This post is about the cup-shaped plant on f35r, and why I believe it represents the cup (“grail”) in which Jesus’ blood was caught during the Crucifixion.
The Grail in Arthurian romance
Etymologically, grail comes from the Old French graal, which in turn comes from Medieval Latin gradalis, “a flat dish or shallow vessel”. False etymologies related to sang real “royal blood (of Christ)” already existed ca. 1400.
Most people are at least vaguely familiar with the stories of the Holy Grail as the ultimate must-have for the knights of the Round Table. These stories usually include connections to Christian lore; the grail was the cup Jesus used during the last supper, and/or in which his blood and sweat were caught.
The biblical figure connecting Christianity to the Arthurian grail is Joseph of Arimathea, who is mentioned in the four gospels as the man who requested Jesus’ body from Pilate and helped bury him. John 19:38 is wonderfully to the point:
After these things, Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus, though a secret one because of his fear of the Jews, asked Pilate to let him take away the body of Jesus. Pilate gave him permission; so he came and removed his body.
Luke 23:50-56 provides the most elaborate account:
Now there was a good and righteous man named Joseph, who, though a member of the council, had not agreed to their plan and action. He came from the Jewish town of Arimathea, and he was waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God. This man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then he took it down, wrapped it in a linen cloth, and laid it in a rock-hewn tomb where no one had ever been laid. It was the day of Preparation, and the sabbath was beginning. The women who had come with him from Galilee followed, and they saw the tomb and how his body was laid. Then they returned, and prepared spices and ointments.
As you can see, there is nothing about any vessels or grails there. As so often, the Bible is sparse with details, and much of the stories we know today were fattened by tradition. So where did the blood-catching story come from?
A “grail” frist appears in Chrétien de Troyes’ Perceval, le Conte du Graal, around 1190. Even though this piece of tableware is wondrous, there is no link to Christ. However, not much later Robert de Boron did make the connection in his influential poem Joseph d’Arimathie. And soon, a multitude of authors, including those who wrote the anonymous Continuations of Chrétien’s Perceval, connected the Arthurian grail to Jesus.
As Leah Tether explains, “medieval writers and publishers of romance used the Grail as an adaptable and creative instrument for conveying a particular message to their audience, the nature of which could be very different from one book to the next.” So this is where we leave the convoluted mess of Arthurian Grail stories behind – the important part is that from ca. 1200 on, the concept of a cup in which Christ’s blood was caught enters popular lore in full force.
The Grail in devotional contexts
The stories about the knights of the Round Table acted as a catalyst, cementing the belief that Christ’s blood was caught in a cup into popular culture. Someone collecting blood was now a common sight in devotional imagery (this could also be done by angels or other figures).
The bloody chalice is not limited to crucifixion imagery; see for example the lamb in the Ghent altarpiece:
It is part of the Arma Christi, as in this 1443 votive panel:
In this example from Morgan MS M.1089 (first half 15th century), Christ is conveniently positioned above a chalice during Eucharist:
Some images draw the bleeding side wound of Christ as the opening of the chalice (second half 15th century).
One could go on for ages about the many incarnations and meanings of this horror show, but the bottom line is that medieval audiences were well accustomed to bloody chalices. Even if it were just the one the priest prepared in church.
And the Bible?
As I explained already, no blood-catching chalice is mentioned in the Bible. Of course there is the “cup” of wine of the Last Supper, but this is not connected to crucifixion or any fluids literally leaving the Lord’s body.
The whole veneration of the side wound of Christ and all related imagery ultimately stem from John 19:34:
But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water.
Most illustrations seem to take this as a mixture of blood and water, resulting in a lighter stream gushing from the chest, compared to thick drops of blood at the other wounds. Some really go overboard, like this 1450 woodcut (held at Cambridge university):
Voynich MS f35r
There is a reason why, poor reader, I needed to drench your eyes in some of the more gruesome imagery of mainstream Christian history (granted, some are worse, like the many inventive methods for torturing saints). Starting in the 14th century but really reaching its peak in the 15th, there was a tendency towards an affective experience of devotional imagery. People were encouraged to connect with Christ and Mary’s suffering on an emotional level. And I think f35r must be understood in this context.
Worshipers were confronted with blood-soaked scenes in painting, but also in sculpture. Just take a look at the surviving wooden German pietàs. The Röttgen Pietà shows a devastated Mary holding the emaciated, blood-streaked body of her son. Such images, along with of course the obligatory crucifixes, would have been on display in every church. Blood would typically run across Christ’s limbs, body and/or the base of the cross in several lines:
These were among the most important images in medieval European lives. Why do I think this matters so much in relation to our plant? Well, because the appearance of a cup-shaped plant with red streaks would have had a different impact on the medieval viewer than it has on us.
But, you might say, cup-shaped plants exist in other herbal manuscripts as well! What makes this one different? Here are some examples, but there are many more. Left the VM plant, centre a plantago from Egerton 747 and musa from BNF Ms. Latin 9333; right the Johnson Papyrus, the oldest known herbal manuscript illustration.
Some properties clearly set the VM plant apart from other examples:
- Nothing like the VM flower is found anywhere in combination with cup-shaped leaves.
- The leaves form a single, smooth surface (apart from the top)
- Stalk and roots are shaped to complete the resemblance to a chalice
There are further indications that connect the VM plant to religious imagery and tradition;
Bloodlines: no effort is made to evenly color the stem and roots, nor are the red streaks regular in any way. They are like streams of liquid that look and behave like the blood in crucifixion scenes. The VM painter was perfectly capable of producing a solid red surface (right detail) but did not do so here.
A golden chalice: at the top, the leaves are green and serrated, but most of the surface gives the impression of being a solid object. The color is probably the closest to gold the VM painter had to his disposal. Moreover, the paint hides lines of circular decorations.
The flower, I believe, can be best understood in the light of the Bible verse which helped shape popular crucifixion scenes, John 19:34: “one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water“. The central part of the flower has the typical almond shape of Christ’s side-wound (inflicted by the spear), immediately recognizable to any medieval Christian. It is red.
Around it, “petals” curl out. They are blue and resemble splashing water. The water flows down the stem towards the cup, where it is about to join the red lines.
In conclusion, I believe that this plant, so forcibly shaped like a chalice, contains enough indications to link it to the most prominent chalice in European lore and religion. Moreover, the motifs incorporated into the image appear to point towards the affective devotion of the 15th century.
The Voynich Temple 
Koen, I’m giving up disputatiousness for a while… but just for interest. As you know I consider each of the botanical folios to represent a plant-group and those I’ve identified have turned out to be be native to, or documented as traded through, the eastern, maritime ‘spices route’. So with this folio I believe the group is of plants we also group, as ‘stink lilies’. I’ve omitted the https in front of these addresses
www2.palomar.edu/users/warmstrong/images2/polyphyletic4b.jpg
www2.palomar.edu/users/warmstrong/images2/Stink4b.jpg
I hadn’t noticed the small circles exterior to the ‘cup’ though.. thank-you.
LikeLike
Ps – on one of those pictures, the small, clustered circular plants shows Pilostyles thurberi, but others include a Middle East species, Pilostyles haussknechtii which is parasitic on some of the shrubby Iranian locoweeds – the latter being the source of gum tragacanth, “a water-soluble, polysaccharide gum used as a thickening agent and emulsifier”. Loco weed itself, though, looks more like rosemary than the plants shown on folio 35r.
LikeLike
If the image is based on real plants (or images thereof), then this is a good proposal.
Either way, wouldn’t you agree that the shape of “cup”, stem and roots deviates from nature in favour of a closer resemblance to a chalice?
LikeLike
Koen, I think your interpretation works extremely well with the eye-shaped oval at the top (stigmata and/or chalice), the flow of red down through the intermediate parts, and especially the red flowing out the bottom. Red is used carefully in the manuscript in general, so I don’t think it would be so abundant unless it was important to the image.
The overall shape of a chalice fits well also.
If it is intended to double as a plant (in addition to being symbolic), I’m guessing it may be bugloss, which is somewhat chalice-shaped and was used as a dye source (this might fit with a kettle shape, as well).
Bugloss yields a blue dye, but if you add acid, it also creates red dyes, so perhaps a chalice-shaped plant that yields both blue and red dyes is a good choice for grail symbolism.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think you’d do well to be less trusting of the paints in the VMs, particularly the blue and/or any messily/heavily applied.
LikeLike
I’ve actually come back from this. Even though the blue etc look messy, that doesn’t necessarily mean that someone else did it. It may just be that this paint was hard to work with or it interacted poorly with the ink of the drawings.
Red in the Herbal section is especially relevant, since it is almost exclusive to Herbal A (only one B folio). Of course this can be explained in many ways, but there seems to be more going on than someone haphazardly painting random stuff.
Granted, there is always the possibility that an ignorant person added paint later, but I don’t think anymore that there is enough evidence to take this as a default position.
LikeLike
There is a ton of specific evidence that both the herbal pages and Q13 had been rebound in completely the wrong order before most of the paints were added, so I think you’re just plain wrong there, sorry. 😦
LikeLike
Of course! But what’s that got to do with trusting paint?
LikeLike
Koen, Whether a plant-part elicits familiar comparisons in the viewer or rightly explains the maker’s intention is not a trivial question, and as a rule I find it counter-productive to start by imagining answers are known to questions not yet addressed.
There’s also the issue of where, when and by whom you think allusion might be made so indirectly to the sort of symbols which were so proudly displayed and employed by medieval Europe from the latter part of the fifteenth century.
If you have an impression that this plant-picture is like the western Christian emblem of host and chalice, then why not investigate that theme and test your idea against the historical evidence before deciding the argument you want to offer is worth proposing? The problem I have with most theory-led work is that too often when a person with a theory hunts only within the parameters of a theory for items they perceive as supporting the theory, there is a tendency to forget that because a thing occurs in one place, it can occur no-where else or have any other purpose and in the effort to illustrate the theory, anachronism as well as imbalance becomes normalised. Like citing printed books produced in 1460 in one part of the world only to explain images in a manuscript produced as much as half a century earlier in a part of the world as yet undetermined.
I add these comments because you asked. Not to express or to spark hostility. It’s quite the wrong time, these days, for any of us to be at odds with one another. We can all take up the cudgels again in a month, or a year…
(final effort to post)
LikeLike
Diane, I think we should be able to exchange ideas without hostile feelings, I’m happy to compare views and arguments.
For starters I agree that images from post 1450 works are less reliable. I take the “official” year 1438 as the latest possible date but I see no evidence why it should have been produced after 1430. So that’s a valid point of criticism. On the other hand, this is not a kind of imagery where we get a sudden shift after the relevant VM timeframe.
As to the reason why, I’ve explained before that I don’t know, but I see two separate possibilities:
1) intellectual exercise. Could be for memory retention. We know that memory practice is an artificial thing and often involved a forced merging of different spheres of knowledge. Link the known to the unknown, create absurd mental images. The unusual thing would be that someone’s private mental images have been committed to the page. But such a thing is not completely unique either (illustrated mnemonic bibles exist).
2) Perhaps more interesting. As you are well aware, religions like Islam were (and still are to some degree) aniconic. You were not allowed to draw lifelike images of living things because you did not want to allow for the possibility that the images became objects of worship.
The kinds of images I’m talking about in these posts are directly linked to devotion. They are often damaged because of extensive kissing and rubbing. Technically they did not worship the images themselves, it’s more like they are tools for affective devotion. People liked images of the Passion for private use, that is why we see them in so many books of hours.
So if someone were to plan a voyage to Muslim-occupied territory, and wanted to take with him the kind of devotional imagery that was popular at the time, he may opt to hide them in plants. Plants are fine 🙂
But in the end I don’t know. I do know that there are realistic scenarios where one might find use for these images.
LikeLike
Thanks Koen for that civil reply – so characteristic of you. I’ve seen no evidence that in medieval times, non-Muslims were expected to produce non-iconic images., so though it makes sense in modern terms perhaps, it is contradicted by such things as the corpus of Coptic Christian and so-called ‘Crusader’ art, and the religious art which remains from Syria and elsewhere. I think it can be difficult to remember, when struggling to make sense of this not-at-all-typical imagery that the real argument is about what a fourteenth- or fifteenth-century person saw as
like’ something in their own environment at that time – so if a thirteenth century chalice was a wide, shallow bowl, then only that shape would be used to convey the mental image “chalice”. Also, on mnemonics, the most usual embody not ‘ideas’ or simple form but a specific passage from a specific written text. I agree the form is bowl-like, and the original draughtsman may have thought so too. But ‘like’ isn’t ‘was meant to represent’ and in Voynich writings overall, since 1912, there’s a constant drift from “what the maker intended by this” towards “what ‘we’ are reminded of today when we look for something similar within the boundaries set by a favoured hypothesis’. I ‘m inclined to think it likely that the present volume was inscribed in some part of Latin Europe, or in a Latin possession elsewhere, but very little in the manuscript argues for first origin there. The problem I have with the ‘German’ sort of argument is that it investigates no question, merely hunts German sources for items ‘like’ something in the Vms. This means that, for example, if as many people were as eager to push a ‘French’, ‘English, ‘Spanish’, or other nationality they might turn up just as much material to support them. The lack of range and balance, as well as the assumptions adopted all make me feel very doubtful that such method will ever allow the written text to be understood. And isn’t that supposed to be the aim of Voynich research ?
LikeLike
On the form of the chalice in Europe during different periods…
” In the thirteenth century, while the cup of the ordinary chalice still remains broad and rather low, and base and knop are circular, we find a certain development of the stem.
On the other hand the cup, in a large number of examples of the fourteenth century, tends to assume a conical or funnel shape, while the stem and knop become angular, or prismatic in section, generally hexagonal. The base is often divided into six lobes to match the stem, and the knop itself is sometimes resolved into a group of studs or bosses…
… which in certain fifteenth-century specimens give place to a mass of areading and architectural ornament set with figures. The stem is at the same time elongated and becomes much taller.
Under Renaissance influences, on the other hand, the ornamentation in the more sumptuous specimens of chalices is often excessive, spending itself in the form of figured repoussé work upon the base and stem. The cup almost invariably assumes a tulip shape, which continues during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, while the chalice greatly increases in height.
With this, in the seventeenth century, often went a very thin stem, or again a quite inadequate base, so that many chalices of this period leave the well-founded impression of bring either fragile or top heavy.
LikeLike
I hadn’t actually thought about focusing on the actual form of the chalice. I guess we can all agree that the plant is shaped like some type of vessel (whatever the purpose may be). But I don’t know to what extent the shape is appropriate. It’s complicated because the primary appearance of the construct ist still that of a plant…
Incidentally, JKP sent me an image of a chalice which reminded him of this one. It would especially explain the foot. Source Ambrosiana MS C 105
The knob at the top of the stem does appear to be missing.
LikeLike
Koen – the Ambrosiana ms – do you have details of where and when it was made, and what the text is about? Personally, though I appreciate the pretty-looking stylised base, I’d doubt any real connection with the VMS – I mean, look at the background – no avoidance of ruled and crossed lines there. It’s true there’s no ‘bump’ on the Voynich image, but I’d suggest it’s because the Vms image was never meant to evoke the Christian ritual object. 🙂 It’s very easy to start taking the theoretical ‘match’ for the thing which the Vms image *ought* to resemble. Watching the situation in your part of the world. Best wishes to you and yours.
LikeLike
Thanks, Diane. The virus struck in my family yesterday, so far it’s only a fever, I hope it doesn’t get any worse.. All in all we’re still fortunate here in Belgium that we had the time to take measures; the situation is much worse in countries that were hit early. It’s worth a lot to know that there is still place available in hospitals should we end up needing it.
The chalice is from the Temple Implements, a common illustration in manuscripts. Here’s a similar one from 14th century Spain:
https://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/ILLUMIN.ASP?Size=mid&IllID=44501
The reason why I think it’s relevant is that it gives a possible explanation for the shape of the chalice’s foot in the VM plant. That is: a chalice doesn’t need to have a round base, it may have “feet”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I find this quite convincing. Not only the chalice is a religious symbol with many esoteric connections (already Wolfram von Eschenbach linked the Graal to the Philosopher’s Stone), which would fit with the VM character, but it fits biblical imagery. The relevant passage from John’s Gospel is traditionally linked to other verses of the Bible, which mention fountains or springs:
Zechariah 13:1 – “On that day a fountain will be opened to the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to cleanse them from sin and impurity.”
Revelation 21:6 – “He said to me: It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the thirsty I will give water without cost from the spring of the water of life.”
Psalm 36:9 – “For with you is the fountain of life; // in your light we see light.”
The picture resembles both a chalice and a fountain:
https://global-geography.org/af/Geography/Europe/Italy/Pictures/Latium/Viterbo_-_Piazza_della_Rocca%2C_Fountain
https://www.123rf.com/photo_47486374_beautiful-gothic-fountain-in-the-medieval-centre-of-perugia.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes! Looking for the meaning of the John verse I also came to Zechariah 13:1, and it explains quite well why it is so fountain-like. I hadn’t thought about looking for actual fountains, but you are definitely right that this may have informed the image.
Either way, “Jesus as water” and the many positive associations of water are some of the major biblical themes.
LikeLike
There is actually another reason why I find this interesting, but that is about a pet theory of mine. I am leaning toward the idea that these plants, or at list some of them, have something to do with constellations and, maybe, astrology. I already have tentatively identified a number of them and this one could be another one: Crater, i.e. the cup. Originally it was some Apollo’s cup, or Ganymede’s, but in Christian times it was identified with the, you guessed it, Holy Grail.
LikeLike
The VMs is the product of a person with a “sophisticated” sense of humor. The ambiguity is intentional and probably inescapable. There is also an extensive knowledge of traditional information, The question is: Where’s the point of it all?
LikeLike
Koen – I meant to let you know. About the ‘youth’ figure with eleven fingers and reversed hand, I haven’t got very far – ever – in trying to find precedent studies about distortion of a figure’s hands to express his/her character so this is my own opinion. First, the number ’11’ signified sinfulness in western Christianity (at least) and from the time of Augustine – the thought behind this being that 11 exceeds the number of perfection as 10 (or rather the letter C as token for Christ). On this point, I’m able to cite the passages quoted in Vincent Foster Hopper’s book, ‘Medieval Number Symbolism’. People often call this sort of thing ‘numerology’ but it isn’t quite the same as that simpler sort of thinking.
On the ‘back to front’ hands, my own view is that it is most likely an allusion to the converso.
LikeLike
I’m all for trying to understand every detail and assuming there is an intention behind those details. But how do we know that this was not a simple mistake? There are other anatomical impossibilities in the VM, for which we also don’t search a meaning (for example, legs of the bulls bend the wrong way).
LikeLike
I don’t think the hands can be supposed a simple mistake. After all, mos people have ten fingers just as we have two legs or one head. The norm is the default in that case -so eleven fingers would involve extra effort, and pass notice by the other people who worked on that And if it were a moment’s absent-mindedness it was a correction easily made, just by scraping. It would be interesting to know what that section from the Welcher Gast says.
LikeLike
Koen,
Koen, you are right in connecting the image to the chalice, wounds of Jesus and to the holy Grail. You have good intuition; however. To spare you searching for an explanation, I am sending you my notes.
To your explanation of etymology of graal and sang rail, I would like to add, that maybe it was not the wrong etymology, but a new symbol for the original thing. For instance, Chretien’s Grail is a platter with most beautiful food, which in a way is a symbol for the communion bread. The association with the word ‘royal’ is the Slavic word ‘gral’ (kral – king). Ulrich Liechtenstein spelled Slovenian word GRALA, instead of Krala (queen). The Holy King would be Christ the King who is the ultimate ARTist (Creator).
Christ represents the mystical Jesus. (In Slovenian language, KRI, pronounced as CHRI, means blood.) The mystical experience is in a way identification of a purified human spirit with the divine spirit of Christ, which means identifying with Jesus’ suffering for the sake of Truth, Justice, and Peace. In general, mystical experience is accompanied by intense guilt and remorse.
There was a lot of suffering in the Middle Ages to preserve the original teaching of Jesus and living according to his teaching. And even more for those who challenged the religious and political leaders, the way Jesus did in his time. (The idea of catching blood might have come from Thierry of Alsace who broughs a vail of alleged blood of Jesus to Bruges from the second Crusade in 1150. (It turned out later it was a fake, but it continued to be worshipped.)
Iconoclasm was also practiced by Slovenians of Greek rite but belonging to Roman Church. Their bibles are decorated with flowers, not with devotional pictures.
When Jesus predicted his own death, he made a statement that he has to die, like a seed has to die to make a new growth. That prediction was for his physical body.
This brings us to the flower growing in the challice.
Brown round-bottom chalice represents the the physical part of the earth.
The bottom of the chalice are at the same time two large red roots, an allegory to the Greek and Jewish origin of Christianity. Both share a bloody history.
Jesus represents a seed of new genre of literature, based on universal Love.
I suppose at some point in history, the Christian religion created to evoke emotions became counterproductive, because it created so much emotion that Christians were more than eager to go to war against those who the Church blamed for inflicting wounds on Christ. (In the interpretation of the Church, any sin, any disobedience to the Church, causes the wound of Christ).
A mystical experience is often called »mystical death«, because the mystic has to »die« to himself to live for »Jesus« ideas.
Assuming that the author of the VM had a mystical religious experience and wanted to express an aspect of it, he would see himself as a flower growing out of suffering. His suffering is collected in his work which has eternal life and represents spiritual seeds for the future artists, the interpretors of the Bible and guardians of the genuine Christianity.
Out of the chalice grows a plant with red seeds and blue petals. If suffering represent the seeds, the petals represent the wisdom, the flower (the poem, the artistic work) generates. In Slovenian language, the word »flowers« was used in poetic language for »poems«, even for the literary almanac.
At the time VM was created, the Hussites were victims of the Catholic Church. The were also called Kališníci ; “Chalice People”.
The sacrament of the Holy Communion is in a way a watered-down version of »mystical experience«, learning from other man’s suffering, sharing and their wisdom.
Assuming that the VM was written in the region of the present day Slovenia, which in a way was divided between support for the Husites and support for the Roman Church, the allussion to Husites (Chalice people) in a floral image had better chance of surviving than a straight-forward political statement.
After all, Jan Hus, Czech religious reformer who among other things, demanded the Church be allowed to distribute wine, as well as bread, at the communion, was burned at the stake, his books burned and war waged against his followers.
LikeLike
Koen – there’s no ‘reply’ under your response dated 03/04/2020 at 14:07, so I respond here to say I among your many well-wishers will be thinking of you over the next weeks.
I only wanted to express good wishes, but because you added a comment about the plant-picture in which you envision a chalice, I add the following quote from Alberti’s Books of Architecture (1481)
“Everything that Nature produces is regulated by the law of harmony, and Her chief concern is that everything should be perfect.”
In essence this merely reformulates the medieval view that everything in nature was created, in its final form, according to the will and desire of the deity, so that each plant was perfect in its own way,
If the pictures of plants in medieval herbals do not strike us as terribly good likenesses, that is one thing, but to argue – as you do and as Nick Pelling did – that an image which presents as vegetative is not intended for a plant but for something made of metal is not well supported by what is known of medieval or even of Renaissance attitudes. It is one thing to say an artisan added foliate ornament to a metal goblet, but quite another to suggest that he might envisage a chalice as a form of plant. To identify the image of the chalice as a chalice would not take a century and hundreds of viewers’ efforts; that none before you have seen anything of the sort in that plant-picture, nor found any similarly ‘encoded’ image of a chalice in any Latin work produced before 1440 might give one pause for further reflection.
Today, an artist could do that because we live in the post-Baroque and post-expressionist and post-surrealist world. But the Voynich manuscript’s makers did not – but that is the mind-set you’re invoking when you suggest that one of the plant-pictures *was intended* to signify an object used in the most sacred of Christian rituals. I simply don’t believe – from all I’ve read and seen – that a thirteenth- or fourteenth-century Latin artisan could conceive of such an idea.
A modern artist can advertise himself by saying ‘I believe the artist’s duty is to lead people into hell and back again’, but the medieval graphic artist’s duty was to produce the sort of image he was being paid to produce, and all the evidence indicates that meant an image consistent with what others of his patron’s time and social class were accustomed to see and read. Shouldn’t take a century to recognise a chalice. But these are just my thoughts and may be let settle until we pass out of the present darkness. All best wishes to you and your family.
“
LikeLike