While going through old voynich.net posts (courtesy of Rich SantaColoma, thanks!) in my hunt for previous insights into how the zodiac nymphs were ordered, I found an unexpected ally: on the old mailing list in Jan 2003, a now all-too-familiar face asserted that the nymphs were ordered inner ring first and clockwise, starting from 10 o’clock. Though by February 2003, that same person then got tangled up in Rene Zandbergen’s George of Trebizond theory, and lost focus, which was a shame.
That person was, of course, *checks notes* a certain Mr. Nick Pelling. *sigh*
Why did I think inner ring first? I can’t reconstruct my argument from back then, but I think it was something to do with ink strength on some pages (when going from inner to outer). But even so, I’m now happy to instead rely on Stefano Guidoni’s far stronger argument: Stefano pointed out that the barrels finish in the inner ring of Taurus II, which suggests that the barrels were abandoned halfway through.
As far as clockwise or anticlockwise, I’m reasonably comfortable with the fading ink on the outer nymph ring of Taurus I as evidence for clockwise:
So, if what we’re looking at is actually a saints calendar, and we can now number the days, and we can make a tolerably good guess at which month each one represents (and because of the 29 stars in Pisces, I’m much more minded to read that as February, rather than the March that has been inelegantly added), then we can try to work back to the month and a day linked to each zodiac nymph.
But… most of the nymphs look basically identical (or perhaps rather our modern understanding of saints is not subtle enough to help us tell them apart). So I thought it would be good to look at some nymphs who visually stand out from the crowd, and see if there might be anything interesting about their reconstructed date…
Beardy man, 22nd February
This appears on the Pisces page in the outer ring, on the bottom right. I believe it’s the only bearded zodiac nymph, but please feel free to tell me if I’ve missed any others.
22nd February is the Feast of Cathedra Petri (the Seat or Throne of St Peter), one of the oldest feasts in the Catholic Church. Because St Peter was considered to be the first Bishop of Rome, his seat (by synecdoche) “signifies the episcopal office of the Pope”. Inevitably, there’s a Wikipedia page on it.
Is this beardy guy meant to somehow be St Peter? Maybe, maybe not: but that’s as far as I’ve got.
Stray barrel nymph, 7th August
On the Virgo-roundel zodiac page, there’s a single nymph standing in a stray half barrel:
This looks vaguely to me like a medieval half-barrel bath tub:
Incidentally, the last image is Melusine having a wash, from a JSTOR daily post. But do I have the faintest idea why there’s a half-barrel bathtub associated with this day? I most certainly do not, sorry.
As to the date (7th August): what I quickly found is that many saints are associated with each day (that is, there seems to be a huge oversupply of saints relative to days of the year).
However, if you think that Milan might be connected to the Voynich Manuscript in some way, then you might be interested to know that 7th August was the day linked with St Faustus, a Roman soldier martyred in Milan in ~190. To be fair, there’s almost nothing known about him historically, so the Church quietly dropped him from the Roman Martyrology list in 2001.
Grassy nymph, 26th May
The unusual thing about the nymph at the top left of the Gemini page is that she appears barefoot, and apparently standing on some grass. So… what might that all be about?
What I quickly found out was that 26th May is the day of Madonna of Caravaggio. The story (there’s a better page in Italian here) is that on 5pm on 26th May 1432, an abused peasant wife Giannetta de’ Vacchi was collecting grass for her animals in Mazzolengo meadow near Caravaggio (near Cremona in Bergamo, 20 miles east of Milan), when the Madonna suddenly appear to her in a bright light. Mary told her that She was displeased about her husband’s drinking (and that She would stop that): and also that Giannetta should convince Milan and Venice to halt their war. The Madonna then touched the ground with Her foot, and a spring appeared.
Despite initial disbelief from the people, the spring (and Mary’s footprint) quickly started to attract visitors and pilgrims. Giannetta ended up meeting both Filippo Maria Visconti (the Duke of Milan) and Francesco Foscari (the Doge of the Serenissima); and in 1433 the war stopped. Duke Filippo Maria Visconti wanted a church built near the spring (this was consecrated on 20th December 1451, supported by the Sforzas). And in 1475 this modest church was replaced by a Sanctuary, which still stands. Even today, you can go down into an undercroft beneath the Sanctuary and draw water from that spring.
Might the grassy nymph be signifying the Madonna of Caravaggio? Nothing’s for sure (yet), but I think it’s a strong possibility, particularly if the Voynich Manuscript was made near Milan from 1432 onwards.
Nick,
I think it’s necessary to distinguish the scribe’s order from any order inherent in the material being copied.
If you took a note of that 2003 mention of George of Trebizond, I’d be glad to have it. That was about 5 years before I first encountered the Voynich manuscript and if Zandbergen had contributed some Trebizond-related research between 2003 and 2012, I’d like to read and credit his work if my own later repeated some point he had previously made.
also
“The date of vernal equinox and [separately] the number of days in February are political decisions when choosing to use the Gregorian calendar.” – NASA
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelE/ar5plots/srvernal html
Interesting Nick! What do you think about the nymph on the first May page directly above the bull? Looks like Roman architecture I guess, Roman arches. I suck at the zodiac so I always have to look up what they’re supposed to be.
If it’s May 11 that’s the day in 330 that Constantine called Byzantium ‘New Rome’ and it became the Eastern Roman Empire capital.
“This looks vaguely to me like a medieval half-barrel bath tub”
With regard to the rough representation of the figures in VMS, I would rather draw a comparison with the “Liber Trotula” ( folios 6 V, 10 V, 30 V ).
https://zoeken.erfgoedbrugge.be/detail.php?nav_id=10-1&id=940076465&cmvolgnummer=14&bronpaginaid=940076746&Algemeen=liber+trotula
re tubs and tubes
tub (n.)
“open wooden vessel made of staves,” late 14c., from Middle Low German, Middle Dutch, or Middle Flemish tubbe, of uncertain origin. Related to Old High German zubar “vessel with two handles, wine vessel,” German Zuber. Considered to be unrelated to Latin tubus (see tube (n.)); one theory connects it to the root of two based on the number of handles. Also 17c. slang for “pulpit;” hence tub-thumper (1660s) “speaker or preacher who thumps the pulpit for emphasis.”
cf
vessel (n.)
c. 1300, “container,” from Old French vessel “container, receptacle, barrel; ship” (12c., Modern French vaisseau) from Late Latin vascellum “small vase or urn,” also “a ship,” alteration of Latin vasculum, diminutive of vas “vessel.” Sense of “ship, boat” is found in English from early 14c. “The association between hollow utensils and boats appears in all languages” [Weekley]. Meaning “canal or duct of the body” (especially for carrying blood) is attested from late 14c.
both from Online Etymology Dictionary
The male nymph – not exactly how a devout Christian in the 15th century would see St. Peter, crooked eyes, rash on the face, frayed beard – looks more like a mockery of a poor wretch who is a false believer…
Darius: re St. Peter as a male nymph and ‘oxymoron’ too apparently, though such could pass muster as being quite acceptable, figurativly speaking, by Nick Pelling’s reckoning, with most punters falling into line with him.
Darius – perhaps he’s hearing a cock crow? [grin emoticon]
1.
Norman Douglass, writing in ‘Old Calabria’, notes that medieval saints were localized– each town had its own. He also notes that new replaced the old every couple of centuries, as historical memory began to fade. It’s worth looking at saints in northern Italy 1200 to 1450, assuming the Voynich Manuscript was produced in that locale.
2.
We’ve never seen the Virgin Mary naked before. Some female saints appear naked in manuscript illuminations, but (in our very limited experience) only in the act of martyrdom. Counterexamples may shed some light on the zodiac pages.
John S.: ‘Oxymoron’ in the sense that ugly saints from a heretical church may have been included in a fine Christian calendar, can be. However, I believe that the labels are not names, but rather wild insults and ridicule.
@Nick
You write “Why did I think inner ring first? I can’t reconstruct my argument from back then, but I think it was something to do with ink strength on some pages (when going from inner to outer).”
I can certainly understand your theory.
Go to the Virgo and Cancer page.
Look at the big rings. They overlap. Wouldn’t someone make sure the circles don’t overlap if they have enough room on the right to move out of the way so that doesn’t happen? At the same time, he had to make the ring of the zodiac sign Cancer smaller so that the nymphs still have enough space.
In this position, the large circle was certainly drawn first.
It is perhaps impossible to say whether this was the case everywhere, just as it is impossible to say in which order the nymphs were drawn.
That would have to be analysed more closely.
I think you were right in this position.
Re: St Peter (if it’s supposed to be him) and his appearance.
Are ANY of the VMS’s illustrations flattering of anyone?
It’s more like the illustrator’s style than being a deliberate malignment I would think.
I don’t think the appearance of St Peter is saying anything, it’s more the illustrator’s style than anything. Do any of the vms illustrations flatter anyone?
“not exactly how a devout Christian in the 15th century ”
I don’t see that anyone knows what the beliefs of the author were and I would be suspicious that a devout Christian would be writing what might be a book about potions and zodiac
James M.: “Do any of the vms illustrations flatter anyone?” As far as the “nymphes” are concerned, I would say not – and that has to be something to think about, because there is nothing accidental in depictions of the Middle Ages. There is a nice book about what you can see in religious images (including from later eras) that the modern, overwhelmed eye can no longer see. I just don’t know if the translation into English is good – Navid Kermani, Ungläubiges Staunen: Über das Christentum – Wonder Beyond Belief: On Christianity
Once again to the ring.
Sometimes it is necessary to look at the same thing a few times to find a solution.
Let’s look at the fish again.
Let’s look at the inner nymph ring. The ring has been moved outwards. You can clearly see the outline of the circle. He had to move it because he already had a decoration ring in the inner circle, plus the text ring.
If you look at the ram next to it, the circle for the ram is significantly smaller than that of the fish. He didn’t make the same mistake twice.
Now he has already made a mistake in the height of the fish, which is why the barrels or pipes are horizontal and not vertical. It has the same meaning as the standing barrels, he just had no more room in the height. That’s why the barrels are also standing in the ram and not lying down. Not the same mistake. Exactly the same as no decorative ring, simply no room.
Ergo: The inner rings came first. You were right. I see it the same way.
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
Which is also a stupid coincidence.
In the fish, 12 o’clock, top nymph, male.
Text : o89. ( i, t, us = Itus) actually in this context (i, d, us=Idus).
Idus comes from Iden and stands for mid-month.
See link:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iden_(Kalender)
I love coincidences.
If Pisces is February, *where* in March?
“If Pisces is February, *where* in March?”
Well, March is in the fish. At least one half.
The question must be, where was what calculated when and how?
In Zurich, for example, the new year began on 25 December with the birth of Christ.
The 30-day count alone shifts the signs of the zodiac.
Others had 1 January as the new year. And the counting.
Others the 1st of March, hence the fish at the end of the year in the calendar.
Today everything is organised.
So Easter is in the lunar calendar and shifts every year, but Christmas is always on 25 December.
I’ve been investigating this for a long time, but I’m just as clever as I was at the beginning.
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
And added to all that was the increasing discrepancy caused by the Julian calendar, historically noted at least as early as Roger Bacon. There were several significant attempts to make corrections in the western calendar, but they failed for various reasons.
The question here is whether the saints’ days of the February liturgical calendar can be connected with the nymphs of VMS Pisces. That’s above my pay grade. I was thinking that advancing Pisces would leave a gap, and something would be needed to fill that gap. What could it be? Ostensibly I suppose, it would have to be Aries. The VMs would have to be based on a system where all the zodiac medallions were advanced a month forward. Then, later, the medallions were labelled according to the “standard” system. Or is there a different explanation?
Does the VMs actually operate with an intentional deconstruction of tradition?
It’s easier to see the Fieschi popes on VMs White Aries.
Nick. The bearded nymph is John II. from Rožmberk. As it is also written in the text.
“As it is also written in the text.” How so?
Nick Pelling. Look at that barrel. There are rings on it. Those are the letters = O. The ones in the middle are important. Double letter O. O+o.
The numerical value of the letter O = 7. O+o = 14.
14 + 14 + 14 = 42.
John II from Rožmberk lived to be 42 years old.
Image on that side. It has nothing to do with the calendar. Eliška from Rožmberk writes there that her father lived for 42 years.
James M.,
“I don’t see that anyone knows what the beliefs of the author were and I would be suspicious that a devout Christian would be writing what might be a book about potions and zodiac.”
Everyone was a Catholic and in the Latin west, religion was much like electricity in a modern city. It was a part of daily life. Just as a letter would be dated by reference to the saint’s day rather than the day-number and month regardless of whether a person cared much about religion, so too anyone involved in the business of medicine would know the zodiac and the ‘zodiac man’ and physicians would, like seamen or herb-gatherers “know their moons”. Connection between what we’d call astrological calculations was thus closely connected to the prescription of medicines – or what you’d call ‘potions’. These weren’t arcane matters, but matters of everyday in medieval western Europe. The question is, though, whether they are among the things these drawings were designed to convey. And I think the point of vernal equinox occurred at a point in the constellation of Pisces from the early centuries AD and throughout the medieval period – so that could be another reason the Voynich sequence begins with that month and emblem, not with Aries.
News to me, but according to John Gibney, A Short History of Ireland, 1500-2000
the Irish didn’t shift to the Gregorian calendar until 1752. Until then, March 25th remained New Year’s Day. (p.90)
I was also surprised to learn that a number of Irish went to Belgium during the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.
Gibney doesn’t elaborate but a wiki article refers to The Irish College of St. Anthony [of Padua], established in Leuven (Eng. Louvain) in 1607 by two Irish clerics, one a Franciscan. Another college was established in Louvain in 1622 and numerous books in the Irish language and -script were published in in the city.
Irish Franciscans from Louvain would also established an Irish college in Prague, in 1629.
This isn’t an ‘Irish Voynichese’ theory, but I’ve always been puzzled by the little dragon on f.25v being a type known from older Ireland and of course the Irish Franciscan, Hugh the Illuminator -companion of Symon Semeonis who travelled to Jerusalem via Italy and Egypt 1323-1324 AD.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Anthony%27s_College,_Leuven
and
Agustí Justicia Lara, (2020) ‘The Corpus Islamolatinum as Auctoritas in the Polemical Discourse of Symon Semeonis’. pp.41-54 in *Cándida Ferrero Hernández and Linda G. Jones (eds.), Propaganda and (un)covered identities in treatises and sermons: Christians, Jews, and Muslims in the premodern Mediterranean* [UAB Documents 118] Paper can be accessed at Researchgate.
Hey Nick, I have spent four weeks preparing (read: doing nothing) and I am now ready for your next post in this series, so you don’t have to postpone it any longer, you can go ahead and make it now!
Chris: alas, a sudden sequence of unforeseen real-world issues pushed my next post down the triage list. But just in case you find yourself in the mood for a spoiler, my plan is to revisit the three crowned nymphs (whom I posted about a few times before). Which, given that a Twitter commenter was recently able to guess which pizza I ate for dinner, was undoubtedly hugely predictable. Hopefully I’ll return to this while you’re still on the edge of your seat. 😉
In the Swiss e-codices listings, there are about 60 examples of liturgical calendars in 14th and 15th century texts. Among these I found only six where the calendar is combined with a zodiac. In all six February is associated with Pisces.
O.o.t.B
Which implies…?
No implications intended, just adding some historical data. In the paragraph under the first image, Nick suggests that VMs Pisces should be interpreted as February, which is what the six examples support. This is at odds with the VMs which has Pisces labelled as March. This creates a clear discrepancy. The VMs labels for monthly medallions of course are believed to be later additions, but what does that mean?
If Pisces is February, what’s up with February? The event I noticed in the calendar is Feb. 2 listed as “Purificatio Sancte Marie” or “Purificatio beate virginis” etc., which refers to the ritual purification of Mary 40 days after the birth of Jesus. Right off the bat, a subtle reference to the Virgin Mary, which adds to a growing set of potential Mariological interpretations in the VMs. The modern interpretation of Candlemas has shifted in focus somewhat.
O.o.t.B,
I think the problem lies in the limits which you took for data-collection.
The model employed in the series of central emblems in the calendar (and thanks for accepting that these are later additions to the diagrams) simply doesn’t suggest focus on astrological assignments, but assignments of month-to-emblem used for ‘labours of the months’ schemes, and those – we know – could differ between more northerly and more southerly latitudes, the northern agricultural year being shorter.
Not only is there evidence for the same month-to-emblem assignments as are used in the Voynich calendar, but those examples also explain the sometimes curious form taken by one or other of the Voynich emblems.
In addition, if we turn to another possibility, viz. that the calendar is not focused on astrology but simple astronomy, the fact is that from the 1stC AD onwards, the point of Vernal equinox – the year’s beginning – occurs against the constellation of Pisces and in the month of March – as against the more variable date produced for Easter Sunday – the beginning of the western Christian church’s liturgical year.
Since there is objective support from Historical, technical and iconographic evidence for the Voynich calendar’s month-to-emblem assignments – and the same evidence explains some of the curious forms for those emblems (such as the crocodile for November), I do not see any good purpose can be served by meddling with the primary evidence – and especially not if the only reason for doing so is to erase or eliminate its objection to one of another of the theoretical-fictional storylines of which there are no so many.
What is ‘Voynich studies’ – study of a medieval manuscript, or of some theoretical tale?
Out*of*the*Blue
(this is a second attempt to reply. Not sure what happened with the first.).
I should think that your results reflect your choice and range of data-collection.
The calendar’s correspondences between month-and-emblem are attested elsewhere, and in Europe. They aren’t so much those of astrology, but of the agricultural year’s ‘labours and months’ series, where assignment of month-to-emblem differed between northern and southern latitudes – the agricultural year being shorter in the north. I’ve shown a number of close comparisons, close not only in using the same month-to-emblem as the Voynich calendar, but explaining the less common ‘month-emblems’ which are used in the Vms.
In addition, if the calendar were more interested in astronomy than in astrology or the Latin religious year, it would be entirely reasonable to start the year in March, and with the sign of the Fishes constellation, because that’s when, and where the vernal equinox occurred from the 1stC AD onwards.
I think it’s better to explain the primary evidence than distort it for the sake of some theoretical narrative. There’s no good reason to erase or ignore the present order of months, and month-to-emblem assignment in the calendar. Better, surely, to accept that this evidence in the primary document stands against a northern-European theory, as does so much else. I’m no advocate of the policy that what a theory can’t absorb must be eliminated.
For kids. And once again for scientists.
Folio 70v. Fish.
In the text Eliška from Rožmberk writes this: R.I.P. two. (Rip 2).
Meaning: Rest in Pace 2.
The text reads: My father Jan II died. from Rožmberk.
RIP = phonetically = R.Y.B. (fish is pronounced in Czech = R.Y.B.).
RIP 2 means Jan 2 died.
The Folio is not astrology, astronomy, or the zodiac.
Nick, did Rich SantaColoma send you the archives or are they available somewhere? I have the downlands from Rich’s site but only up to 2001. I couldn’t figure out how to get the later ones. In any case, the site seems to be down at the moment…
Diane,
Thanks for taking the time to post twice. Much of what you’ve said is certainly valid. The religious influence of liturgical calendars is only one aspect of the VMs situation, but that is the side being considered.
I am more of a reader, rather than a serious investigator here. So, when it is proposed that the monthly name labels were added some time after the original drawings, I just accept that as a strong probability.
Looking at the February calendars, the first thing they all say is “dies xxviii”. Much less common is a secondary addition “luna xxix”. So, it appears that the number ’29’ is uniquely associated with February, and this may be reflected in the VMs illustration of Pisces by the presence of the 29 nymphs (as has been suggested).
In the VMs Pisces illustration, the medallion and the nymphs are parts of the original illustration, with the monthly label as a subsequent addition. The relationship of the medallion and the number of nymphs is part of the primary evidence. The relationship of the month and the label, however, since the label comes from a later, secondary source, is not primary evidence. It seems plausible to me that the original drawings may have been first made by someone operating under a liturgical influence and the labels were subsequently added by someone else operating under an astronomical or agrarian influence, with the end result showing the influences from both perspectives.
O.o.t.B
We do not know what other dialect or language was the one spoken by any of the Voynich scribes or draughtsmen, the roles presently believed taken by the same persons. Since we have evidence from c.1400 of a closely-similar orthography for the month-names, and from France, with evidence from southern France as early as c.1350 of the same assignments of month-to-emblem, and that part of southern France one where (as in parts of northern Italy and among Sicilian Jews), varieties of Occitan were spoken, and the most-often given opinion on the month-names is that they are a southern-European Occitan or Occitan-influenced dialect (such as Judeo Catalan).. one may – must – accept that month-names have been over-written on the emblems, but there’s no reason I can see for suggesting they were written very much later or not written (for example) by the person who first commissioned the work. We don’t know, but the balance of evidence is that what we have is what was meant to be here – that the addition of the month-names (whenever it was done) is a clarification of the work’s intention. I cannot see that a chain of speculations or dedication to some theory justifies erasing or otherwise meddling with the primary evidence.
(By the way, ‘primary evidence’ means the document under study; by ‘secondary evidence’ we mean e.g. modern scholarly commentaries and ‘tertiary’ is like a yellow traffic light… proceed with caution. It can describe anything from an entry in a reputable encyclopaedia to an online ‘ad’ meant to attract tourism.
I haven’t checked whether the month-names’ ink was among samples considered by McCrone… have you? That might provide something more solid for your idea that the month-names were added much later.
@Diane
You have to pay attention once. Take Pisces, Aries and Taurus as an example. Here the month names seem darker than the rest of the text. Now go to November Dragon and Sagittarius.
Here the text is already so thin and hard to see. However, some words have been entered in new, dark ink. This is exactly how touch-ups were drawn on the nymphs. Hair, chest etc. However, I no longer see any significant difference between the colour of the new words and the names of the months.
Now one could assume that the names of the months were entered everywhere a little later with the new ink.
Not much later, but still later, but with the same ink as the Dragon and Sagittarius.
Diane,
From the basic assumption that there was a two-step process, that all else was done first and the labels were added later, it is necessary to imaginatively remove the labels in order to see the illustration in its original state. As such, it is more difficult to determine the artist’s intent.
I am not promoting any “added much later” scenario. What is meant by ‘later’? Is it years or decades? Generally, it was assumed that this was a different person. So, given a different person at a different time, certainly there is possibility for a difference of interpretation between the original artist and the person who wrote in the labels. We can see the perspective of the person who wrote the labels, but for the original artist, the choice of perspective seems to be less clear.
Peter – let us not confuse two issues.
One issue is whether the month-names are an addition made later – perhaps only a day later.. but later.. than the ‘Voyinchese’ text was inscribed.
The other issue is whether the emblems used, and the months to which the inscriptions assign them is correct (or more exactly – is as the original intended).
It is not the point whether the month-names and emblems were added at some time later than the diagrams as such were *first* created. What matters is whether there is sufficient reason – or indeed anything one could call a reasoned argument – permitting the virtual erasure/alteration of any part of the primary evidence.
Consider the balance of evidence:
Emblems used and months to which they are assigned – since it was my own research which first argued that the emblems were added to the diagrams only when our present manuscript was made, and had been adopted from earlier Latin exemplars, with the ‘Archer’ displaying the latest item – I believe no-one is in a better position to address that aspect of the question.
I might say, again, that it is an ongoing nuisance in Voynich studies that some few dedicated theorists (NIck not among them) have a habit of picking up others’ research-conclusions, circulating them as bald statements ‘of fact’ without giving the slightest clue about where their ideas have come from or what questions had been addressed by the original research – let alone what sources and evidence were adduced or what argument led to that conclusion.
In favour of accepting the primary evidence as-is, we have – in this case – that focal period, focal region proved consistent – these being regions linked by mutual connection to what used to be called the ‘Norman’ sphere, from England through modern day France down to as far as Sicily – ‘Southern Europe’.
Closely similar orthography for the month-names, from c.1400. Both Nick Pelling and Don Hoffman noticed the same examples independently and – importantly – on astronomical instruments, made in Islamicate style for Latin users and both attributed to manufacture in France.
The emblems too – those have been shown to have antecedents in works made before the Roman Empire adopted Christianity, but thereafter (once more) found in the southern part of Europe where examples are found with the same assignment of month-to-emblem seen in the Voynich calendar.
I’m not going to speak about the month-names’ dialect except to say the only persons since the 1930s who didn’t identify the dialect/language as one used in southern Europe have been individuals determined on a Germanic-Swiss-middle European variation of Wilfrid’s ‘all-western-Christian-origin’ theory.
But, again concerning the calendar’s emblems (including first instances of the fully-human, striding figure for ‘Arcitenens’) are attested before 1400 in lands now part of France, including use of the Egyptian ‘crocodile’ emblem for November – as month of the dead .
Again, it was my own research that brought to the notice of Voynich studies the fact that the *only* place we find crossbowmen called ‘Saggitario’ before 1440 is in France, or more exactly in Calais, which was at that time part of England’s territories.
One of the sites from which I too an example of the same figure-to-month was the same site whose establishment charter Reeds cited as comparison for the Voynich gallows letters.
McCrone did not say the month-names’ ink is very much later than any other, but no sample was taken from the month-names. In my opinion, the very rapid deterioration of the month-names’ hand is due to extreme stress (including illness) or to movement. I incline to the former as more likely.
There is no objection from orthography, iconography, linguistics or independent analysis of the inks and pigments to accepting the present assignment of month-name and emblem, as reflective of customs attested, and/or available examples in southern Europe during a period c.1350-1400.
That’s the positive side. What’s on the other side – what evidence or argument is being offered for erasing or altering the primary evidence?
Speculation, and speculation-on-speculation by supporters of an ‘alpine-Italo-Germanic-Swiss-Venetian’ storyline.
and
Nick’s speculation that the diagrams were intended to have one star per day according to the Latin calendar and, more precisely, the Latins’ liturgical calendar.
HIs suggestion that a line of text might be a cisiojanus mnemonic – ok, why not? But to extend that single suggestion, added to his speculation that the makers intended a ‘star-per-day’, and additional speculation that the only possible reference of a calendar must be to a Latin calendar, and further that it should be the Latin liturgical calendar is a little too Newboldian-cumulative. It leads to the suggestion that the calendar’s tiers show medieval Latin Christian iconography of the saints – a proposition that is ( to put it mildly) at variance with all available fact and scholarship in the wider world’s perspective.
So there you are. And there’s another problem for Nick’s current line of thought – that the only reason the Voynich calendar is *nominally* termed a ‘calendar’ is the series of inscribed month-names. Get rid of those and there’s no good reason, and nothing but speculation to link it to any calendar.
Peter – I know you are possessed by a sense that your theoretical narrative cannot be wrong, so you are looking for ways to neutralise obvious points at which the manuscript itself presents objections to it. I don’t expect I’ll be able to change your mind, but I would say that in the wider world, a medieval manuscript is not usually treated so.
@Diane
I don’t understand why you are so upset.
I’m just saying from the pictures. “The ink is running thin, new ink is needed and you keep working”.
That only explains a possible sequence, but is not proof. It could have happened like this, but it doesn’t have to.
And your statement “that the only reason the Voynich calendar is *nominally* termed a ‘calendar’ is the series of inscribed month-names” is your view.
I think it is the sequence of images (zodiac signs) that makes it a calendar.
https://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/de/ubb/AN-IV-0018/1v
The fact that Scorpio also shares the stars with the snake is also the reason why Scorpio can also be drawn as a dragon. No star sign without the stars of the other.
https://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/de/ubb/AN-IV-0018/16r
Because in old German, snake also means “Lintworm” and that can also mean dragon.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindwurm
By the way:
Lintworm can also mean snail. This is also the reason why the monks once drew St George and the dragon as a joke.
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=1977521259137185&set=gm.1436349383141525
I don’t know if a crocodile was the model, but the dragon is called a lintworm. I see no reason to see it differently.
https://www.geschichtewiki.wien.gv.at/Singerstra%C3%9Fe_4
Furthermore, you write: “Again, it was my own research that brought to the notice of Voynich studies the fact that the *only* place we find crossbowmen called ‘Saggitario’ before 1440 is in France, or more exactly in Calais, which was at that time part of England’s territories.
What’s that supposed to mean? How did you even come to use “Saggitario”? I can’t find any connection with the VM.
Even if the name of the month is no longer legible, you can just about read the ending “-bre”.
Swiss cheese has holes, the VM also has holes, so the manuscript comes from Switzerland.
The basic issue is whether the diagrams and the labels are separate or not. If they are separate, under the general assumption that they are separate, what are the characteristics of that separation?
VMs has Pisces labelled as March. In contrast, liturgical calendars throughout the 15th C (eight examples) have Pisces associated with February. I’ve also recently seen a relevant astronomical diagram that clearly has Pisces connected with March. So, both versions are valid. The choice depends on purpose and preference.
What does that mean for the VMs diagram prior to label addition? That may depend in part on how many other VMs pages seem to contain potential religious interpretations. Does VMs costmary f46v, have potential religious interpretations?
Peter – we use a different angle of approach, and thus different methods.
Judging by by your comments here (we have no way to have a proper conversation), it seems as if you begin by saying, “If we suppose the manuscript’s content an expression of (German? central European?) customs in medieval western Europe, and the pictures’ explanation found within manuscripts (only manuscripts) made in that region and time, then what can be found within that theoretical frame, which might be thought an explanation for this drawing and that?” There’s a further assumption, which is that if enough people find your answer easy to believe (‘feasible’) then it will be the true answer.
I hope I don’t do you an injustice by that summary of the impressions I’ve gained by your comments.
Adopting that angle of approach is not considered remarkable in Voynich studies. In fact it has become a kind of ‘standard method’ and is exactly the same method which had produced results ‘proving’ that the manuscript was made anywhere from Mexico to Norway or Russia, and at any time from the 13th century to the 20thC. When I read such narratives, it seems the people who create them are telling me that I *must* become a believer in their theory, but without the theorist having realised that the aim of such research isn’t to make a story, or to gain believers, or even to ensure a theoretical narrative seems ‘air-tight’. It’s to understand what the original makers of these drawings intended the drawings to convey to their contemporaries.
Determining such things requires, at the very least, close attention to detail. Just as example, the ‘November’ emblem. You would like it to be interpreted as the dragon of St. George. Very well – when is the feast of St. George? In the Latin calendar today it is November 25th. The first question to ask is which medieval calendars (and there are many variations, even within the Latin west) also celebrated that day as St.George’s? The next question, because we know a good deal about this matter, is which regions of Europe were likely to alter the received ‘Arataean’ series to include an emblem for St.George? Perhaps one of the regions over which he was patron saint… and these include now Bulgaria, Ethiopia, Greece, Georgia, Portugal, Romania, Syria, Lebanon, Catalonia, Alcoi, and Aragon. Not so helpful to your theory.
When you’re looking at zodiacs made in German-speaking regions of Europe during the 8th-11th century, you can say some used a dragon-form for Scorpius because they didn’t have scorpions, didn’t know what they looked like, and tried to realise what was said in e.g. Isidore’s Etymologiae, or what they saw in the sky.
That argument won’t do for a later period. And even if you argue for derivation from an earlier German-region manuscript (why only another manuscript?) you’re left with numerous awkward facts – such as the inclusion in the Voynich detail of a skull wearing the type of traveller’s hat best known to us from images of the Twins (as portrayed in their role as patrons of the Seleucids), and images of Hermes (who had became Herm-Anubis in the Greco-Roman east).
In many ways, explaining a theory is so much easier than working to explain what is actually in the manuscript. I do understand and sympathise with those who feel it simpler and easier to begin by limiting the range of their work by adopting the theory-first method, but it has always led to arbitrary dismissal of whatever doesn’t suit a given theory, and leaps of imagination for which no support is offered. As one very obvious example, the history of glass. And for another, any example of a central European calendar which contains a dragon, a similarly-dressed archer *and* similarly-drawn unclothed figures *and* the same split-months.
Approaches to this manuscript’s iconography and history that begin “First pick your theory” have the same fundamental weakness they have always done. I find it sad that in 2024, people should still ask, ‘Whose theory do you think best supported by evidence?’ Not ‘which new research conclusions do you think sufficiently supported by the balance of evidence?’ The difference might seem slight at first, but think about it…
Out*of*the*Blue
My conclusion that the central emblems had been added to a copy made of older material was reached after considering the Voynich calendar’s organisation, stylistics (including, but not only, attitudes towards representing the human body) and such matters as the representation of the “vessels” in which tiered figures appear in the earlier diagrams but which are omitted as the copying progressed. Plus such things as patterns used to ornament those vessels and what resulted when I tested some of the monthly dispositions for the stars against the appearance of the sky over Alexandria c.1400. Alexandria because to the Latins’, Claudius Ptolemy’s earlier work was still treated as the last word on the subject, even if the need to update was recognised, so while a local system might adjust for, say, the latitude of Paris, a more comprehensive one could use the same latitude as Ptolemy’s.
Of course there was more involved, including comparisons of various sources – not only those of western Christian calendars, but as I say, I concluded that much older matter, of non-Latin origins, informs the ‘tiers’ than informs the central emblems, and we have the example (first cited by Panofsky) of diagrams in works made for Afonso X, where the original emblems were excised – presumably censored – so that every following copyist had to insert their own.
@Diane
The zodiac sign November has nothing to do with St Gregory. The snail was a joke. It was also a joke of the monks when a knight fights a snail. Simply because snake means “Lintwurm” in old German, which also means dragon or snail.
Dragon/snake/lintworm because the snake is also in the zodiac sign of Scorpio. This is often found. You can see it in the picture.
https://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/de/vad/0427/75v
Better marked and recognisable here.
https://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/de/bbb/0088/11v/0/
Furthermore, I don’t understand why you put so much emphasis on the crossbowman in Paris. When, according to experts, the crossbowman in the VM is wearing clothes from Italy.
What is more important, the crossbow or the clothes?
There are 172 different fragments of one text from one book. Distributed throughout Europe, copied by 100 different scribes. Since there were over 100 books, and today only 2 and 172 different parts have survived, it is not possible to explain where something comes from.
I also don’t understand why people look for the origin when something has been known and used for several hundred years.
I don’t go through the whole Bible just because I want to know when my church was built.
Sometimes I don’t understand you.
And by the way, we also have scorpions in Switzerland.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euscorpius_italicus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euscorpius_italicus
Peter M.
You say “…according to experts, the crossbowman in the VM is wearing clothes from Italy”.
I assume you mean specialists in the history of costume. Can you direct me to their paper(s), or name them? I should be very interested to read their analysis and the references cited.
So where are the foreshadowed three crowned nymphs? Johnno, Peteb & …. Um, hard to choose!! I’ll take a punt with Steve! (There, that rounds the post up to 50 comments for you!).
Peter M.,
I’ve been thinking about your ‘Lindworm’ interpretation of the knights-vs-snails images in some medieval manuscripts. It seemed so reasonable an idea that I almost suggested you get in touch, via twitter-as-was with the British Library (seriously), referring to their Medieval Manuscripts Blog, the post ‘Knight vs snail’ of 26th. September 2013.
https://britishlibrary.typepad co.uk/digitisedmanuscripts/2013/09/knight-v-snail.html
Looking through that post again, though, another thought occurred as I looked at the various examples in manuscripts of English and French make.
In those, I wonder if it might not be a jibe of the ruling Norman-French class against remnants of an earlier population whose speech had been influenced by Norse or German, so that they appeared not to know the difference between a snail and a dragon. So in one sense, and for some manuscripts (not necessarily the VMS) your suggestion would be good.
In any case, I think that if you want to contact the British Library via twitter, they would be genuinely interested in your opinion.
Nick Pelling,
Speaking of Rich SantaColoma: any chance that you might like to say a few words re his alleged attempts (Mark Knowles) to re infuse his well known “hoax” theory into humdrum mainstream Voynich Ninja discussions of late. A thread perhaps.
@John Sanders,
I’m rather a fan of Rich Santacoloma. I don’t agree with his conclusion that the manuscript is a twentieth-century hoax, but many of his observations about the manuscript, and about the nature of Voynich research are much to the point. He was the first to note a number of peculiar features in folio 57v, such as its having three centre-points, and while he didn’t quite appreciate the implications of that observation it was an important one. He also first recognised another detail as alluding to a system for describing the elements – again, I don’t entirely agree with his exposition, but overall his perception was correct and it’s another case where the researcher’s conclusion has been taken up, stripped of its identifying ‘labels’ and treated as a found object. Apart from such things, there are the more important ones. Rich is invariably civilised, reasonable and open to other ideas (he recently even agreed to re-read Cheshire’s paper). He actually knows how to research a thing, and does. I appreciate his old-world courtesy and his attitude to scholarship. I have never once seen him behave as if the best way to counter informed opposition to a preferred theory is to attack the character of the other person or to lobby to have them ignored, or driven out of a Voynich forum. The Voynich manuscript’s study has lost far too many good people by pack-attacks combining determined refusal to engage with back-stairs attacks ad.hominem that I must also now also admire Rich’s ability to carry on despite such behaviour directed towards encouraging the others not to stray from the one and only permitted path. John, if you’re desperate for conversation and want to show allegiance to some theory or other, the best place to do it is on the official mailing-list forum, which Rich manages.
Diane: perhaps you don’t recollect that quitesome time ago I was in regular online discussion with Rich, (about the same time as you actually). Whilst invigorating at the time, none of my own original thoughts on B 408 origins &c. carried over into anything Rich showed particular interest in; hence lack of desire for me to bother Rich with my differing points of view on our mutually agreed VM Imposter.
John
I have no issue with Rich introducing his theory into mainstream discussion. My problem was with him hijacking a thread intended to discuss one subject to address his theory when there was a perfectly good thread already in existence for that purpose.
Mark Knowles,
I suggest inviting experts in the identification and restoration of 20th century, medieval replica, healthy life-style manuscripts? That’d be a change from the humdrum.
Mark,
I’m interested in how you define ‘mainstream’ . Do you mean attitudes to the manuscript among currently-active members of Voynich.ninja, or in the broader sense of ‘mainstream’ opinion among persons competent in historical studies, cryptanalysis, art-history and so on? In realise in some cases the two might come fairly close, but in others they’re miles apart, so the question’s a real one.
Diane,
I was merely reusing John’s word back to him.
John said, “Speaking of Rich SantaColoma: any chance that you might like to say a few words re his alleged attempts (Mark Knowles) to re infuse his well known “hoax” theory into humdrum mainstream Voynich Ninja discussions of late.”
So you may want to ask John for his definition of “mainstream”.
The two main arguments against hoax theories, apart from C-14, are, in my opinion, logical in nature. Why is the hoax text corrected? A Grammatically correct vertigo? Hoax in need of ongoing improvements? Why is Voynichese similar to a natural language? So it is a sentence structure, a grammar behind the hoax leguage? But if the hoax has the grammar of a certain language, then it may not be a hoax at all but that language itself. That would be indistinguishable.
These theories make it very easy for themselves, they should show how the hoax Voynich text was generated. It’s not a random generator
Darius: playing devils advocate be your choice. Welcome to my VM contradiction.
Mark – thanks for making that clear.
Darius – The logic of Voynich speculations always leaves as dizzy as reading theological debates, such as whether or the relic of a saint was genuine. One side says ‘I don’t think so’ while the other says ‘ well, look at the statistics – 5,000 people have been cured. Look at this graph – ninety percent of all the people cured attribute the cure to the relic. So it has to be real – the numbers say so’
Diane: to the contrary, I’m not so anxious to expand on my VM imposter theory. Being assured that more time spent trying to reason with an old world mentality would be time better spent on trivial pursuits. Guess I’ll bide awhile in hope that eventually someone of the right mind set, likes of Geoffrey Everest Hinton (Boole), will give up the true facts (family secret) in a nut shell to doubting VM ineffectuals and prove my own B408 hoax case thereby.
… there is always a lot about persons and timelines (one could hit 1908 on this and that etc. etc.) but very little about text structures and particular images in Voynich in these theories. Diane, do you see anything in the images, which couldn’t be known in Europe in the early years of the 15th century? If we had something like a tomato or cacao bean. These theories are often reminiscent of sensational journalism and would fit well into a YouTube video format. No tedious analysis of the text, line by line, vord by vord…
Darius,
Greg Hodgins C14 spectro dating input data may have placed over reliance on his client’s assurance that collagen samples be of definate bovine origin, but nought else apparently. He could have had no idea of where the donor animal came from nor what its diet comprised. It could have been either a C3 or C4 forager or grazer, each plant type having it’s own mode of synthesisation and carbon transfer rates being vastly different. As can be seen in the break down a false figure might well have occurred thus adding significantly to the end results. So there goes your undeniable VM carbon dating down the tube but you’ll get over it in time mate.
John, ok C3 and C4 plants have different carbon transfer rates and synthesis processes and not considering this difference could result in inaccuracies of dating. But what exact do you claim? That he assumed a C4 Carbon isotope signature but it was C3 or other way round? And what was the magnitude in years (of inaccuracy) if that happened? Btw, my theory, which deals exclusively with VMS text decoding (mappings, substitutions, lexicography, statistics…) is not based on any dating assumptions for the creation of the script. In my opinion the text is ancient, so for the theory it wouldn’t make a big difference if the codification took place 100 years earlier or later. But I have my reasons to assume a period which matches the C-14 dating, but only based on the text added by the scribes to the original corpus. However, I’m now curious what exact could be wrong about the C14 dating.
Darius: I’d be perfectly comfortable for a forward correction of say eighty years, give ot take, during the renaissance period when supplies of pre cut and ready bound velum were easier to come by.