Re: Toresella

["Dana F. Scott" <dfscott@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

f93r - Possible identification: Helianthus annuus. Reached Europe in 1510.

Yes, it is intriguing to consider the Sunflower as a potential match for f93r. I
continue to be lured back to that prospect whenever I come across samples such
as the following:

Photo:
http://www.botgard.ucla.edu/html/botanytextbooks/economicbotany/Helianthus/b0972tx.html

http://linnaeus.nrm.se/flora/di/astera/helia/heliann1.jpg
http://www.botgard.ucla.edu/html/botanytextbooks/economicbotany/Helianthus/b0974tx.html

http://www.botgard.ucla.edu/html/botanytextbooks/economicbotany/Helianthus/b0973tx.html

http://www.botgard.ucla.edu/html/botanytextbooks/economicbotany/Helianthus/b0975tx.html

http://www.agron.iastate.edu/~weeds/Pix/Im300-399/374.JPG
http://www.sunflowernsa.com/

Description:
http://muextension.missouri.edu/xplor/agguides/crops/g04290.htm
http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/duke_energy/Helianthus_annuus.html
http://www.floridata.com/ref/H/heli_ann.cfm
http://www.botgard.ucla.edu/html/botanytextbooks/economicbotany/Helianthus/
http://linnaeus.nrm.se/flora/di/astera/helia/heliann.html
http://www.libfind.unl.edu/dpilson/sunflower.html

Regards,
Dana Scott

ddhopper wrote:

> Sorry Philip,
>
> I didn't mean to draw attention or to be overly critical myself.  I'm just a
> collector of Voynichiana.  A couple of years ago a series of letters became
> available to the Voynich list, two of which were from Hugh O'Neill, the
> botanist.  These related to William Friedman, and since I have an interest
> in the man, I stored the letters on my computer.  This is a narrow slice of
> history I focus on, to be sure.
>
> I've been following the botanical identifications by Dana F. Scott, which is
> why I recalled these letters and their contents.  I also have an original
> copy of O'Neill's article, which I purchased on the internet.  I'm from the
> school of thought that cryptography (if it is cryptography) didn't reach
> these heights until the 16th century, and since I have my own ideas I'll
> leave the finer points to the professionals.
>
> It's just that to me, having read his article, O'Neill made it abundantly
> clear that his identifications were in no way conclusive, and that while he
> had no interest or professional expertise in deciphering the manuscript, he
> could at least add his "for what it's worth" to the subject, in the hope
> that it would help future investigators.
>
> I sent the letter information privately to Rene Zandbergen, but I'll copy it
> here.  In the first letter, dated Jan. 2, 1945, from Hugh O'Neill to Dr.
> Leonnel C. Strong, O'Neill informs Dr. Strong of Friedman's efforts to
> decipher the manuscript.  He also informs him of his acquaintance with R.G.
> Kent, and how he disagrees with Prof. Kent's assessment of Newbold's work.
> The information interesting here is that O'Neill and Friedman both live in
> Washington, D.C., and by all accounts Friedman's work on the Voynich at this
> time was secret, yet O'Neill knows about it and directs Dr. Strong to
> William Friedman.  It is quite possible that O'Neill and Friedman actually
> met, which might have been the instigation for O'Neill publishing his short
> article on the plant identification in the manuscript.  (speculation in
> Speculum?) It is certain that Friedman consulted with O'Neill, otherwise
> O'Neill would not have had the information he had at the time.
>
> O'Neill directly mentions his notes on the subject.  These notes may no
> longer exist, but they did at one time.
>
> "I have a number of pages of notes and conclusions based on the none too
> certain identifications of the numerous plants figured in the MS.
> Considerable additional work will be necessary before any of this is in
> shape for publication."
>
> Even a cautious person would assume that O'Neill continued his analysis of
> the plants for some time after he wrote this letter, since this manuscript
> does foster a great deal of devotion?  And if Dr. Strong had such a
> difficult time obtaining a copy of the Voynich, isn't it reasonable to
> assume that O'Neill got his copy for analysis either from Kent or Friedman?
> I'd love to see these questions finally answered.
>
> As to elements of costume worn by the human figures, D'Imperio charted those
> waters quite well.  Additional identifications of costume design have been
> posted by members from time to time, and the concensus appeared to me at
> least to be that the designs were no earlier than 15th century.  This of
> course places only the earliest possible date for authorship as late 15th
> century.
>
> Since you are a botanist and I am not, I think you have a better footing
> than me, a simple observer, but I can't imagine that all of these plants are
> drawn from imagination.  What European could have imagined a sunflower
> before it arrived?  Is there some other flower that could have been used to
> fuel this imagination?  Explain folio 34r and 93r.  I grow sunflowers, or at
> least they grow in my yard without my help, and everytime I look at one in
> its different stages of growth, I see one of these two images.  Do you have
> a European replacement for this plant?  Why is it that just about everybody
> who looks at it who has ever seen a sunflower says "sunflower"?
>
> The first time a sunflower appeared in European herbals was what, 1528 or
> 1535?  If it is a sunflower and these dates hold, it's a 16th century
> manuscript.  I'm not a botanist by any stretch, but I think Dana is on the
> right track, and I think that track was cautiously followed earlier by Hugh
> O'Neill.  Sometimes science takes awhile to catch on, but when it finally
> does, it makes great progress.
>
> Back to my usual pursuit.  We're publishing Selenus, Vigenere, and
> eventually Porta on www.all-things-bacon.com.  We're about halfway through
> Selenus now.
>
> DDHopper
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: philip.marshall@xxxxxxxx [mailto:philip.marshall@xxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 4:46 PM
> To: ddhopper@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: voynich@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Fwd: RE: Re: Toresella
>
> Perhaps I was too critical of O'Neill's paper, but there is a great deal
> of controversy over his identifications. Stolfi discusses the
> "sunflower" on his site(http://www.dcc.unicamp.br/~stolfi/voynich/
> 98-01-17-sunflower/) with the conclusion that it could not be a
> 16th-century depiction of a sunflower, and as a botanist myself I am not
> convinced that the "Capsicum" on folio 101v is even botanical (despite
> the red color, and a similar figure elsewhere in green, it looks like a
> piece of laboratory equipment to me). That said, a 16th-century date
> does seem correct to me (the MS is certainly not medieval). I wonder
> what can be gained from the study of elements of costume worn by human
> figures in the MS.
>
> Philip Marshall
>
> ---------Included Message----------
> >Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 04:40:52 -0500
> >From: "ddhopper" <ddhopper@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >Reply-To: "ddhopper" <ddhopper@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >To: <philip.marshall@xxxxxxxx>
> >Subject: RE: Re: Toresella
> >
> >The botanist Hugh O'Neill, a friend of R.G. Kent, did publish his
> >identifications as "tentative", and drew his speculation on that
> cautious
> >phrase.  I don't think his identifications were "careless" or his
> writing
> >presumptuous or "provocative".  He simply chose the two most
> identifiable
> >plants and wrote his brief pamphlet as a guide for researchers.
> Countless
> >people have identified the flower as a sunflower, and the capsicum is
> very
> >distinctive.  When Dana's views are added to O'Neill's identification
> of
> >only a couple of plants, a pattern builds toward early to middle 16th
> >century.  Perhaps it is not O'Neill who was careless, but other
> researchers
> >in ignoring or not pursuing the more obvious.  Perhaps...
> >
> >In O'Neill's unpublished notes he identifies quite a few more plants to
> my
> >understanding.
> >
> >DDHopper
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: philip.marshall@xxxxxxxx [mailto:philip.marshall@xxxxxxxx]
> >Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 12:13 AM
> >To: voynich@xxxxxxxx
> >Subject: Fwd: Re: Toresella
> >
> >
> >If the VMS were penned in the second half of the XVI
> >>> century, then I have no difficulty in accepting the presence of
> >botanical
> >>> samples from the Western Hemisphere; however, I am not convinced
> >that
> >>> the sunflower identification is accurate.
> >>
> >>      It was Brumbaugh that said that the sunflower and pepper showed that
> >>it was written after the discovery of the New World.  He thought that
> >>the text
> >>was nonsense, written by Dee and Kelly to make money.  He did think
> >that
> >>the
> >>labels were meaningful, Latin enciphered in a rudimentary cipher.  We
> >no
> >>longer
> >>accept any of this.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >More precisely, I believe that it was Hugh O'Neill who first
> identified
> >(carelessly, I would say) the "sunflower" and "pepper" and emphasized
> >that they would date the MS to after 1493 (when Columbus returned to
> >Europe with seeds). Brumbaugh was responsible only for the
> >popularization of O'Neill's provocative claim.
> >
> >-Philip Marshall
> >
> >
> ---------End of Included Message----------