[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: VMs: Re: Plants in the VM - "scribe gone wild"
>Suppose that this was one page from the VMS. Imagine that the lettering is
>Voynichese and not ordinary Italian. Wouldn't we all be puzzled by the weird
Your pictures are in comparison with the VM rather isolated examples, but I am sure that we could
find quite a number of them elsewhere. But we are here discussing that part of the VM, which is
generally considered to be herbal - apparently the tags written next to plants are mentioned in
the text too (that may also explain the higher rate of repetitions in that part of the text than
anywhere else ).
The single purpose of the pictures in common herbal is quite clear - the real plant should be
recognized in order to be collected. As much as we all agree that the author was no painter, we
can clearly see he was not stupid either. He draw for instance high number of different leaves -
while the painting antitalent would probably manage to do 5 or 6 types only, even when copying,
being driven by oversimplification. The pictures of persons in the VM are - on the contrary -
quite recognizable, in spite of being much worse than the pictures of plants :-). So he was surely
observant enough. Providing he draw the plants from specimens, he could not draw something he
did not see - he could make it inaccurate, out of proportion or slightly out of shape, but he
would not draw the rose like the daisy. I am sure that if we make an experiment and let several
school children draw the dandelion by observing the sample, we would recognize all of them. Let
them do it from memory and we have quite different story. Still, most of them we would probably still
>So my hypothesis is that the VMS is just such a case of a scribe who could
>write, but who couldn't draw - and did it anyway. Strange as they may be,
>the illustrations are still built from the "common gene pool" of book
>illustrations, but they're executed without much skill.
Well, they must be drawn well enough, if we recognize that they are from the same gene pool :-). They
are surely accurate enough to be recognizable by experts, if they do exist - they have enough
indicators, after all. But it is the experts who are puzzled.
No, it is not their inaccuracy, shape, scale or what not - we simply do not see any existing plant.
And almost none of them was identified with reasonable certainty - one would assume that half, or
say ten percent of them, even if very badly drawn, but none? You can hardly say the reason is just a
poor skill of the author. As an amateur painter, I can assure you that when it comes to painting
the object you see, it is rather the question of observation than that of the skill.
And it is the sharp observation which is a trademark of a good botanist and even if he has no extra
skill, he would draw the plant such way that with given tolerance, we would be able to recognize
it. Not so with the VM, where beside the low skill, we would have to assume that the author was
very poor observant. Still, his pictures have all details!!!
The experiments with right half of the brain show that even the non-talented, non-skilled person
can draw rather accurately ( for instance if you let him copy the picture upside down). And if he
copies the picture of horse, he is not drawing an elephant. What we get will have four legs, long
tail and more or less horse-like head. The picture may be so distorted that it looks more like a
dog, but it would not have lizard's tail or horns or claws instead of hoofs. We will probably say: he may have meant the horse or something similar, but it sure does not look like! Now with those plants
it is different: we can clearly recognize the parts, nad they have probably the right proportions, but it
is the total which does not fit. It is
like if we draw lion with wings, e.g. sphinx. It does have animal parts all right, but nobody saw
it yet (alive, anyway :-).
>There's a way to prove it - simply by collecting more of these examples (and
>I have some more up my sleeve). But is there a way to disprove it?
Unfortunately you cannot prove it by underestimating the author either - after all, your
research shows that the text is rather sophisticated, even if it may not look like it.
>To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Our mail is always sent without attachments.
http://hurontaria.baf.cz/enigma/ Enigma, nas novy casopis zahad
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying: