JKPetersen’s latest post – detail from f.77

Let me begin by making very clear that I do not blame JKP for being unaware that our understanding of a detail on f.77r (above), as depicting a series of Elements, has a very short history.

The seminal study and first observation was by RIch Santacoloma, whose blogpost of 2010 for the first time -ever- read the detail in such a way.

As it happened I came to the same folio a year later as I worked through the manuscript and for very different reasons also read it as representing a series of elements, but that independent observation, though made for different reasons and described in quite different terms still must be considered the second, after Rich’s.

Neither my analysis’ having been offered in ignorance of his, nor my being formally qualified alters Rich’s precedence and right to be quoted as the original source for that insight – a new and original contribution to the study.

The reason for my own ignorance of RIch’s work when I published my analytical treatment is, I expect, much the same reason that JKP now writes as if there were no specific person to whom it must be credited. A serious failure, now infecting the study, has seen it increasingly distorted by an abandonment of normal standards and ethics in crediting prior research, which habit denies newer readers any understanding of where and how particular ‘ideas’ entered.   The result has been descent into a seemingly endless ‘groundhog day’ in which speculations made as much as a century ago are constantly rehashed and ‘re-discovered’, while a genuine advance is ‘blanked’ from the record or repeated without mention (or worse, with false ascription) of its origin, misinforming and misdirecting subsequent studies.

Rich’s discovery, and my own, had no precedent.  They are the source for what is now imagined (not only by JKP) to be just another generally-held ‘idea’.

In 2010, Rich Santacoloma shared his insight on his  website and then in a blogpost. Since you can link to both, I need not reprint his work in full here.

My own commentary was published in two parts,  condensed  first into a lengthy blogpost of 2011,  shortened and republished in 2012,  Additional and more detailed comment on a part of it was included in a post of 2016.

Voynichimagery was closed from public view in 2017 only five years after JKP began his blog.  I did so after almost ten years, and as a final response to that pernicious and growing habit of  ‘blanking plagiarism’.  However, with regard to the detail on folio 77r,  it only fair that researchers should be able to compare both of these first investigations with whatever was said later, so I  reprint the analytical commentary later in this post.

With better knowledge of how the identification arose, with reasoning and evidence adduced, more recently-arrived researchers can  ‘map’ interpretations of this detail from first identification of its subject, in the way that is  – or is among scholars – a normal prelude to  forming any balanced opinion of one’s own.

Even if the reader should prefer my analytical treatment over Rich’s, or even JKP’s ideas to either, still the credit for first identifying the drawing’s subject  remains Rich’s, to be acknowledged as we acknowledge other views which have formed the landscape, such as Currier’s or Philip Neal’s (or even Hugh O’Neill’s).

I think I may fairly be credited with first  explaining that it shows a 5-element system and that such systems are characteristic of non-Latin thought, recognising the non-European character of the drawing in its details, linking it to the Greek terms – by quoting Isidore –  and  description of the supporting ‘ascenders’ by parallel with Manichaeans’ anabibazontes. If the first of those posts seems tedious, I ask readers’ indulgence;  my conclusions are a result of research and some information about the sources used must be honestly  set before a reader.    Admittedly I did not include details of all consulted, but enough to be useful for any who might then want to take it further.

_______________________

Petersen’s recent post of July 27th 2019  begins:

The VMS image at the top of folio 77r is often  interpreted as the four elements (air, earth, fire, and water). But there are five pipes, not four. I did find one medieval representation with a fifth component in the center called null, and some conceptions include a fifth “element” as spirit, aether, or void, so it’s not unreasonable to suppose the diagram might represent elements:

VMS 77r Pipes elements

_______

The seminal study:

R. Santacoloma, ‘Elements in the Voynich;  proto57. wordpress.com, (10th. Feb. 2010).

________________

Post written by the present author in 2012, summarising  matter first published the previous year.  

fol 77r Five elements

The short story:

In my opinion, this represents a 5-element system, but not one that counts ether.

~~~~~~~~~~

Many  systems describing the elements are five-fold, including the Chinese ‘5 agencies’, the Hindu-, the Turkish-, and others. These are equally deserving of consideration when investigating this detail, given the evidence offered by so much else in it about the context in which the pictorial matter, at least, been first enunciated and subsequently transmitted to late medieval Christian Europe.

Once more, there does appear to be influence from the Hellenistic period in this detail, but to explain it I have decided to use a western work,  Isidore’s Etymologiae, chiefly for its parallel use of the Latin with the Greek terms, comparison of which sheds further light on the environment for first enunciation.

Ether

Isidore recognised ether as a rarefied form of fire, but is specific about its not contributing to the world below:

“The ether is the place where the stars are and signifies that fire which is separated high above from the entire world.”

‘The most potent elements’

Isidore then turns to the natural world and begins with the two ‘potent’ elements.

The most potent pair of elements for human life are fire and water, whence those to whom fire and water are forbidden are gravely punished.

Etym. XIII.xii.2

That pair, I think, could be why the diagram is flanked by a female and what appears to be a non-gendered male. (which latter would be our first indication of religious bent so far encountered in this manuscript, were it alluding  Isaiah 53:8  Who shall declare his generation?” and see Naasseni, in Hippolytus Bk.V)

details from fol 77r (textual portion omitted).

Forms given the figures’ containers agree with Isidore’s assignments, too: that on the left appears to be modelled on the wall-sconce – or  glass-beakers  filled with oil and used in that way.

On the right, the container is formed as a bucket or basket from which falls a mixture of water and potent earth (i.e. life-producing water, like the fertile soil brought by flood. The mechanism of reproduction through seed was not entirely understood in earlier times.).

_________

later note –fol-77r-smoke-quer

Note added to the 2012 post in November 1st., 2016. I may have mis-read the first element motif of ‘wavy lines with scattered dots’ as it used in this particular detail. Here, it could be meant for Smoke ~ as rising air mixed with burned particles..  my reasons are explained in ‘On the doorstep.. and things Manichaean’ voynichimagery.wordpress.com (October 31st., 2016).  (also reprinted below)

_________

Text of the 2012 post continues..

While Isidore’s description of these older ideas is compatible with the diagram as analysed so far, overall the person who first enunciated this drawing does not appear to have had a conception of the matter identical with Isidore’s.  I do not think the drawing any illustration of the Etymologies,  but rather copied from an older illustration first enunciated within an environment where a ‘5-element’ system was the norm – local and generally accepted- but which was  assumed within an education that had also been infused with respect for classical works. The east, and the late Hellenistic period and earlier centuries of Roman rule are thus most likely for first enunciation of this detail.

Isidore’s constantly referring to both the Greek and the  Latin vocabulary, and explaining both, did mean that the medieval Latins maintained some little knowledge of Greek terms. The Etymologies was so widely used and copied that it is often compared to the later Encyclopaedia Britannica, in that it served as a standard reference in its time, used by scholars and whose information was by them disseminated, as standard opinion, through the lay population of Christian Europe.

Primary matter: ‘the wood’

Isidore says:

The Greeks call a certain primary material of things ΰλη (‘matter’ also ‘wood’) which is not formed in any way.

and he goes on:

 From this ΰλη the visible elements (Lat: elementum) are formed, whence they took their name, [Gk stoikeia: elements] for they agree with [Gk: stoikein] each other in a certain accord and communion of association.

Where we speak of the  ‘basic fabric’ or the ‘building blocks’ of the material world, the Greek term for the raw material of all things was  ΰλη, which – like this diagram – evokes the idea of a tree’s body, unshaped, but from which those elements [Lat. elementum] emerge.  The Greek term was not elementum, but  stoikeia.

(April 3rd – cf. architectural and philosophical associations for terms stoastoic)

In conception, then, this diagram does seem to reflect  influence from the Greek philosophical terms, and not the Latin.

At the same time, it includes five elements, and shows fire second from highest which, to judge from al-Biruni’s comments (see below) agrees with understanding of the eastern system in tenth-century Baghdad.

I think that this diagram is not designed to illustrate Isidore’s text, nor the system characteristic of a Roman/Latin environment.

Some points which mark a distinction between the diagram on f.77 and Isidore’s account:

Where Isidore explains the Greek stoichaea with a sense of the four elements’ harmony and interaction, the diagram, by contrast, takes the term to mean  that five elements have emerged from that formless ‘wood’  not as Isidore does, in the way living things might be in amity, but as non-living things,  equal only in terms of time and distance: the diagram indicating their emerging at one time, I think, by the equal length given these short branchings.

Nor does the relationship of these five match Isidore’s understanding of that amity. Because Isidore’s understanding is that aether has no place in the world inhabited by mankind, it plays no part in his explanation of earthly substances, all of which are formed from the four.

 “Indeed [they] are said to be connected thus among themselves with a certain natural logic, now returning to their origin, from fire to earth, now from earth to fire: since fire ends in air, and air is condensed into water, and water thickens into earth and [then], in turn, earth is loosened into water, water rarefied into air, and air thinned out into fire”.

– Etymologiae XIII.iii.1-6

Now try as I might –  and though I feel fairly certain that the second element from the right is fire (and more exactly a fire-box) and, further, that the elements in the centre of the ‘wood’ and that nearest the fiery principal (not principle) might be suggested as representing air and ether, yet no correspondence exists in this drawing to the way in which Isidore himself explains the four elements’ relationship.

Even if we do suppose, as Isidore and the western world normally did not, that ether and its radiance (aether) contributed to the composition of the natural world, the order and relationships here do not appear to me to coincide.

Some 5-elements systems in the east

(The 2011 post  included information including native vocabulary for various ‘5-elements’ schemes, but that information had made the post over-long for most readers, and was omitted from the 2012 re-post, leaving only the headings e.g. ‘Chinese’, ‘Buddhist’, ‘Arabic’ ‘Turkish’ etc..)

1. Chinese

2. Indian (Hindu)

 3. Islamic

Al Biruni  brought knowledge of India’s  Hindu elements to Baghdad, and lists them in this order:

Heaven; Wind; Fire; Water; Earth,

and he says specifically that none of the Hindu elements equates to the Greeks’ “aether”. This is a relevant point, since in more recent years there has been a tendency to equate the term Akasha with the Latins’ aether.

Writing in the tenth century, al-Biruni explains the system in his India:

 “Heaven, Wind, Fire, Water and Earth are the Hindu’s five elements. They are called the mahabuta i.e. having great natures. The Hindus do not think, as other people do, that the fire is a hot, dry body near the bottom of the ether. They understand by fire the common fire on earth which comes from an inflammation of smoke.

The Vayu Purana says, ‘In the beginning were earth, water, wind and heaven. Brahman, on seeing sparks under the earth, brought them forward, and divided them into three parts: the first, Parthiva, [N.B.] is the common fire, which requires wood and is extinguished by water; the second is divya i.e. the sun; the third vidyut i.e. the lightning. The sun attracts the water..”

Sachau, Al Biruni’s ‘India’, Chapter III (v-ix).

4Manichaean.

Five is a number of fundamental importance to Manichaean systems, including cosmology. A great deal of information about Manichaean thought is available online, (e.g.this site) but for its style of script, I add links to the very important  Cologne Mani Codex, found at Lycopolis in Egypt and a comparative example of cursive script in an early Christian codex from  Oxyrhinchus.

5. Buddhist

6. Turk

.. and others.

___________

In the course of discussing other evidence  of  eastern- and possibly older and Manichaean influence in the Voynich manuscript’s imagery,  I added the following expansion to my comments in a post of 2016:

from post,   D.N. O’Donovan, ‘On the doorstep.. and things Manichaean’,  voynichimagery, (Monday, October 31st, 2016)

An influence from Manichaean practice is also among the possible explanations for that deliberate and consistent distortion of the  figures which Voynich writers commonly describe as “nymphs” but which the present writer sees as consistently standing for  abstractions of the astronomical/meteorological sort, as ‘guiding lights’.

Manichaean beliefs about the stars were compatible with older Mesopotamia, despite  being a ‘religion of light’.  That is, they did not regard the stars as  natural phenomena in the Greek way, nor as benevolent overseers as they were seen by the Egyptians, but instead regarded them  as evil: as ‘demons’ rather than daimons.

(δαίμων: “god”, “godlike” etc.), which originally referred to a lesser deity or guiding spirit).

Mani’s teachings on this point are preserved and quoted in a Coptic summary of Manichaean doctrine, the Kephalaia.   Mani assigns each of the zodiac ’12’ – whether as constellations or the more abstract ‘signs’ of astrology is not clear – to  five ‘worlds’: of ~Smoke, ~Fire, ~Wind, ~Water, and ~Darkness and rather interestingly, given that Mani lived in the 3rdC AD, he also accepts the Roman constellation of the ‘Scales’..

Fire and Lust: the two Ascenders (anabibazontes)

The two Ascendants [anabibazontes] belong to fire and lust, which are dryness and moisture, they are the father and mother of all these things. ..

The diagram on f.77r instead has fire the ‘female’ and moisture the ‘male’ which may be a linguistic cue,  but now compare the order of Mani’s 5 with that in the diagram, reading right to left:

detail-fol-77r-top-elements
(detail) folio 77r – modified.

This.. is how it should be understood. They [the twelve zodiacal figures and five planets]are drawn from the Five Worlds of Darkness, are bound in the Sphere, and are taken for each world. The Twins and the Archer belong to the world of Smoke, which is the Mind; Also, the Ram and the Lion belong to the World of Fire. The Bull, the Water-bearer, and the Scales belong to the World of Wind,  The Crab and the Virgin and the Fish belong to the world of Water; the Goat-horn and the Scorpion belong to the World of Darkness. These are the twelve archons of wickedness, for it is they who commit every evil in the world, either in the tree [hyle?] or in the flesh.  Hermes belongs to the world of Water, while Kronos belongs to the World of Darkness. 

The two Ascendants [anabibazontes][9] belong to fire and lust, which are dryness and moisture, they are the father and mother of all these things. ..

____________

from footnotes to the second post, ‘Manichaeans on the doorstep…’

[9] “The anabibazontes are actually quite sober astronomical constructs which have become demonized. Anabibazon is the technical term for the ascending
node of the moon’s orbit. Its complementary twin, as it were, is the descending node,katabibazon. In fashioning their additional celestial evil-doers, the Manichees took the first of the pair and duplicated it. Thus we find two “uppers” and no “downer”. Roger Beck, ‘The Anabibazontes in the Manichaean Kephalaia’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, Bd. 69 (1987), pp. 193-196.

4 thoughts on “JKPetersen’s latest post – detail from f.77

  1. J.K. Petersen says:

    D.N. O’Donovan wrote: “As I said, my post wasn’t about you or your blogpost; …”

    If your post wasn’t about me or my blogpost, then why did you **TITLE** it:

    JKPetersen’s latest post

    and mention my name numerous times in the ensuring paragraphs?

  2. J.K. Petersen says:

    If you had actually read the blog, Diane, instead of just glancing at it, you would have noticed that the POINT of my blog was to suggest that the pipes at the top might NOT be elements, as is so commonly assumed.

    Ergo, if they are NOT elements, then why should I be crediting people who say it is? Credit is usually given to those who are right, not those who may have guessed wrong. Do you want me to list the dozens of people who said it is elements and make them look bad if they turn out to be wrong? That’s not how I do things.

    There is no solid evidence yet that the pipes represent elements and I feel that the focus on elements may have blinded researchers to other possibilities. Thus, my blog was to put some other options out on the table.

    They might be elements, that seems like the easiest assumption, but there’s a real possibility they might be something else like the numerous options that I listed. When there is enough evidence to establish what is emanating from the pipes, I will gladly credit the person who proves it.

    • D.N. O'DonovanD says:

      First of all, JKP
      My decision to comment about a paragraph in your post was a decision to comment on an issue raised by that paragraph – which I quoted.

      My point was that you are among the great mass of current-day voynich writers who are misled into thinking that something is no more than an ‘idea’ which is, in fact, the bottom line of research by some particular person(s) who may or may not have provided reason and evidence to explain how they reached that opinion.

      The rest of the material you put into that blogpost was not relevant to that point.

      As I said, I don’t blame you for being ignorant of the source for what you imagine a general ‘idea’ simply because it was later so often parroted, and so often repeated without mention of the source.

      For some reason, this lamentable habit infects only certain areas of Voynich studies.

      Any linguist who began by saying “everyone says there are two languages called A and B’ but I don’t think so, would be immediately seen as a tyro whose information lacked even a knowledge of Currier’s work.

      However, when it comes to the imagery, or to the weaving of quasi histories, we see the co-option of earlier work in just that way, and constantly by a few who simply don’t understand how a study normally advances: by citing prior sources, showing that you have read and understood their reasoning and evidence adduced, and then making clear just which aspects of either you find flawed.

      I am completely at a loss to understand how people claiming interest in Beinecke MS 408 could come to imagine that iconographic analysis is a sort of guessing game, like ‘pin the tail on the donkey’.

      I feel as offended by such notions, and by sloppy methodology as any linguist or cryptographer would be, if a person unqualified and poorly read in those subjects thought they might dispense with any effort to study linguistic or cryptographic techniques before dismissing all before them. An ‘idea’ is worth nothing; a conclusion is no better than the knowledge informing it.

      There is a long and scholarly history to those other disciplines, as to mine, and history – the body of prior studies and scholarship – is what provides context for any specific study, and in this case of Beinecke MS 408.

      As I said, my post wasn’t about you or your blogpost; it was about the fact that you, like so many others, had been left without any access to the evidence and reasoning which first contributed an informed understanding of that detail – and of opinions which have survived for almost ten years even if in the debased form of any anonymous, generally held ‘idea’.

  3. D.N. O'Donovan says:

    For those wondering whether the ‘four elements’ scheme was the usual Latin one, I recommend
    The Cambridge History of Science for its survey of medieval thought.

    In Volume 2, Medieval Science, it is supposed that readers will know this the norm:

    e.g.

    “Running through the encylcopaedias is a common thread of environmental theory. The four elements (earth, air, fire and water) were associated with pairs of the ‘qualities’ (hot, cold, wet and dry), and the mixtures of their counterparts in the human body (black bile, blood, yellow bile and phlegm), Much of this writing was based on the medical writings of Hippocrates and Galen (etc.etc.)

    as for the classical authors:

    Aristotle too, though he described aether as an element, a ‘building block’, has it the quintessence from which was formed things (chiefly stars) of the higher heavens only, reasoning that whereas all matter decayed and corrupted, as might the elements of which they were composed: fire, earth, air, and water, no change was perceived in the heavenly regions – by which he seems to mean the disposition of the stars – and so it followed (as he thought) that the stars must be made of some substance quite other and different from those of the world below, a ‘quintessence’ unchangeable and unrelated to earthly matter.

    As I say, any ‘5-elements’ series for the world implies eastern ways of thought. It was certainly alien to the medieval Latin to include that unearthly ‘aether’ among the earth’s corruptible four elements.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.