles, or imagery of Popes, pilgrimage, lovely ladies and swains in gardens, but even moralia, pictures of kings, pictures of armies, and wars and impressive palisades and towers (don’t mention the map’s). Medieval Europe’s conception of the world is what’s not reflected in this imagery. Medieval Europeans (like many modern ones) were all about hierarchies, asserting dominance, man’s (and I mean man’s) position in relation to heaven and hell and to those above him in the hierarchy (before whom he abased himself) and those perceived as lower (over which he postured and posed, kicked and publicly ridiculed). Few recognise the extent of real nastiness and bigotry expressed through pretty border drawings and drolleries.
And NONE of it is in this manuscript. None.
Having asked what is not there, one would normally enquire further into what is…
Doesn’t happen often.
LikeLike
“I hope Ger won’t mind if I say that I find myself astonished by the number of things on which his opinions and mine are as one.”
Diane, I didn’t know you were such a zealous defender of the catoblepas 😉
“one would normally enquire further into what is… Doesn’t happen often.”
Well that’s what we try to do all the time, which sometimes leads to new insights. Originally I would have agreed with you that influences from “standard” Latin culture were mostly limited to the “Zodiac” emblems. However, my evolving belief is that a larger section of the manuscript’s content relies on contemporary *manuscript* culture.
Think: unusual people who made use of a library that included a variety of works. Some old, some new, some borrowed… I see no reason to religiously deny the possibility of references to the dominant religion, just because the makers of the VM might have been of a different persuasion.
LikeLike
Koen, I really like your ability to keep a moderate position and empathetic approach to people and to the manuscript. It is a great relief to be able to speak here, knowing that.
But what I see as major barriers to understanding the manuscript’s intention, and thus the origin of its content.. which in turn may tell us more about the script and language, is the constant and unrelenting assumption threading through most of what is written that the culture of medieval Christian Europe is some kind of natural default.
I can understand that being so in the 1920s, and even into the 1970s. But today? I agree there’s some influence from style of drawing appropriate to the western Med. and western Europe, but it affects only the latest level of additions and is a small proportion of the whole. The western items are easily listed; they are the things on which western-trained eyes instantly focus, finding them more amenable to interpretation: like the archer-figure or the map’s ‘castle’ and so on. But it’s the world-view which is absent . As to what is *present* well, I’ve spent a decade explaining that in terms of stylistics, culture, literary, historical, technical and archaeological evidence. Result? Plagiarism and sneering remarks… but not here – for which I thank you.
LikeLike
I do not agree. Today is not really different from the past: some form of exoticism (or orientalism or ethnocentrism or primitivism or whatever) always existed in western culture. It always existed because it works well as a god of the gaps: what is not immediately comprehensible, what is rare or simply weird can be easily explained as (or originated/inspired/influenced by) Greek or Arab or Turkish or Chinese or African or Alien or Reptilian or whatever, depending on the era.
In the case of the Voynich manuscript there are only a few undisputed facts: there is a depiction of the four elements plus the void, there is a depiction of Zodiac signs, there is a depiction of a castle with Ghibelline merlons, a number of pictures are copied from (probably multiple) cheap books produced in Central Europe during the 15th century. It is not much, but it is enough to draw some conclusions: the author was exposed to European culture, the author was interested in some philosophical or occult matters. This scant profile could fit a Renaissance magus, a modern forger or a mix of the two: a Renaissance forger trying to exploit the renewed interest in magic and occultism of that era. A different authorship is possible, given the paucity of available evidence, but less probable, given the absence of evidence of the contrary.
LikeLike
Doubting the plant being an allegory for the crucifiction, I considered another possibility. The book being full of nude bathing women the plant might depict a woman seen on her back. With the rib cage you mentioned, the three flowers as her shoulders and head. And going down one would see the anus and vagina between her spread out “roots” in perfectly natural position. The text would tell a dirty story, reason enough to encode it, or write it in a secret language.
It is all about what one WANTS to see and then it is there. It is like the Rohrschach test. Arbitrary randomly constructed images can very much look like something real. However that does not prove they ARE real.
LikeLike
Koen wrote: “this reasoning ignores the fact that most plant manuscripts were not meant as naturalistic representations, and even fewer were drawn directly from nature. Just because they don’t look like exact pictures doesn’t mean they don’t refer to real plants.”
This invites a parody: “this reasoning ignores the fact that most plant manuscripts were not meant as naturalistic representations of bible scenes, and even fewer were drawn directly as eyewitness. Just because they don’t look like exact biblical events doesn’t mean they don’t refer to the real Jesus.”
One can prove ANYTHING by claiming something – and whenever it does not look like it, it was not meant to look like it, but it still is what it is claimed to be.
Still my guess is, and I repeat, that modern botanists would immediately recognize a majority of the plants in a medieval MS. While they would only think of a few from the VM and that with much hesitation.
Just a random quote: “… I didn’t even look at Sherwood’s plant IDs again until I had done my own identifications, and discovered we don’t agree on most of them anyway.”
J.K. Petersen on https://ciphermysteries.com/2017/10/10/pathology-voynich-priority
LikeLike
Christian Imagery
I completely ignored the possibility of Christian imagery in the VMS for many years. I looked for Pagan and Jewish imagery because it seemed more plausible than Christian imagery. I also ignored the possibility of Moslem imagery because I simply couldn’t see signs of it when I originally looked.
But I may have been wrong about Christian imagery. My research into the “two tors” folio (with the birds), and related research into the mystery critter took me places I didn’t expect to go and I am reluctantly having to admit that by discounting Christian imagery, I may have ignored many possible interpretations which I am now scrambling to try to understand in a more open-minded way.
LikeLike
Naturalisim of Plants
As for the plants, I am absolutely convinced that some of them are real plants. In particular, Villarsia, Viola, Ricinus, Cannabis, and Tragopogon jump out as accurate and naturalistic (as are others in both big-plant and small-plant sections). But that doesn’t mean all of them are naturalistic. Some have exaggerations that might be mnemonic, and some seem to go beyond, perhaps into story-telling realm.
I think it would be a mistake judge them all the same way, especially considering we do NOT know the original arrangement of the folios.
Manuscripts with different categories of plants do have a precedents in medieval herbals…
It was quite common to organize plants in a number of different ways, according to use, according to name (not necessarily the botanical name, sometimes the local vernacular name), according to alphabet, or… sometimes according to the general category of use, with one of the more common arrangements being medicinal plants first, toxic plants next, and edible plants third (an arrangement that rings bells with me vis-a-vis the VMS, but which I can’t determine for certain because the folios may have been rearranged). It did catch my attention that Tragopogon is bound into the latter part of the big plants section.
Categories of Plants
For years, I tried to determine if the VMS plants were toxic plants, magical plants, or plants specifically used for women’s health, but there’s no indication of an overall orientation toward toxic plants and it doesn’t ring true as magical plants either. There are some that were used for birth control or for abortion but these plants were also used for other things, so there’s no clear delineation.
I also did considerable research to see if the collection as a whole was geared toward medicinal plants and certainly some of them are (most plants were considered medicinal in some way in medieval times), but Viola tricolor was not considered of much medicinal value (they mostly favored Viola odorata for medicinal use), and Tragopogon was not considered a medicinal plant, it was mostly culinary, so they don’t all appear to fall into a specific category.
Ricinus was considered both toxic and medicinal, but mostly medicinal (the idea was to simply avoid the toxic parts) and was usually included with other medicinal plants.
So, it is my feeling that there is mixture of categories of use in the VMS plants but, again, we don’t know the original order, so what they might be is hard to determine. I’m sure there was some order… just look at the careful arrangement of the small-plants section. Obviously the original designer cared about it.
LikeLike
Sorry for the typos in my previous post (Naturalism, do have precedents). I’m good at editing other people’s text, but not my own.
————-
Ger, there are no mermaids in the VMS.
There is a nymph in the mouth of a fish (note the eyes and the way the mouth is disconnected from the nymph’s body). This kind of imagery is often inspired by Bible stories and old Pagan myths (both Mediterranean and northern varieties)—it could be someone swallowed by or emerging from a fish, but sometimes it was just a general reference to sea monsters and not connected to any particular story.
As for modern botanists having an opinion about the VMS plant drawings… To have genuine credibility, it would have to be a botanist who knows medieval iconography. In the 14th and 15th centuries, they didn’t draw plants the way we draw plants, but there were certain conventions designed for people of the time to recognize the plant’s identity, and these are things historians (and modern botanists) can learn with a few years of dedicated study.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JKP, The Voynich “mermaid” is indeed not drawn as a mermaid in te strict sense of being half human half fish. But the drawing is obviously inspired by the first incarnation of Vishnu. In Hindu images he is invariably drawn as if standing in the beak of a fish, some times clearly, sometimes more like a merman or mermaid. These Indian images can be found on “google images” searching for: Matsya miniature. Here are two images to show the difference with the biblical “mermaid”. The first is “Matsya” as seen by a 17th Century Dutch artist. Below a drawing of Jonah swallowed by a Whale. Obviously not intended to represent a being half man half fish. In my opinion the Voynich “mermaid” is clearly inspired by the Hindu images, the nymph does not seem to be about being devoured.
LikeLike
This is a perfect example for what I was trying to convey with my previous post. Unless the Voynich manuscript is an elaborate forgery, it must be dated to the early 15th century. Then you should try to find an Indian depiction of Matsya from the 14th century or earlier, instead of a European depiction of said deity from the late 17th century.
LikeLike
The two images were meant in the first place to show how in Hinduism mermaids are/were pictured as a human standing in the beak of a fish, like in the VM.
They were meant in second place to show the difference with the Christian human figure actually being swallowed by the fish, not as a figure half man half fish.
In the third place I would have liked to show how in the 15th Century these Hindu images were around already but I simply could not find ANY other picture of Matsya pre-18th century, the Dutch 1672 version even being the oldest. But for one picture from the 11th-12th Century, shown below, depicting Matsya more like a fish with arms. There must be numerous pictures of Matsya in between the 11th and 18th Century, but I simply could not find them on the internet – drowned by commercial spam. So it remains nebulous to me when one shape went over to the other. I did not claim proof of Hindu influence, only being more likely than Christian of which I find none.
LikeLike
Some of the earliest pictures I could find of Matsya, the first avatar of Hindu god Vishnu. Two by van Meurs (1672), and two (originally 1669 or earlier) from Montanus.
https://hungergj.home.xs4all.nl/catoblepas/Matsya.htm
LikeLike
I’m familiar with the Indian images (I have a number of them in my Voynich files), but I’m not sure if I’ve seen the specific one you posted.
As for Jonah images, there are zillions of them and I have wondered from time to time if the female nymph is simply a stand-in for whoever the real character in the story is supposed to be (in other words, not necessarily female). There are other myths about people being swallowed by fish (or being born out of fish). Jonah is the best known, but not the only possibillity.
I have also written a blog on the Melusine, which is another mythical character who might possibly be represented by a woman in a fish. She is usually (but not always) drawn as a mermaid, but the interesting part is that she is sometimes drawn in a Voynich-like tub or fountain rather than in the sea, which is not the common way to draw mermaids.
LikeLike
The Melusine-as-mermaid is not quite accurate either… even though she is often drawn this way, with a fish-tail. Technically, the Melusine had a serpent’s tail, but well, it’s medieval imagery and things get morphed.
LikeLike
JKP, Actually the most common (old) representation for Melusine is like a dragon with serpent tail and dragon wings. As is the original Warsaw coat of arms. She originates like the catoblepas from spoken and written legend, later illustrated in numerous different ways. In Heraldry she is drawn as a double tailed mermaid. Being off-topic by now I refer to the wikipedia.
LikeLike
The image which Ger Hungerink posted is among those which I included , some time ago, while explaining some particular details and customs in drawing. I then explained the narrative which informs Kircher’s picture and why its headless bull relates to another item – one in the Genoese ‘eye-map’ .
At the same time, in explaining that the balance of evidence does not suggest that the body in the fish is meant for Noah, Jonah or any mer-person, but once more to the customs and lore, including practices in art, of regions east of Europe.
‘
I confess I’m surprised to realise that even in 2019 it is imagined that Europeans relied on imagination and fantasy when it came to the world east of Europe.
I suppose we do find greater ignorance in some parts of Europe than in others, but even so an idea of that sort opposes the findings of scholarship since the 1960s, and runs quite counter to the present-day findings in areas as diverse as economic history and the technical history of textiles.
LikeLike
The other day I was in a bookstore I frequent. That bookstore is specialized in comic books, art books, fine prints and used vintage science fiction and fantasy books. While I was walking through the bookshelves, a customer there was lamenting her young daughter’s taste about cartoons and anime with the owner of the bookstore. According to that woman, her daughter prefers modern series with a lot of fast action, cheap gags and self-contained episodes with little story. The woman, who was in her early 40s or younger, instead was fond of old series with stories developing through many episodes. The bookstore owner was quick to reply that younger generations are used to fast developing and fast concluding stories and that is the reason why films about hordes of superheroes and TV series with many characters and a large number of short scenes are successful. I stopped walking and pondered over the owner’s words. I eventually thought that the cause of such a change in likings was a diminished propensity to reflective activity and a broad preference for immediate rewards and easy conclusions. That tendency, I thought, has a greater scope than just anime and superheroes: it reflects the appeal of the populist movements around the world with their simple messages, it reflects the preference of forceful action over diplomacy across all continents. But this is clearly beyond the scope of the current discussion, so, back on track, I guess that story taught me that I need to be more straightforward and concise. I have been too passé.
Straight and concise: interpreting the depiction of a naked lady stomping inside the mouth of an overgrown sole as Jonah and the Whale poses serious problems, it is almost gross. However interpreting that depiction of a naked lady and a sole as Vishnu’s avatar poses even greater problems, so much greater it is not even funny discussing about it. That is why I glossed over it and said “please, look better”. I mean, we have a 14th century figurine of Jonah happily sitting inside a big, quiet fish in Worms [1], a merry town just 100 kilometers north of Hagenau, and then we search for a match 7000 kilometers further, dismissing the fact that, during the Middle Ages, Matsya, the Vishnu’s avatar, was usually depicted as a big fish with a horn [2]? I have a hard time believing that naughty lady is Jonah (even though the author of the VM had obviously a sprained mind and the drawing capabilities of a 5 year old child), but I simply cannot think about her being Vishnu with a straight face. Occam’s razor suggests that it is much more likely that the guy who copied Diebold Lauber’s pictures was aware of what was on the walls of the Worms Cathedral, than of what was on the walls of some Indian temple, which was, by the way, probably just a horned fish.
[1] Picture of Jonah above the Gothic south gate of the old cathedral of Worms:
[2] Picture of Matsya from medieval India:
https://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=251396&partId=1
LikeLike
Hindu is not that far away when considering that Roma roaming Europe were not only Christians but some were Muslim and some were Hindu. Some have thought of Roma origin for the VM. The slab from the British Museum shows Vishnu in the 9th-10th Century as a fish. The figure I presented above shows him as a fish with human arms. 17th Century has him as half fish half human. It looks like a development, but also there are different stories about Matsya that might explain this.
As for the “merman” in Worms – it is the first time I see a Christian display of a man at ease orating from the beak of a fish… Not knowing by the way how old, and, who knows, inspired by Matsya 🙂
LikeLike
But I admit: the VM “mermaid” is more likely a Jewish influence than Hindu.
LikeLike
From the wikipedia on Jonah:
“In Judaism, the story of Jonah represents the teaching of teshuva, which is the ability to repent and be forgiven by God. In the New Testament, Jesus calls himself “greater than Jonah” and promises the Pharisees “the sign of Jonah”, which is his resurrection. Early Christian interpreters viewed Jonah as a type for Jesus. Later, during the Reformation, Jonah came to be seen instead as an archetype for the “envious Jew”. Jonah is regarded as a prophet in Islam and the biblical narrative of Jonah is repeated, with a few notable differences, in the Quran. ”
So Jonah is a prophet in Islam as well – there we have another possibility. In the end it will come down to the “mermaid” not meaning anything as to the origin of the VM.
LikeLike
About Matsya
Originally Matsya was just a giant fish that took part in the Indian version of the Deluge story. Later, since the second half of the first millennium AD, stories emerged about Matsya being Vishnu who took the shape of a fish. Much later, the Vishnu part of the story prevailed over the original Deluge story and Matsya became a half-fish, half-human creature.
This is probably one of the oldest depiction of Matsya as a half-fish, it is from the Vitthala temple in Hampi, which was built in the 16th century (but as any Indian temples was renovated multiple times, so, in reality, this bas-relief could be later):
Here is an article about the depiction of Vishnu’s avatars (I suspect the author is a bit biased, but it is full of information):
Click to access 12_chapter%206.pdf
Note that the Portuguese reached India in the 15th century and Muslims even earlier.
About Jonah
The south gate of the Worms cathedral was built at the beginning of the 14th century. There are no doubts about its dating.
About the Roma people
They moved out from the Balkans at the beginning of the 15th century. When the Voynich manuscript was allegedly written, they were at most just starting to wander the Rhine valley. It is highly improbable that they started their voyage through Central Europe writing a big book like the Voynich and then nothing. Besides, there are many other problems with a Romani origin. To me they fall into the Atlantean/Alien/Reptilian category: they have little to no story, little documentation, they are like a blank sheet where people can write their own expectations and fantasies and can imagine them behind everything which is hard to explain. Just like aliens. The only reason to take them into account is the fact that there is little knowledge about the Voynich and little knowledge about the Roma so they match in their lack of evidence; however science is based on proofs and not on the absence of proofs, so, no, they are not a good match right now.
LikeLike
Stefano, Yes I had seen the sculpture from the Vitthala temple in Hampi, but could not date it. And yes, I had found the date for the “Südportal”.
I agree Roma are at first sight an unlikely source for the VM, but when the VM type of “mermaid” only were present in Hinduism that would make a difference. On top of that the VM is so exotic that the source might be exotic as well. Now I see that Jonah might be a more reasonable link, keeping other possibilities in mind.
Thanks for the pdf – that looks pretty definitive – I will need some time to study it 🙂
LikeLike
Stefano,
Like everyone else, I too began by expecting that the figure emerging from the fish-skin might be meant for Jonah, or even for Noah, or for one of the mer-persons, or Melusine or even some localised custom as (e.g.) identifying the astronomical sea-monster Cetus with Jonah story’s leviathan etc. etc.
So , of course, I looked at the sources; the graphic and the textual images of Jonah and the rest in Latin European works. Only when it was quite obvious that the image in the Voynich manuscript accords with neither the Latins’ textual nor their iconographic traditions did I begin to look at the problem in a broader perspective.
If you (and Koen) will permit, I’ll explain the reason I rejected the Latins’ figures for Jonah, taking your chosen image as example.
First, a pre-modern picture isn’t to be defined as simply as naming the ‘thing’; the image is the expression of an idea, and of words and attitudes shared by the persons of given place and time.
Images of Jonah and Jonah-types occur throughout the Mediterranean world, and to locate where and when the Vms’ image belongs, a wider range at least allows one to argue that one or another is most like the Vms’ detail than any other – limiting to some extent the posited time and place.
As example, it is easy to argue that an image on a certain sixth century Coptic tapestry is more like the Vms image than any Latin representation of Jonah.
However, the German image: shows Jonah with a shaven head and he is provided with a garment shaped like a preaching friar’s. He holds a long scroll because people of medieval Europe (including German-speaking regions) knew: that Jonah was given a message to deliver to the people of Nineveh and was first subjected to, and then released from, the risk of drowning so that he would deliver that message word-for-word. Hence the scroll.
In medieval days, and from long before, it was not unusual for seamen to throw overboard people who were believed to have offended a deity. The city of Nineveh was also a centre for worship of a figure whose priests dressed in fish-skin, so the original story reflected a belief that the deity of Nineveh also supported Jonah’s preaching – though Medieval Germans wouldn’t have known that last point.
Now consider the Vms image. The figure emerging is not emerging from a fish. It is emerging from a skin, from which all life is plainly gone. The figure is depicted as a female, unclothed. Is any medieval European image (or text) known in which Jonah is imagined naked and female? What indication is there that the unclothed female is meant to convey an idea of preaching?
Stylistically, of course, there is no match either.
So if one had a theory that the Vms might be not only the work of a Latin of Europe but one from a German-speaking region, the comparison would say no more than that, within that theory, there is no closer match for the image in the Vms.
And as an effort to explain the Vms image, it isn’t a very good comparison: a human shape, but of different gender from the Vms’. In one case emerging from a living monster of a fish; in the other, a hollow, dead skin. In one case preaching, in the other not. Not nearly enough to argue identical origin or intention for both.
I’ve described, in brief, the reason for which I finally had to abandon the old, inherited speculations and begin to widen the horizons for research.
Without the desire to support any Latin European theory, or sub-set of it, I was able to wait until the research was done before forming an opinion of the evidence. I mean, evidence including secondary studies to test whether (e.g.) there is anything in contemporary studies which would prevent this or that information reaching Europe by the mid-fourteenth century or earlier.
I was left with two or three possibilities, one of which is that the Vms figure is an allusion to Matsya; not the central and only subject, but as the natural association for the maker’s depicting being saved from a dangerous situation at sea.
Perhaps I might add that the British Museum’s object, and description of that object doesn’t explain the scholarly view that Matsya’s incorporation into the Hindu pantheon is believed to have occurred rather later than the figure’s first appearance in the few ports and harbours where his veneration is ancient.
As I say, I’m not trying to do more than show that my conclusions were neither arbitrary nor driven by any desire to cause an individual discomfort. Nor do I think a vaguely-directed sneer is adequate rebuttal of an informed opinion. But that’s my opinion. 🙂
LikeLike
Diane, of course the VM “mermaid” does not look like being Jonah, certainly not the preaching Jonah from Worms. Neither does she look like Matsya, though sometimes depicted as female. My thought is that the VM scribe used impressions from his environment to create fantasies. Reason why the plants look like reassembled parts of different existing plants. and the cosmos, zodiac and recipe pages look like existing images turned into fantasy. So he (or I rather think: she) might have been familiar with the image of Matsya, or Jonah, “standing” in the beak of a fish, and translated that into her fantastic world of women. The text could then be allegorical, discussing matters as if from another world.
The reason why it is useful to consider whether inspired by Matsya or Jonah, is to find the source of inspiration for the whole MS.
LikeLike
I think the VMS nymphs are actors. They are stand-ins for characters known to the person who created the VMS. They don’t have to look exactly like the people they represent.
That’s also why I have a list of possibilities for each image in the VMS rather than “theories”.
The creature could be a fish or whale or skin or any number of things, and the person inside it could be male, female, old, young, corporeal or spirit. As for ethnicity or cultural background, I don’t know yet, I really don’t, but I CAN search out possible exemplars, so I simply offer possibilities one after another as I have time to write them up, until the information around the drawing eventually helps reveal the meaning.
LikeLike