The plant in f17v has long been a favorite of mine. At first, my views on it were crude and inaccurate, but over the years I have come to understand it better. The image is exceptional in many ways and should, if I manage to explain its complex, layered meaning successfully, clarify how Voynich plants are constructed.
Based on real plants
The purpose of this post is not to identify the exact plant species that was intended in f17v (this may be impossible), but still I want to have a quick look at the botanical aspects first. Understanding the kind of plant we’re dealing with will help us understand the full picture.
The plant can be divided into five discreet parts, as numbered in the image above:
- a root
- a green oval as the base of the stem
- leaves
- fruits
- a tendril or empty part of the stem
With some Voynich plants, we cannot even be sure whether we are looking at a moss, a herb or a tree, but luckily f17v is unambiguous about its type: it ist a vine, in the general sense of any trailing or climbing plant. Its habit, leaves, berries and tendril are all appropriate for the type.
First of all, the plant scrambles all around the margins of the folio, climbing over the top of the text and hanging down from the right. It uses the available space to its fullest. This layout may remind us of the vines that often adorn medieval manuscripts, though there is no way of telling whether this is intentional.
Next, the leaf shape is hastate to sagittate. The variance makes it hard to pinpoint a specific species, but in general these leaf shapes with their typical basal lobes are characteristic for some of the most common vines, like bindweeds, black bryony and even some forms of ivy.
Clusters of berries are also common in vines, like smilax, black bryony, ivy and of course the true grape vine.
And finally of course, the tendril (or wavy end part of the stem) is also indicative of vines.
What is important to remember here is that we don’t have a picture perfect illustration of one specific species, but we have a very clear indication of a plant type; everything suggests that this is a vine, in the broadest sense of the word. Much can be written about the exact species (my personal favorite remains black bryony, which was already suggested by Theodore Petersen), but again this is not the focus of this post.
Not so natural after all
We can assume with some confidence that we are meant to see this plant as a vine, even by just considering its habit alone. However, despite this rare glimpse of clarity the VM allows us here, there are also problems. The plant does things that are not natural.
When I introduced the plant, it was easy to number each part. This grouping of constituents in itself is weird: normally berries, leaves and tendrils mix all over the length of the stem, they don’t neatly separate. But in the VM plant, all the leaves grow first above the root, then various bunches of berries, and then one long tendril or empty piece of wavy stem. This comes across as weird and artificial.
Exaggerating a bit, we can even say that each constituent gets its own margin: root bottom, leaves right, berries top, tendril left.
Another implausible feature: plants don’t separate and regrow at the stem. Probably separate plant parts can fuse together under certain circumstances, but that is not even what happens here; it is like a full green loop is inserted between the root to the actual stem.
Additionally, vines are not known for their lumpy, hairy roots. Even taking the large root of black bryony into account, this chain of three humps connected by thinner, smooth parts is hard to explain botanically. Since the Voynich manuscript is notorious for getting fanciful in the roots especially, these bumps should be regarded with suspicion.
Finally, none of the plants that match the rest of the drawing have an opposite (paired) leaf arrangement, while the leaves of f17v do.
And then there’s Tendrilface…
Tendrilface
While it is clear that real plants lie at the basis of this image, I don’t think it is mainly about those plants.
When I started studying the Voynich manuscript five years ago, one of the first things I noticed in the Herbal section is that the tendril on f17v appears to deliberately outline the contours of a face in profile. We see a man with a prominent brow, large nose, puckered lips and wavy beard.
Faces in tendrils are not unheard of in manuscript art; JK Petersen sent me these wonderful examples from a 15th century Italian manuscript. Since the scribe was kind enough to add some additional features, we can see that these are faces for sure.
And Cary Rapaport added that none other than Giotto hid the devil’s profile in the clouds of his Assisi Basilica fresco:
So, if the profile in the VM is intentional, then why is it there? Who or what does it represent? Well, to get to the point, I will argue that the tendril represents Judas Iscariot, at the moment when he betrays Jesus Christ. And the rest of the plant supports this reading, each part adding to the others.
Why Judas?
We don’t have to look far to find dozens of medieval depictions of Judas’ kiss. It is illustrated in the Speculum Humanae Salvationis, one of the most popular illustrated works of the 14th and 15th centuries (according to the Wiki, over 350 copies survive of the Latin version alone).
All examples below are gathered from this page at the Warburg Institute. Profile, bearded face, puckered lips, Judas kiss.
Many other examples can be found in books of hours, paintings and sculptures. The image of Judas’ grotesque profile turned towards our Lord embedded itself in the medieval mind. Here is a later example from a painting (c. 1500) by Hans Holbein the Elder.
But why Judas, and not just an anonymous profile (or random wiggles in the tendril, for that matter)? Well, the rest of the plant also connects to Judas’ betrayal, and enriches the message by referring to various relevant passages from the Bible.
Judas’ motives
As with many things in the Bible, there are differences between the gospels about what exactly prompted Judas to betray Jesus. “Matt. 26:14–16 and John 12:6 designate Judas’ motive as avarice, but Luke 22:3–6 ascribes his action to the entrance of Satan into his body, paralleling John 13:27, where, after Judas took the bread at the Last Supper, “Satan entered into him.”” [1]
The gospel of Luke has Satan enters Judas during the last supper, and from there on the inevitable takes place:
3 Then Satan entered Judas, called Iscariot, one of the Twelve. 4 And Judas went to the chief priests and the officers of the temple guard and discussed with them how he might betray Jesus. 5 They were delighted and agreed to give him money. 6 He consented, and watched for an opportunity to hand Jesus over to them when no crowd was present.
…. but he still adds in money for good measure:
3 Then Satan entered Judas, called Iscariot, one of the Twelve. 4 And Judas went to the chief priests and the officers of the temple guard and discussed with them how he might betray Jesus. 5 They were delighted and agreed to give him money. 6 He consented, and watched for an opportunity to hand Jesus over to them when no crowd was present.
Matthew places the agency entirely with Judas: he was promised money, and for that reason sought to turn over Jesus to the authorities
14 Then one of the Twelve—the one called Judas Iscariot—went to the chief priests 15 and asked, “What are you willing to give me if I deliver him over to you?” So they counted out for him thirty pieces of silver. 16 From then on Judas watched for an opportunity to hand him over.
In short, we have two reasons for Judas’ actions: the devil entered him, and he was driven by the desire for money.
Let us first consider Satan. Cary argues that, like in Giotto’s cloud face, the appearance of this profile might, in addition to mimicking Judas’ kiss, also alert the medieval viewer of a diabolical presence. This, unfortunately, goes hand in hand with the framing of Judas as the “Jew as Satan’s instrument”, with thick lips, a prominent nose and relatively long beard.
But what about avarice, the excessive desire for money?
For this, I must go back to something Ellie Velinska wrote in 2016: “I think that the root may represent camel going through eye of a needle – based on the story in the New Testament – it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” It was somewhat generally accepted that the “loop” resembles the eye of a needle, but as far as I know, nobody had yet connected the “humps” to a camel or connected these features to the famous biblical phrase.
At the time I was not entirely sold on the “camel” idea, since the root has three humps and camels have two (or one, in the case of the dromedary). But if the top bump represents the head on an upright neck, it might actually work. I’m still not quite sure which part is supposed to go where, but neither were medieval scribes apparently.
I found only one manuscript illumination of a camel actually attempting the biblical feat, unfortunately without any source:
But what does Ellie’s camel have to do with Judas? The camel, being the most prominent large animal for Jesus’ audience, is used as a metaphor for the impossible: it cannot pass through something as small as the eye of the needle. Similarly, it is impossible for a rich man to enter heaven. Seems simple enough, right? Riches are bad. The problem is, of course, that the elite in society are generally rich, including members of the Church.
So from very early on, the verse has been interpreted as condemning the sin of avarice, that is, the love of money. Being rich in itself is not sinful, but desiring riches is. A similar, often misquoted verse is used to support this view: “for the root of all evils is the love of money.” Heheh, root.
This plant presents us with a coupling of Bible passages. In the root, we learn that desiring money is sinful. And in the tendril, we see how this avarice caused Judas to betray Christ (no doubt with some help from the Devil, who was omnipresent in the medieval world view).
The vine that lost a leaf
Finally, we must count the leaves. This is easy, since they are nicely paired up. Remember that this opposite leaf arrangement is not expected for this type of plant, so it may be an intentional deviation. Here we go:
I count six pairs, and six times two is twelve. In the context of the New Testament, the number twelve obviously stands for the twelve disciples of Jesus. Wait, there are not twelve leaves, but eleven? It appears that one of the leaves is missing its partner. Because they are paired, we can easily spot it. So where did one of the Twelve go? Did it fall off? Or is he in the tendril?
When I discussed this with Cary, she pointed out another relevant Bible verse. Remember during the Last Supper, when Jesus predicts that Judas will betray him? Judas then leaves, and Jesus remains with the eleven. And then he compares himself to… a vine. He tells his disciples: I am the vine; you are the branches.
Granted, the VM plant doesn’t have real branches, but leaves. And Jesus is most definitely talking about an actual grape vine, not just “any vine-like plant”. When he talks about bearing fruit, he means grapes for making wine. Still, linguistic and conceptual ambiguity allows us to see the VM vine as a knowing nod to Jesus’ vine, with its twelve or eleven branches.[3]
Interestingly, there are more plants with these twelve leaves, which would allow for an extended application of the visual vocabulary. The prime example is f54v, also a vine. Its leaves are also hastate, but the berries are blue like those of ivy. I don’t have an idea what this plant might mean, but it shows how it should be possible to extend meanings of one plant to others. This vine has twelve “branches”, so it is probably a passage where all apostles are present, i.e. not when Judas went scheming. The root is darker, smooth, with more smaller bulbs and a spike.
Summary
I include the whole plant one last time to summarize my key points.
The question remains: why? Why use a plant for Biblical commentary? I don’t know. If the system discussed here extends to more plants (which I am sure it does) then we are only scratching the surface. And I would not have reached this comprehensive analysis without the help of several people: Cary, who somehow always finds crucial parts I overlooked, JK Petersen’s tendrils, and Ellie’s insights on the camel. A long process of evolving insight was required for this one plant alone.
But at least, I feel like we got pretty far here, even addressing a number of frequently raised objections. I have explained:
- how and why the parts of an existing plant are rearranged and altered to tell a different story
- how the type of the original plant still matters
- how the various oddities to this plant come together, serving the same complex purpose
- relevant connections to art history
- other examples of tendril faces
- how visual vocabulary can be discovered and gradually applied to other plants.
Finally, there may be implications for the text. If the Bible is involved, we suddenly arrive at a system where a few markers for books together with a numerical system for verses can suffice to construct meaning. A number of concrete Bible verses are connected to this interpretation of the plant. But to even start testing this would require more analyses of this detail, and even then…
For now, I hope to have convinced at least some readers that there is more to the Voynich Manuscript’s Herbal section than just a series of inaccurately drawn plants.
NOTES
[1] https://www.britannica.com/biography/Judas-Iscariot
[2] The original Greek also uses the word for “root”: Rhiza gar pantōn tōn kakōn estin hē philargyria. Or the Latin translation: Radix malorum est cupiditas.
[3] The Greek for “vine”, both in the general and specific meaning, is ἄμπελος (ampelos). One type of “ampelos” is “ampelos melaina”, i.e. black bryony, the prime suspect for this plant. See http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=a)/mpelos
The Voynich Temple 
I like the way so many parts of this fit. Nice work.
I wondered why there were so few examples of the camel and needle, similar to the one you found. They loved illustrating those kinds of stories… and then I remembered that books/manuscripts were luxury items in the Middle Ages. The patrons were wealthy. It would probably be undiplomatic for an illustrator to include a visual rebuke to their lifestyles.
LikeLike
Haha, I hadn’t thought about that but you are certainly right. Even though this quote was reinterpreted to be about avarice very early on, the literal words are about wealth. It would probably be weird to include this in a manuscript, a very symbol of wealth. Like drawing a peace sign on a gun.
LikeLike
I think that trying to identify Voynich plants is a waste of time, those are not plants. That said, this hypothesis is quite fascinating, aven if it is quite incomplete. It does not explain the role of the (130) berries and, as Von Neumann said, “with four parameters I can fit an elephant”. There are still too many parameters here.
For example, twelve (minus/plus 1) is a recurrent number in the VM, but that is the number of the Apostles, the number of the tribes of Israel, the number of the Zodiac signs. Right now, I cannot see a definitive identification of that number with one of those examples.
The strange bifurcation at the base of the plant could be the eye of a needle. However it could also be related to the death by hanging of Judas, or it could be an entirely different thing, like a pair of legs and so the tendril-head could be Jesus’ head to complete the similitude between Jesus and a vine plant.
Those bumps are a recurring theme, not sure what could they mean.
Proofreading: you cited Luke twice, instead of John.
LikeLike
As a general rule I try to be very careful in attributing importance to numbers, especially large ones. If you draw something, there has to be a number of the thing, and this number may be without meaning. That is one of the reasons why I steered clear of the berries for now. Also, it seems less plausible that the viewer was supposed to count all 130 berries and derive meaning from that number.
With the leaves though, the situation is completely different. You can see their number at a glance without actually counting them, and notice that there are (12-1). It is true that many of these holy numbers reoccur throughout the Bible, but in the New Testament, twelve is first of all the number of apostles. When Judas falls out, there are only eleven (later, he is replaced by Matthias). From the wiki: “After he betrayed Christ (and then in guilt committed suicide before Christ’s resurrection, one Gospel recounts), the apostles numbered eleven.” So I think it is clever to present the leaves on the vine in pairs, and include a single one somewhere in the middle, so it is clear that their number (eleven) is incomplete.
If the eye of the needle represents a noose, it is very badly represented. A noose is generally round or teardrop shaped. Here, the sides of the loop are very long and straight. This is typical for the eye of a needle. I also thought for a while that they could be legs, but this looks like an optical illusion created by the thickness of one of the hairs on the root. Notice that the “foot” on the right is not painted green, while the loop is.
LikeLike
Well, the berries part is unexplained, regardless their number.
That said, counting the berries takes no more than 10 seconds. The grape made of 9 berries is repeated 11 times (99 berries), the grape of 12 is repeated twice (24 berries), the grape of 7 only once (7 berries):
99 + 24 = 123 (very easy sum)
123 + 7 = 130 (very easy sum)
I am not saying that the author necessarily wanted to give a meaning to the 130 berries, but one cannot easily dismiss the thing. I wrote 10 seconds, but probably a medieval man used to abaci and dactylonomy would have done it in 5.
I do not follow this line of reasoning: it sounds a bit circular to me. We do not know if the context of this picture is the New Testamente or something entirely different. If “New Testament” is part of the hypothesis (the number 12 represents the Apostles because this is NT related), it cannot then become part of the thesis too (this is NT related because there are 12 things like the Apostles).
Judas did not hang himself to a noose, but to a tree bifurcation.
LikeLike
My reasoning is that the intended audience (this may be either the people who made the VM, or a larger group) knew more about the manuscript than we do. So they may have known: the first section is about the new testament (for example). Even this little prior knowledge would make the interpretation more straighforward.
But even if we assume no prior knowledge, do you really think that if a medieval person were told “twelve” or “twelve minus one” they would think “the tribes of Israel”? 🙂
As far as I can see, manuscript art shows Judas’ hanging on a noose.
LikeLike
Koen’s point about the leaves specifically relates the missing leaf to the betrayal and departure of Judas from the twelve Apostles of Jesus, leaving only eleven. This is a much more precise hypothesis than simply any reference to the number twelve or any group of twelve. It would make no sense in the context of the signs of the Zodiac, for example. As for the tribes of Israel, while there are analyses of lost and additional tribes, I am not familiar with any analysis that leaves a group of precisely eleven tribes. So Koen’s hypothesis must be taken much more seriously than simply any generic reference to the number twelve or a group of twelve.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is exactly the problem of narrowing down your point view: you miss the point about the other points of view and how weak yours could be.
For example, I could say that the three bumps in the “root of the plant” are the three patriarchs of Israel (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob); the “body of the plant” is Israel with its twelve tribes, who descended from Jacob; the twelfth tribe is not a leaf but a full branch, because it bore “fruits”; there are 14 clusters in this vine, like the generations between king Josiah of the tribe of Judah and Saint Joseph, or between king David and king Josiah, or between Abraham and king David; at the end there is Jesus, the tendril (or maybe some other 14th generation, like Solomon).
It is not difficult to fit a hypothesis into this, but if you take out some parts it is even easier: too easy.
LikeLike
I agree that numbers can be taken many places, which is why I usually try to avoid relying on them too much. But in the leaves, we have more information than just a number, we have a number from which one is missing. I’d be all for leaving possibilities open, but not in this case. The profile matches Judas, both in expected pose during the crucial event, as in facial features. Especially the prominence of the lips seems telling. And this exact moment matches the situation where one is missing from the twelve.
And the stem doesn’t bifurcate, it makes an unnatural loop shaped like a needle’s eye.
One point where I do agree is that it’s not immediately clear how they intended the root to be a camel. This was Ellie Velinska’s idea years ago, and as far as I know she’s not into Voynich research anymore. I think it works best to see the bump near the needle as a head on a neck, then a body, then a tail. Like that it is attempting to pass through the eye of the needle just like the camel in the header image.
Generally speaking, I wonder… how can we make progress if tackling the texts requires understanding some of the images, and pinning down a meaning for the images requires understanding the text?
LikeLike
I forgot about the bifurcation: Jacob had two wives.
LikeLike
I note the occurrence of the vord combination [odaiin okal] twice in the first three lines of text on f17v: the last two vords of the second line, and the second and third vords of the third line.
Scanning every occurrence of [odaiin] in the entire Voynich ms and checking the following vord in each case, I cannot find any other occurrence of this vord combination [odaiin okal] in the entire Voynich ms, although as individual vords [odaiin] (61 times) and especially [okal] (138 times) are quite normal and common Voynichese vords.
I couldn’t help checking my own “Slavic VCI” phonetic interpretation of the Voynich script (the basis of my Old Polish theory as presented on the Voynich Ninja forum), and I find that this vord combination [odaiin okal], in the Slavic VCI interpretation, represents the syllables .
LikeLike
Whoops! My standard use of angle brackets for Slavic VCI readings/interpretations of Voynich text was apparently misconstrued by this blog as a URL for another website and thus was omitted from the end of my comment.
Again, [odaiin okal] according to the Slavic VCI system represents the syllables “dźo-das”.
LikeLike
Beautiful Easter egg you’ve found, Koen. 🙂
The parallels to medieval depictions of Judas giving Jesus a sideways kiss of death are compelling. With that in mind, where do you stand these days with regards to the first parallel you found with f17v’s Tendrilface, in the profile image of Pan on Greek coins? You’ve made a well-argued case for the imagery of Quire 13 containing both pagan and Christian layers of symbolism. Do you think the same holds true for the plant on f17v?
What do you make of the fact that there are three hairy bulges in the roots?
LikeLike
Good question. So far, I think the large plants (Herbal section) is mainly inspired by the Bible. One could almost use this plant on f17v for a discussion about advanced Biblical themes, like the role of Avarice in Judas’ betrayal, and the connection between money and sin in general.
– – Side note: JKP noted earlier in the comments that the needle-crawling camel may be strangely absent from manuscript art because it touches a sensitive theme. So I was thinking that maybe I should add “forbidden religio-social commentary” to the list of possible reasons why the VM masquerades as a medical book —
Regarding the Pan profile, this was an early idea of mine, when I was still entirely focused on pagan themes. As you may have noticed, I have done a complete 180 regarding this matter 🙂 The reason why both a Dionysian figure and Judas work, is that their features are grotesque. For Pan because he is a degenerate drunk, for Judas because he became the incarnation of the “evil Jew”. (It always feels unpleasant to write about this topic, but it is something I encountered a lot while reading about the portrayal of Judas).
LikeLiked by 1 person
(Despite this, I will keep using my Pan avatar, I’ve grown attached to it ;))
LikeLike
I didn’t include this image because I couldn’t find any others like it. Here, Matthias has already taken Judas’ place.
https://www.alamy.com/english-twelve-articles-of-faith-set-out-by-twelve-apostles-illuminated-manuscript-of-the-apostles-creed-1300-unknown-960-paris-bibl-mazarine-ms-0924-f-150v-image185539181.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
Above I mentioned the idea that [odaiin] [okal] could = [Judas], since this vord combination occurs in both the 2nd and 3rd line of the text on f17v, but nowhere else in the entire Voynich manuscript.
But rather than impose my own Slavic theory in advance on a further attempt to analyze these lines of text, the thought occurs to me, why not simply try [odaiin] [okal] = [ju] [das] as a trial “key” and see where we can go from there? I would retain the “verbose cipher” concepts that [o+glyph] = voiced counterpart of plain voiceless [glyph], and that [y] is a null cipher, at least for the purpose of a first investigation.
To this end, I have re-transcribed the first three lines of f17v with a numeric system of labeling the glyphs. The numerical order is based simply on their order of occurrence in the text of f17v. Where [N] = [glyph], [Nv] = [o+glyph], the “v” signifying “voiced”. [#] = [y].
Here are the first three lines of text on f17v, first in EVA, then in my numerical system:
[pchodol chor fchy opydaiin odaldy]
[ycheey keeor cthodal okol odaiin okal]
[oldaim odaiin okal oldaiin chockhol olol]
[1][2][3v][4v] [2][5v] [6][2][#] [1v][#][3][7] [3v][8][4][3][#]
[#][2][9][9][#] [10][9][9][5v] [11+2][3v][8][4] [10v][4v] [3v][7] [10v][8][4]
[4v][3][12][13] [3v][7] [10v][8][4] [4v][3][7] [2][10v+2][4v] [4v][4v]
The [odaiin] [okal] = [ju] [das] hypothesis, combined with the [0+glyph] = voiced counterpart of voiceless plain [glyph], gives us the following trial values for 5 glyph units and 3 of their voiced/voiceless counterparts:
[3v][7] [10v][8][4] = “Judas”
[3v] = /dž/ ~ /j/
[3] = /tš/ ~ /č/
[7] = /u/
[10v] = /d/
[10] = /t/
[8] = /a/
[4] = /s/
[4v] = /z/
We can now substitute each of these trial values into the rest of the first three lines of text on f17v to see what it gives us:
[1][2][dž~j][z] [2][5v] [6][2][#] [1v][#][tš~č][u] [dž~j][a][s][tš~č][#]
[#][2][9][9][#] [t][9][9][5v] [11+2][dž~j][a][s] [d][z] [dž~j][u] [d][a][s]
[z][tš~č][12][13] [dž~j][u] [d][a][s] [z][tš~č][u] [2][d+2][z] [z][z]
Overall this still appears promising to me. Yes, certain short vords appear to be abbreviated or missing vowels, such as [d][z] and [z][z]. But other vords appear more promising, such as [dž~j][a][s][tš~č][#], [11+2][dž~j][a][s], [1v][#][tš~č][u], [z][tš~č][u], and [z][tš~č][12][13]. The latter three vords also share certain patterns of possible “roots”/”stems” and “endings” that may be helpful.
Personally, I do still believe that this is a Slavic dialect, but that hypothesis is not necessary to investigate these lines based on the approach I have outlined here. For example, a late medieval Germanic or Baltic dialect could have sound patterns similar to those observed in the trial values above. I will also say that at first glance, these lines look “less Polish” than the lines I have interpreted from other sections of the ms, and if I had to guess I would suggest Lower Sorbian as closer to what I see in the lines above. But again, the numerical system presented here is language-neutral, and the only guideline to the trial values are the sounds in the name “Judas” and some of their voiced/voiceless counterparts.
LikeLike
Hi Koen,
I agree that the missing leaf looks like an interesting detail.
Here are some observations from a different point of view.
In VMS f17v, one can also see that there are two groups of fruit-clusters: the rightmost group has 5 clusters above the stem and 4 below it; the leftmost group has 3 clusters above the stem and 2 below it. In all cases (leaves and the two groups of clusters) the missing elements are on the “concave” side of the curved stem.
In the similar plant at f96v, the lower part of the stem is straight, with 5 leaves per side. The top of the plant forms two more-or-less symmetrical curves. The curved “branch” on the left has 5 leaves on the “convex” side and 4 leaves on the concave side. The branch on the right has 6 leaves on the “convex” side and 5 leaves on the concave side.
A similar effect can be seen twice in f51v, where there is one more blue blossom/pod on the convex side of each of the two convex stems.
Again, f53r has 6 small flowers on the convex side of the curve and one less on the concave side.
f54v has an upright stem with 6 leaves per side. But the blue berries(?) appear on a curved part of the stem and there are 12 berries on the convex side and one less on the concave side.
It seems to me that, in most manuscripts, stems are either straight or S-shaped, i.e. the single curve U or C shapes in the VMS are not so frequent in other manuscripts. Yet I could find a couple of examples in other manuscripts:
Senna in Egerton 747 f95v has 11 leaves on the convex side and 10 on the concave side.
https://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/ILLUMINBig.ASP?size=big&IllID=10089
Herba Rafano in the Vermont Herbal (p.18) has 3 leaves on the convex side and 2 on the concave side.
http://cdi.uvm.edu/book/uvmcdi-55290#page/19/mode/1up
I apologize for being so verbose and I am afraid I have not been very clear: hopefully, looking at the images mentioned above will help.
About the reasons for all this, assuming that it is not just coincidence: My first impression is that illustrators tried to evenly use the space on the page: radial elements find more space on the convex side of a curve than on the concave side. E.g. leaves or fruits inside a concave curve would tend to overlap more than on the convex side, so illustrators tended to drop an item in that position. Or, looking at it from the opposite perspective, they felt some kind of “horror vacui” and added an item on the convex side in order to avoid too much white space.
This is just the first explanation that I could think of. I am not claiming that one-item-less-on-the-concave-side is a universal rule. I am sure that exceptions can be found, possibly also in the VMS. But I would consider the hypothesis that the asymmetry in the number of items is related with the asymmetry in the shape of the plant.
Finally, while I believe that the VMS herbal is about plants, there is an interesting parallel for the idea of allegorical plants in a herbal-like format: the symbolic plants in Herbal Floridus (we discussed this in the past, I am sure).
There only are 8 of them, presented on two pages, and the layout is very similar to that of the Occitan Herbal Firenze Palatino 586.
https://imgur.com/a/4XVOYcv
LikeLike
* Liber Floridus
LikeLike
I agree Marco, less space may be the reason for the missing leaf. It definitely explains why the leaf is missing *there*. Now on the other hand, we know the VM is not afraid of making leaves overlap in various ways – this already happens on f1v and many others. But instead of maintaining the paired arrangement and overlapping some leaves in the bend, it chose to omit a leaf instead. It could also have opted to draw the meeting point of the top pair lower and simply omitting the single leaf.
So I still find it remarkable that the option is chosen that disrupts the leaf arrangement, while two other solutions were available.
You are right about the berries as well, but there is a whole empty rectangle beneath the vine, so would space really have been an issue?
I also agree that with sometimes chaotic things like leaf counts, there are bound to be counter examples to any observation. I quickly checked a few plants, and the weirdest thing is happening on f24r. It seems to show two separate stems that in the bottom both slightly curve towards each other. If anything, we would expect fewer leaves in the middle, which is crowded and deals with both (admittedly small) curves. Instead though, each stem gets 11 leaves, and the extra leaf (without a partner) is always on the right, the missing leaf on the left. So this plant, at least in my opinion, would support the view that a leaf is omitted on purpose to reach the number 11.
Thanks for the liber floridus link, I had actually forgotten about this.
Since VViews’ post about mnemonic bibles, (https://voynichviews.wordpress.com/2021/02/03/mnemonic-bibles-fluids-and-voynich-q13m/) I’ve been thinking more along those lines: visual riddles meant to intellectually challenge those familiar with the relevant text (in this case the New Testament). It would be relatively easy for the VM text to encode a few bible verses, in case you’d want to check what is references. (This last bit is just a vague idea and not something I propose as a viable hypothesis to test right now).
LikeLike
Following up on the idea of [odaiin okal] = “Ju das” as I suggested above, I played around with some possible and reasonably logical letter/sound values for other units, and came up with the following as a possible reading of the 2nd line of text on f17v :
“HieeH teehr [p+i]jas d’z Ju das”
[Note: the major changes here from previous hypotheses I have made are “/r/” where I had “/l/” before, and “H” for the unit I had treated as a null before.]
This reading creates rather a Germanic appearance of the text, except for the middle word “pijas”, which however could well have been a Slavic borrowing in, for example, a German dialect such as Schlesisch or Wilmesaurisch in Silesia or southern Poland.
For example, I may tentatively suggest the following possible interpretation of this line in some late medieval Slavic-area Germanic dialect:
‘Hie teehr, pijas dy’z Judas!’
which I may roughly translate as:
‘Rot away here, you drunkard / wicked liar Judas!’
or roughly in modern German as:
‘Hier zehr, Säufer / bösartiger du Judas!’
In Polish, for example, the verb ‘drink’ can also mean ‘insinuate, allude maliciously’, and if this dual meaning were present here, either or both might suit a description of Judas.
I relate ‘teehr’ here to the modern German verb “zehren”, and Dutch speakers will note the cognate verb “teren”! I understand this verb has a meaning, now archaic, of ‘rot, decompose, rot away, waste away’. I interpret the form used here as the imperative (command) form of this verb.
LikeLike
Judas tree? Cercis siliquastrum
May be as simple as that
LikeLike
I have difficulty seeing any parallels between the VMS drawing and the beautiful Cercis siliquastrum (Judas tree), but I think the possible reference to the ‘camel through the eye of the needle’ and Judas’s choice of profit over loyalty are plausible and provocative. Also the fact that Judas is very frequently drawn in profile (or nearly in profile) at a time when profiles were generally avoided by most illustrators (they preferred 3/4 view) is worth consideration.
The VMS drawing somewhat resembles the plant they used to call Atriplex (hastate leaves, somewhat viney habit for some species), and a stinky smell for some species (camel smell?). The pieces don’t fit together in a naturalistic way (a single tendril doesn’t usually emerge from the top of the plant), but from a symbolic or mnemonic perspective, it seems to work. Also, when Koen mentioned the needle’s eye shape (at the base of the stem), the hairy lump roots reminded me of a camel train, the way one sees the humps rising up in a row. Maybe a bit of a stretch, but at least consistent with the general narrative.
LikeLike
I found some more faces in tendrils that I thought was another interesting example:
https://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~db/0010/bsb00103265/images/
This manuscript has an amazing number of faces hidden in the margins…I counted more than 20. They’re all in profile and are clearly meant to blend in and “hide” so you don’t notice them at first. Each face is painted in different colors to match the small leafy tendril that it blends into.
But what seems to be going on with f17 is different, as you’ve compellingly described. Multiple sections of the plant connect as a coherent framework that supports the specific representation of Judas. The hidden face is not purely decorative, like those marginal illustrations, it aligns more with the type of hidden face in Giotto’s painting, with an element of optical illusion and a layered depth of meaning. (Also the fact that apparently no one in the world noticed Giotto’s devil face until just a few years ago, should give us some encouragement that different ways of looking at Voynich imagery will bring new insight!)
I wonder if there were any medieval images of “christ as the true vine” that could have inspired the VM’s artist. There are some images of Jesus sitting in the center of a tree and the apostles sitting in the branches on each side. But from what I could find, these images are dated later than 15th century, and all 12 apostles are there. Other Christian medieval imagery incorporates grapevines in association with Jesus… the VM’s approach is clearly unique though, even if it did took inspiration from other popular imagery.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Those are interesting examples as well, Cary. They remind me a bit of the “Green Man” type, enigmatic leaf faces with pagan origins that were nonetheless frequent in churches as well. The
difference is that these faces are in profile, while the Green Man tends to face the viewer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Man
I’ve also been looking at imagery relating Christ to Vines/grapes/wine, but these are usually the standard types. I was especially interested to see any with apostles on branches, but as you say, these tend to be later. The most frequent manuscript illumination that comes closest appears to be the Jesse tree, which is not close enough to what we’re looking at.
There are notable Byzantine icons that do depict Christ as the vine, with twelve apostles on the branches. Apparently these were made in the early 15th century, by the most important Greek painter of the time, Angelos Akotantos. His workshop was on Crete, which was part of Venice. (Information found in this article: https://ejournals.epublishing.ekt.gr/index.php/deltion/article/viewFile/4151/3926.pdf )
LikeLike
Koen,
While I understand your searching for ‘words in the picture’, I think it is necessary to consider, constantly, the issue of stylistics.
If someone trained in the European Christian tradition wanted to hide items from that tradition in imagery, one expects they would do so using the conventions of European art – as indeed the sort of marginalia you show as the ‘eye of the needle’ does.
However, the stylistics for imagery in Beinecke MS 408 scarcely agree with the conventions of fifteenth century European Christian art, which opens the possiblity/probability that any ‘words in pictures’ here may well relate to some other cultural tradition.
Moreover, when the Christian world was replete with copies of standard Christian works, and marginalia itself shows how thoroughly familiar most people were in Europe with the content of Christian writings, it is difficult to understand how anyone could imagine it necessary to create a different style of drawing, and such detailed and complex drawings of plants, to represent words known – often by heart – to so many people. The ‘camel and needle’ picture is simply a prompt to memorised text, and does this using an overt and ‘realistic’ style of drawing precisely because it is just a prompt, much the way that some well known advertising image (e.g. skipping girl …) reminds one of the product (in that case, a brand of vinegar). But even so, not all images of a skipping girl would be meant as a memory-prompt for that thing.
You are arguing from assumptions which, in my opinion, you have not established on any firm historical, cultural or iconographic basis.
On the other hand, your hunt for the dissemination of the ‘lobster’ was an absolute first-rate study and imo a landmark in study of this manuscript.
Be not led astray by the bright star… to quote an old eastern Christian writer.
LikeLike