My efforts of late have been focused on the large-plants section. To my own surprise, it occurred to me that certain Christian symbols had been worked into the plants, and the thought has not let go of me since. I have been fortunate enough to be in contact with people who support these ideas, come up with their own additions, or offer constructive criticism (although concerns have also been raised about my mental health :)). I would once again like to express my sincere thanks for this; to be able to interact with constructive individuals makes all the difference.
This post will (hopefully) be short and to the point. I will focus on one plant to show how my ideas on the extent of the Christian imagery worked into the plants are shifting – or rather, expanding. At first I thought it was just the Arma Christi, but there are reasons to believe that we are looking at a wider array of Biblical scenes. More like the programme of an illustrated Book of Hours, a Bible or something along those lines.
The plant I’d like to discuss today is f34v. As far as I’m aware, it’s not exactly the VM plant that gets the most attention. I’ve never been able to make sense of its root; its right half appears zoomorphic, like the back end of a lion. But the left side, where the head should be, splits into a bunch of bulbous appendages.
There are ten leaves, five on each side, placed on ivory white stems. There are also three “flowers”, one of which is bent.
Now, there are different schools of thought, but my feeling is that you don’t just randomly draw a root like this. So I’ve always thought there was something behind this root, but I did not understand what… until I started counting. In the image below, I highlighted what would be the body of the beast. I assume the appendage underneath the body is a tail because it’s got a tuft at the end. This would be in line with common feline iconography, where the tail often goes under the body like this.
So if we discount the body, tail and four limbs, this leaves seven appendages. Additionally, there is a conspicuously placed hole in the parchment. This looks like the kind of cut that is made on purpose, and which I have previously linked to the practice of physically representing “wounds” in the parchment. There are no signs of repair, unlike in some more randomly located holes on other folios.
The image above compares a hole (accidental damage) in the corner of f10 to the one in our folio (right). Note how the latter has a cleaner shape and shows no stitch marks. The hole in f10 has once been repaired, but the threads are now gone.
If I want to maintain some semblance of consistency, I must interpret this hole as signifying a wound.
So in summary about the root, we have a feline creature with a wound and seven appendages where the head should be.
Now open your bibles at Revelation 13: 1-4
1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea. And I saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.
2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion. And the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.
3 And I saw that one of his heads was, as it were, wounded to death, and his deadly wound was healed. And all the world wondered after the beast.
4 And they worshiped the dragon which gave power unto the beast, and they worshiped the beast
The beast from Revelation is “like a leopard”, with seven heads and ten crowned horns. It is wounded and healed. It is worshipped by the unfaithful.
There was quite some variation among medieval artists in the depiction of this beast, since the description was quite a challenge. How do you draw something “like unto a leopard” with seven heads and ten crowned horns? How do you divide ten horns over seven heads, and how do you put crowns on horns?
One common solution is quite elegant: the horns are drawn like a pair of antlers or a single “tree”.
Now we place them side by side:
It is possible that the seven appendages in the VM are actually the seven heads’ tongues. A common thread is that the VM does not like to draw the heads of birds and mammals in zoomorphic roots, so they may have opted for the tongues instead. The beast’s main activity is, after all, to “blaspheme God’s name”, and most illustrations convey this by tongues or opened mouths.
If indeed this plant contains the first part of Revelation 13, then it does so brilliantly. A feline beast, wounded, blasphemous, ten crowned horns.
I’m less certain about what the flowers might mean in this context. Perhaps the righteous versus those who bow to the Beast? Or rather one worshipping the beast and a trampled saint?
So, back to the drawing board again, I guess. I don’t know what more I can do to explain this… Here he is one more time.
Koen,
There must be a reason. If a cloud in the sky resembles Austria it does not mean the sky mimics country borders, even when an hour later a cloud resembling Greenland passes by. Simply because there is no reason why clouds would do that.
For this revelation or the arma christie there is no reason why they should be in a manuscript that clearly displays plants and shows no christian influence what so ever. Chances of finding some resemblances of random relics between hundreds of crudely drawn plants and plant parts are high, based on pure chance alone. As with finding some countries in the clouds. Or finding subconscious thoughts in a Rohrschach inkspot. The spot or cloud was never constructed to show it – it is the person who wants to see it that sees it.
On the other hand if e.g. a herbal was found with exactly thirty plants and each plant could be identified (while some even doubtful) with each one of the 30 arma christie you might have a point. Like when 28 clouds pass by, each having more or less the shape of each one of the 28 EU countries, and then suddenly one specific cloud rains down. But even then for the Ms, more christian influences should be found for it to stand a chance.
LikeLike
Ger, I understand that it looks like pareidolia. Your comment would be entirely justified if the VM plant sections were actually just crudely drawn plants.
But there’s a reason why in my opinion we have do look further: there are symbolic non-plant shapes in these plants, many of which don’t quite match the usual ones found in other herbals. If you say “no, the root of this plant is not intended to look like some kind of animal”, then I see no way this discussion can move forward.
So we don’t start from just a group of clouds, as in your example. We are certain that the VM plants contain shapes that would not occur if one were to simply draw plant portraits.
I’m also linking the deliberate slicing of the parchment to represent a “wound” to exactly the same practice that is documented in the Arma Christi tradition. That’s a very specific feature that’s entirely free from pareidolia.
LikeLike
To draw roots resembling an animal was common practice at that time but it was done quite obviously displaying an animal. But your leaves do not resemble horns or crowns, your roots do not resemble heads – you are talking about concealed meaning. And that puts us back to the clouds that were supposed to secretly display Austria on purpose or ink spots constructed to display unconscious thoughts.
To specify what I meant with “there must be a reason”:
If someone claims a cloud resembles Austria on purpose, it does not suffice to say that the reason why that cloud did so is secret or unknown.
On the other hand, when 28 clouds simultaneously in the sky resemble the 28 EU-countries, it is obvious there must be a reason. With only one such cloud pure chance is the only reasonable explanation.
LikeLike
What I mean though is that the cloud metaphor becomes invalid. We do have shapes that are introduced on purpose, which is (hopefully) not the case with clouds.
You can’t say “okay I recognize this shape as an animal so this is fine, but I don’t recognize anything else so that’s pareidolia”.
What I say is that the first Beast of Revelation explains a lot of these strange “on purpose” features. It’s feline with a wounded head. The thing with the nine heads is more tricky, since for a reason I don’t understand, the VM never draws heads on mammals or birds that are in the roots. Only the snakes get heads, presumably because snakes were very common in herbals so there was no reason to hide them. Same for the little dragon.
So my suggestion is that the seven unexplained “limbs” are the tongues of the seven heads. Tongue equals speech, and the main task of the beast was to incessantly spew blasphemous talk. I have also shown that in a number of medieval depictions, the tongues were drawn for the same reason.
This is not my “wish”, it’s simply the explanation that best solves the problems with the root.
That there are ten leaves, arranged in a way that again parallels medieval depictions of the beast, at this point just completes the picture.
LikeLike
… and that reason must not be your wish – that reason must be clear from the context. The VMs has no Christian contecxt I can see whatsoever
LikeLike
Koen, by saying:”This is not my “wish”, it’s simply the explanation that best solves the problems with the root.”
…you actually admit you wish that these roots resemble heads. The metaphore with the clouds holds perfectly well since you only speak of leaves and roots and flowers that were NOT drawn as heads or crowns or horns. And if you insist one can imagine an airplane in that cloud marking the spot of Vienna Airport.
LikeLike
To put it carefully, because I don’t understand the least of what the seven-headed-ten-crowns beast means, since so many different opinions are given, and I don’t care to study them – to put it carefully: Islamic texts also appear to have reason to discuss this “beast”. For what ever reason. Maybe someone can explain?
After all that Voynich page has not been translated either.
LikeLike
Koen,
Medieval scholars advocated a three-stage approach to text and especially to images (albeit predominantly verbal images) when the text itself was intelligible: namely that one began by supposing the meaning literal; next that it might be – or also be – metaphor/simile and only last consider it as allegory.
It seems to me that although the Voynich text and images are far from intelligible overall, you are moving from the literal straight to the allegorical level, not arguing even the mid-position by first identifying the plants. I mean, if you found a snake-vine you might argue that the hidden image was of Adam and Eve because the habit of the snake-vine in climbing fruit-trees made it ‘like’ the serpent in Eden. Sympathy principle. But you haven’t argued it that way.
If you can’t provide a solid link between the image and the message you perceive in it – and so far you haven’t done that – then it seems to me you need to set the practice you are positing within a solid, demonstrable historical context.
Who, when, where and why.
As it is, I do believe you believe it, but very doubtful that the first enunciator of these images would believe it.
LikeLike
Yeah, you are right that I’m moving more towards the full-blown allegorical. Given the track record of those who attempt “plant only” approaches, I’m not even ashamed 😉
It’s possible that you are right and I corrected too much towards the symbolical side of things. Your approach, to acknowledge and try to understand the symbolic aspects while at the same time keeping into consideration practical matters certainly makes more sense.
I’m also not able to provide an explanation of why someone would have done this.
But “why” is a secondary question here. If your head is full of “whys” and “shoulds”, there’s no room left for “whats”.
But all right, enough philosophy. How would you explain this root?
LikeLike
The problem is quite simple and it has nothing to do with pareidolia. The Voynich plants are assemblies of flowers, leaves and roots, the fact is those assemblies are impossible: the Voynich plants sport inexistent features, improbable asymmetries, bizarre conditions (e.g. various plants with one out of three flowers bent or dead) and unnatural numerical properties. That is, they are ostensibly plants, but not real plants by any means. They are like the wolf from Little Red Riding Hood: a wolf, but not a real wolf (wolves do not speak and do not wear nightgowns, if someone is wondering).
So the question is, since they are not real plants, what are they?
The answer must be in their unnatural features, that is in what set them apart from real plants. You know that the wolf is not a real wolf, because he speaks and acts like a (human) predator of little girls, so you know that these plants are not real plants because they have these unnatural characteristics.
For example, Fibonacci numbers are a typical numerical properties of real plants, the Voynich plants do not follow Fibonacci, but they have different numerical properties. In this case, ten branches with five pointed leaves each (like a typical crown ♛…), seven shortish roots on one side, five different roots on the other side etc.
Given that these are not natural properties, but necessarily symbolical properties, the answer is found only looking for the meaning of these symbols.
For example, the Apocalypse talks about the death of one third of a lot of things (human beings, sea creatures etc.): these bent flowers could be that. To say the truth, this beast has nothing to do with those deaths in the Apocalypse (even though it emerges from the sea, after that one third of its creatures are dead).
So the question is still open, but this is a good shot. After all the VA must be some kind of occultist/heretic/hoaxer, hence we cannot expect a total adherence to the orthodoxy, both Christian orthodoxy and classical orthodoxy.
I tentatively propose (again) that 46r is a galley: three masts, 14 oars on the side facing the viewer, 14 oars on the other side (depicted shorter and without the blade to suggest they are further away), one rudder on the right side of the picture (the thicker root), one ram on the left side (the long bladeless root).
And 46v is quite interesting too, but much more complex…
LikeLiked by 1 person
You explain well why the plants are problematic as “just plants”. I don’t get why so few people understand this. (But are precedents, like Nick’s “machines”.)
I thought f46v might be about the Baptism of Jesus. Iconographically, the “bird” could be the holy spirit as dove+rays, and the leaves cups that are being poured. The stalk is a shepherd’s crook, which is a bit difficult since John the Baptist’s staff is usually one with a cross on top. But I’m keeping this one on the “uncertain” pile.
More likely, I think, is f31r as the dragon/serpent of revelation. It’s close to the folio I discussed here, and also Currier B.
But here I’m still at a loss about what the rest of the image might mean. But if you look at the placement of the flowers and leaves, you see that there is nothing natural about this plant. It has been moulded to tell something else.
LikeLike
Koen,
The plants are not natural indeed and the simplest explanation is: they are just fantasy. How to draw a “random” plant? Combine properties of existing plants and exaggerate at various places.
Still the fantasy could be based on myth, legend, religion, etc. and the plants might represent something. And that is abundantly done in the Middle Ages. Your examples here of mythic beasts show that. In a recognizable way!
But to conclude from only plant parts that are meant to show a plant – and clearly do that even better than for many others in the VMs – that they form a hidden(!) meaning is stretching things too far. At least as long as nor text nor other images show anything clearly related, or when coincidence becomes unlikely. As with the 28 EU clouds.
If the draughtsman really had wanted to display the seven headed beast he would have given the roots seven bulbs, tubers,…. He surely knew how to do that on other pages. By the way… by my count the plant clearly shows nine equally shaped and equally placed roots attached to the “neck” and the “body” ends in three short “legs” or tails and one long leg or tail, the only one ending in two “toes”. A third “toe” being attached to the ninth “head”. But even by your suggestive orange coloring I count three hind legs and one tail. And you claim of nine identical shaped and identical attached roots, two to be legs and seven to be heads… Why not the other way round? If heads and legs are the same anyway…
What about the three flowers, the most striking part of plants? They don’t fit your story so instead of rejecting the theory, you chop them off or say you don’t know. They must be part of the beast too, and important. By the way, if the leaves look like crowns, the flowers do too. Oops, but then your numbers don’t add up here either.
LikeLike
Ah, but aren’t “I don’t know” the most beautiful words in science? 🙂
If you say the flowers look like crowns, then I’ll take your word for it. The missing part of the story is how the beast is worshipped by infidel kings (various numbers in various depictions: sometimes one, sometimes three, sometimes a group). I think these kinds of strange, flat-topped blue flowers often represent people, so it all fits rather nicely.
Anyway, I remain open-minded. As soon as a better explanation comes along, I will accept it. For now, I prefer this over “just random”.
LikeLike
Koen, I agree “I don’t know” is not been said enough by far in this world. However, how relates that to the wrong number of heads, tails, legs, crowns,… and the wound being in the wrong place?
I am not saying the drawing is a random compilation of plant parts (I don’t know :-)), only that it’s the simplest explanation as long as no other reasonable and more likely explanations are offered.
LikeLike
Koen, you attach much importance to: “And I saw that one of his heads was, as it were, wounded to death”.
One(!) of his heads… By your identification either all heads are wounded or none – the wound being at where you suppose the neck to be. To me the hole clearly suggest that the “body”, the root to the right, is hollow. Whichever way – I don’t see one head wounded.
LikeLike
“… enough philosophy. How would you explain this root?”
As you might recall (or not, I closed the section quite a while ago), my conclusion after doing the analysis on about forty plants was that the images were never intended as portraits of single specimens, but that each image shows a perceived plant-group whose members have complementary or exchangeable and entirely practical- uses.
This wasn’t an “idea” or “theory” but the end-point of research.
At the time I hardly dared shared that opinion, knowing how fiercely the ‘online community’ was likely to meet views which contradicted the dominant theory of that time.
I had also discovered, in the process, that the roots served as mnemonics *for those practical uses and in terms of non-European traditions and forms*.
The mnemonics idea was taken up within about 18 months by others acceptable because it happened that d’Imperio mentioned the (inapplicable) works of Frances Yates, but interpretations made by fellow Voynicheros owed more to personal enthusiasms than study of e.g. Carruthers’ works.)
Luckily, Pelling pointed me to a couple of remarks made by John Tiltman, and so offered me a precedent for the composite-forms as shield against the predictable stone-throwing.
But this is why I can neither support you in your interpretation of these plants (not so far, anyway), nor simply give an opinion about the roots. I would have to first treat the plant(s) in the main part of the picture, analysis and identification – and that can take a good while – and then by considering where they grew, and the peoples in that region (religion, lore and so forth) understand how the plant(s) uses are reflected by the mnemonic. Style of drawing is both help and a rein in the process, of course.
But thanks for asking what I think.
LikeLike
“… explain this root…”
Occasionally I do some gardening in my too often abandoned garden. And I can assure you that on pulling upshot trees, weeds and bushes I get the most amazing shapes. And this f34v root might very well have come up once…
It looks like those roots that travel underground. The body to the right coming from (or going) elsewhere, the wound where the root traveling to the left was torn off. Google for funny root shapes and you will be amazed (beware of fakes). Although the scribe surpasses that – in other folios.
LikeLike
Ger, as an avid gardener and plant collector since childhood, I’m also very familiar with the kinds of shapes that plants can have, especially the roots, but there is too much structure in the way the VMS roots are drawn to say they are simply exaggerated or unusual roots, and having looked through hundreds of medieval books of plants numerous times, I can say they are not the typical mnemonics common to so many manuscripts. The two animals facing each other that are inter-twined go quite a bit beyond exaggerated root structures in terms of form and intent.
You can’t explore an idea to see if it is right or wrong by dismissing it out-of-hand. Koen has demonstrated that he can adjust his ideas as new information is found or observed, so unlike many VMS researchers with wacky ideas that they defend to the death, I don’t think that applies here. He has a big-picture perspective that might lead somewhere.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What I said went only for the root under consideration: f34v. It looks perfectly normal.
I added there: “Google for funny root shapes and you will be amazed (beware of fakes). Although the scribe surpasses that – in other folios.”
Meaning to say what you said in your reply.
LikeLike