The Herbal section of the Voynich Manuscript, with its large plant drawings, is traditionally divided into two parts, which have gotten mixed up in a later rebinding. It was Capt. Prescott Currier who proposed this distinction, based on statistical properties of the text and the corresponding scribal hand. One scribe wrote in the A “language”, the other in B. Currier’s findings about two scribes in the Herbal section were recently confirmed by Lisa Fagin Davis.
When it comes to the images though, there is no obvious distinction between A and B folios. I have seen claims that plants from one section are more abstract or surreal than those from the other, but unfortunately such impressions are hard to measure. Still, observant researchers have spotted some differences in A vs B drawings. In a Voynich.ninja thread from 2016, forum member Lars Dietz (aka Oocephalus) noticed a difference in the way plant stems connect to their root:
I think I’ve found a feature that differs between A and B plants. Namely, in many plants, the stem is separated from the root by a horizontal line. This occurs in “grafted” plants, where the stem is placed on a much thicker root that appears to have been cut off (but not in all of them), but also in ones where the stem and the root have the same thickness. With one exception, this only appears in plants where the text is Currier A.
In the same thread, Sam G noticed another difference:
The most striking difference between the Herbal A and Herbal B illustrations is the use of red in the coloring, which is abundant in A (“thin red lines” in branches and stems, and red “berries”/”seeds” and flowers) but basically absent in B (possible exception being f55r, though this looks like the work of the postulated “heavy painter” who modified the manuscript at a later date).
In this post, I will first double check these intriguing differences, and attempt to represent them in a visually appealing way. Then I will add an additional observation, thickening the plot. Let’s start with red.
Red is very frequent in A, hardly present in B
In the following image, each square represents a Herbal folio on which red occurs. In some cases, it can be debated whether the color represents red or brown (there is no true red in the VM). Depending on your monitor, the two “reds” in the B-folios and some of the A-folio reds will look completely brown. Either way, the difference between A and B is significant.
Line between Stem and Root
I only learned about the supposed difference in the way the stems connect to their roots when I came across Lars Dietz’s old post recently. Basically we are looking at two types of connections: one where the bottom of the stem is “closed” by a line where it meets the root, and another where it is left open. Let’s call these “open” and “closed”. Both A and B have open stems, while only A closes some of its stems.
Below are all closed stems on Herbal (large plant) folios, all in Herbal A:
Lars noted only one exception in f54v, which would be a B-folio with a closed stem. However, according to respectively voynich.nu and Lisa Fagin Davis, this page is Currier A and scribe 1. He probably meant f57r, which is a B-folio with closed stem. About this folio, Lisa Fagin Davis notes a transition between scribe 1 (f57v, our A-language scribe who likes to close stems) and a “new” scribe 5 on f57r. It is interesting to see the “exception” take place precisely on this cooperative folio.
What does this mean? Many of these separator lines look like someone added them with a different pen, while others blend in seamlessly with the line work of the plant. Were all images drawn first, and did Scribe 1 decide to add some touches while writing his text? Are the entire plants drawn by different artists? Is there something about the plants themselves that causes the line in A folios?
Colour Annotations
While looking at the root lines, I started noticing something else: the (Latin) writing on a few of the plants, which we expect may be colour annotations, appeared a lot in A folios. Maybe exclusively? To check this, I consulted this page, where Rene Zandbergen lists a table with all extraneous writing in the MS. And indeed, if I am not mistaken all colour annotations (marked COL in the table) appear in Herbal A (scribe 1) folios. Now, A-folios are much more numerous than B-folios, and the colour annotations are relatively rare. Still, if my back-of-the-envelope calculation is correct, we should at least expect a handful of color annotations on B-folios if they were divided equally.
An especially intriguing case is that of f4r, where the word “rot”, which could be translated as the German for “red”, is written on the blank stem. At the same time, red is used in the leaves.
Several other color annotations also resemble “r”. So what is the relationship between red being exclusive to the A-part of the Herbal section, and the color annotations in this same part often asking for red? (If this is indeed the correct reading). And is this all connected to the same A-part adding details to stems?
Small Plants
Finally, let’s have a look at the small-plants section, which was entirely penned by Scribe 1 in Currier’s A-language. Unfortunately, proposed annotations in this section are rare and unclear, so we will have to focus on red and closed roots. If the same principles apply, we should expect red on some folios and closed roots in some cases.
Anyone even remotely familiar with the small-plants section will know that red can be found in its many vessels. Red in plant parts is not as common, though this might simply be because this section focuses on the roots, with hardly any flowers or fruits. Still, there are a few examples in the plants as well. In some of the vessels, red is used harmoneously with other colors.
The line separating stem and root (“closed stem”) is also frequent in this section. It appears in all the same situations as in the large plant drawings.
What does it mean?
I don’t know how to explain these observations about the Herbal section. Whatever happened to cause red, closed stems and annotations to appear in Herbal A and not in Herbal B, was “aware” of the distinction between these two types of folios. So either these three things happened before the subsections became shuffled, or they (or part of them) were done by someone who still knew the difference between the sections after they were shuffled. For this reason, I am inclined to look for an answer during or very close after the creation of the MS.
Apart from that though, I can think of too many different possible scenarios. Were the color annotations meant for the same person who applied the red paint? And were they only meant for red paint and perhaps some other colors that were missing? Was Herbal A handled by a more demanding person, who added details to the stems, made notes about colors and added red to the palette? Does Herbal B look like it is missing red and was it skipped because there were no color annotations? I cannot answers these questions now, but hopefully they will help in reconstructing how the MS was made.
Fun facts: Armed with the knowledge that red and closed stems only occur in Herbal A, you can correctly assign around 70% of Herbal A images based on the drawing alone! If you have a list of the bifolios and take into account the fact that the vast majority of bifolios are done in the same Currier language, you can now identify all Herbal A folios based on the images. So if you learn the two or three exceptions and know which pages form a bifolio together, you can separate Herbal A and B without even looking at the text.
(Koen, I hit a glitch when I tried to post this – not sure if the previous effort went through. Please delete if this is a duplicate comment)
Just in case it is of any interest to you or your readers – my ow analysis of the plant pictures (the description as ‘herbal’ is based on unproven presumptions) – shows that the majority are composed to a rational scheme, where some specific elements are intended literally (usually but not inevitably leaf-form, habit and the way leaves attach to the stem), while others are what can be described as visual ‘shorthand’, intended to convey information not just to present a superficial likeness.
The ‘sliced’ stems are of three types. Those with what I described as a ‘circumscription’ line indicate plants which are cultivated, as against ones found .. at that time.. only ‘in the wild’. The broader ‘sliced’ ones, those which show multiple stems arising from the base, indicate a rapidly regenerating plant. (The banana-family image is one of those).
A third type, which has a wider cut bole indicates a ‘timber’ plant, though the definition of a ‘tree’ isn’t that used in modern botany. It means a plant whose ‘wood’ is useful.
The sort of line which demarks a white stem from a reddish-brown root indicates that the useful material from that plant is gained by removing the outer skin or bark.
I could give examples of these different graphic conventions with identification of the plants, but since I did all that for about forty folios some time ago, but perhaps the easier way is to re-publish the original studies?
LikeLike
Diane, what the motifs mean is an interesting question, but it is really beside the point in this post, and would distract from the question at hand: we separate A and B by looking at the text, but why does A use red while B does not? And why does A “close” stems *of all kinds* while B leaves all stems open? Why does A leave notes in the plants, while B does not?
My question is not about imagery at all, but about the relation between scribe, text, image and color.
LikeLike
Koen,
I took it as a comment on the patterns and distribution of meaning, and possible correlation between those in the in the two (presumably parallel) texts i.e. the pictorial and the written.
Sorry if the comment seemed off the point.
LikeLike
Yes, I’m pretty sure I meant f57r back then, since I mentioned it’s on a bifolio containing also a text-only page. Interesting that Lisa Fagin Davis also ascribes it to another scribe!
One addition: as far as I remember, if there is an abrupt transition in thickness between the stem and the root, the stem is always closed in Herbal A (which is not the case in plants where stem and root have the same thickness), but never in Herbal B. So plants with this feature can be reliably classified as A or B based on the drawing alone. This is not the case for the small-plants section, where both open and closed stems exist in plants with such an abrupt transition, sometimes on the same page (look at the bottom row of f88r).
LikeLiked by 2 people
Interesting. I had also noticed that Herbal A always closes stems that stand on those infamous “flat topped” roots, but had not yet spotted the difference with the small plants. This makes things even more complicated.
Would you like me to add your real name in the post?
LikeLike
Thanks to Koen, Lars and Sam for this interesting research! It’s always exciting to see new patterns being discovered in the VMS. Looking for image patterns as has been done for the text is a very original approach; finding cross-patterns between language and illustrations is an even greater achievement.
About Lars’ comment: if the Small-Plants are somehow intermediate between Herbal A and Herbal B, illustrations seem to parallel “language”. The language of the Pharma/Small-Plants section is intermediate between that of Herbal A and that of Herbal B.
See Rene’s graphs at the bottom of this page:
http://www.voynich.nu/extra/curabcd.html
and those I posted here:
https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-3192-post-37291.html#pid37291
It would also be interesting to see if f87, f90 and f96 are closer to B illustrations than other Herbal-A pages. From my plots, it seems they are, in terms of language.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tanks, Marco!
Leaving the matter of relatively rare color annotations aside, to me it looks like the folios you mention behave completely A-like. There is red, and part of the stems are closed (I count 4, though there are a few weird cases with complex stem-root structures). Moreover, the red is applied in the ways typical for Herbal A: flower hearts (f87v) and berries (f96v).
LikeLiked by 1 person
No problem with adding my real name.
I agree that there’s nothing particularly “B-like” about the plants on the folios mentioned by Marco, although that’s difficult to define (in plants without flat-topped roots, I’m not aware of any uniquely B characters). Apparently that’s also true about the handwriting, which is Scribe 1 according to Davis, the same as most other A plants.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What keeps bothering me is that *everything* specific to A can still be seen as the “neutral” B-state to which something has been added. Even though I admit that in many cases, the closed stem is integrated seamlessly into the drawing.
LikeLike
Additional fun fact: as I mentioned, if you give the herbal section as a stack of bifolios to an inexperienced person who doesn’t know about the VM, he will be able to sort them in A and B piles by just looking at the images. You just need to tell him three things:
– Red means the bifolio is A.
– The thick brown-reds of f40v and f55r do not count.
– Any closed stem means the bifolio is A.
Nearly 30 bifolios can be sorted this way. The only one where red cannot be used is f25-f32. It can still be sorted reliably thanks to a clearly closed stem on f32v.
LikeLike
The simplest explanation I can think of is that the makers drew all the Biblical imagery in Herbal-A (that obviously needs red as blood needs to be mentioned) and marked it with closed stem to use them as mnemonics for recollection of verses for teaching purposes or something similar. The text maybe sone heavily truncated shorthand to make them remember the verses with a few words or something. The rest maybe containing a different story or just filler images and text to make it seem to be a book for a different purpose. Just as good as any other guess though
Aren’t all the Arma Christy and Bible imagery you’ve analysed coming from Herbal-A folios?
LikeLiked by 2 people
While writing this post, I was really focused on the observations and not thinking much about what it meant. While I think what you say is true (red almost exclusively refers to the blood of Christ in the Herbal section), I do think there may have been practical reasons why it was not applied in B.
Here are the main Biblical proposals for B-folios:
– f33r: I recall various proposals about the faces in the roots, but this can go so many ways and was never assigned with any certainty. I would not count this one for now.
– f34v: this was thought to represent Judas’ coins, arranged in the shape of the Menorah. Something very strange is going on with the colors here, especially the shades of the “coins” on the left. The term “blood money” actually comes from the Bible, and it refers to Judas’ coins. When Judas is overcome with regret and wishes to return the money, “The chief priests picked up the coins and said, “It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.” With one of the coins especially, it looks like someone used their “best brown” to look for a certain color.
– f40v: I am almost certain that this one relates to Jesus, but in a different way than what I wrote initially. Coincidentally, this is one of the two exceptions of red in Herbal B.
– f50r: This is the one where I would expect red, but nothing red-like is visible. The typical lines/streaks are visible in the lower part of the flower, running towards the stem, but they are in normal ink.
– f50v: I would again expect red streaks here. If you zoom in on the stem beneath the flowers though, you see that they used their “best brown” again.
Taking everything into account, I’d say it’s a combination of the most “bloody” folios being concentrated in A, but also unavailability of something that looks red for B.
LikeLike
Koen, I wonder if you could direct me to whoever first set out the idea of the manuscript’s containing ‘A’ and ‘B’ herbals? I’d like to read that research and understand how he or she assigned the folios to just one or the other category. Everyone speaks about Currier’s ‘A’ and ‘B’ languages, but this other idea seems to have lost the name of its originator.
LikeLike
Ah, now I see where our misunderstanding originates. Herbal A and Herbal B are the conventional terms for “large plant folios in Currier A” and “large plant folios in currier B”. It’s all about the language.
We know there are two kinds of bifolios, those with only “language” A and scribe 1 and those with only language B and scribe 2. The strange thing was that nothing in the images betrayed whether a folio belonged to the A or B language, scribe 1 or 2.
What this post does is show that there are differences after all. The color red is only used along language A / scribe 1. These same A folios are also the only ones who “close” the stem. This has nothing to do with flat tops or not, it’s just the tiny little line between the stem and the root, independent of the root type.
So then we have two options: assume that the tiny line “closing” the stem is meaningful, or assume it is a stylistic choice. If we assume the former, this would imply that the little line is the most important part of the plant images, since it dictates the separation of the text types. Given the fact that two different people are known to have added the text to each subsection respectively, the latter option seems much more likely: whether the stem is closed at the bottom or not (again, irrespective of stem or root type) is a stylistic preference.
Therefore, discussing meaning in this context is irrelevant. It is about whether scribe 1 and 2 also had a hand in the images. About what happened so that this little line at the bottom and the color red are the only things that reliably help us to tell both scribes’ bifolios apart.
LikeLike
Thanks Koen, but your reply leaves me still a little confused. It was my understanding that – while no-one disputes Currier’s analysis – paleographers and specialists in manuscript studies have identified far more scribes than two, just for the written part of this manuscript, not counting the post-production additions such as month-names and bits of marginalia. And when it comes to the drawings, the situation is still more complex, because there are surely many more than two ‘scribes’ at work there. I’d like to say about the plant pictures that they were copying from just two exemplars, but that wouldn’t be true to the evidence either. That’s why I wanted to see who had argued the case for it. I thought perhaps their research had been either better informed, or gone into more depth so that I could quote them as authority.
But basically, we can agree that among the folios which are inscribed with Currier A as their written text, are the subset of larger plant-pictures which employ a wider palette, notably another type of ‘red’ than the ordinary red-brown, and these also appear to have a wider graphic vocabulary.
Does that seem a fair position to you?
LikeLike
With the two scribes I was only talking about the large plants. This is uniquely about this section. Two subsections traditionally based on language alone, one scribe each.
Wider palette is a bit misleading since it is really only the red. I spent far too much time sampling all the other colors, hoping to find something, but there is only the red.
Visual vocabulary is again misleading, since it is only this tiny line! Nothing else, as far as we know. This tiny line divides plants by scribe, while other features like flat topped roots are found with both scribes. So both subsections have the same broad vocabulary. Only this small line allows us to tell which scribe penned the *text*, a unique but exciting feature.
Lisa Fagin Davis herself commented on the forum: “The attachment of roots to stem is just the kind of detail that could be a stylistic feature of a particular artist”
https://voynich.ninja/thread-3106-post-44991.html#pid44991
LikeLike
Koen – what do you mean when you say you ‘sampled all the other colours’? Are you speaking literally – if so, what tests did you run on the pigments and what were the results? If you didn’t actually sample the pigments, I suppose that might sound sarcastic, but the fact is I’ve been so occupied with other work for the past fourteen months, I’ve quite ignored developments in this study.
No, it’s not ‘just those tiny lines’ but part of a systematic visual vocabulary or – if you prefer – system of graphic encoding and my saying so is nether presumption nor speculation but a conclusion reached after having done the necessary analysis and historical enquiry. In this case, Dr. Fagan Davis is speculating and doiing so from a theory that the content itself, and not only production of MS 408 will obey European models. She is speculating, as she makes clear, and I have far too much respect for her to imagine she would say anything more strongly without having found time and energy to research the matter in depth.
Earlier you say we must ‘assume’ one thing or ‘assume’ the other. I don’t see why one need choose between two unknowns so long as there is the option to enquire, and the opportunity to spend the necessary time to determine which, if either, is false and which is true. The cat is really alive, or really dead regardless of when you remove the lid. Only a preference to remain in ignorance makes it easier to leave the lid on.
I know that will sound sharp, but I also know that when you do get down to researching the object, you do excellent work – as you’ve done in the past when speaking about historical linguistics, or your investigation of where the ‘lobster’ turns up after c.1420.
LikeLike
You still completely misunderstand. I’m afraid there is not much more I can do to explain this.
LikeLike
Koen – fair enough.
Also – have you a link to that talk by Fagin Davis that you mentioned?
D.
LikeLike