Stolfi's metaphor

One of the reasons I have resisted Stolfi's model for the structure of Voynich vords is that I do not like the metaphor. It is no doubt structurally accurate, but as a metaphor it is comprehensively non-medieval. Stolfi compares the internal structure of vords, paradigmatically, to the geological structures of the Earth. That is, he imports a metaphor from modern geology. Vords, he says, have a CRUST, a MANTLE, a CORE, another MANTLE and another CRUST. Thus:

 CRUST - MANTLE - CORE - MANTLE - CRUST

There is an inner core, surrounded by a mantle, which is then surrounded by a crust. Stolfi, being a man of science, has reached for a scientific metaphor. But it is thoroughly modern and completely alien to the medieval mindset. We can be sure that this model was not anywhere near the mind of our medieval author. A metaphor doesn't have to be, but all the same metaphors are not unimportant.

Let us therefore try to find a medieval metaphor, or at least one that is not prohibitively modern.

Here is the obvious one:

 

Stolfi - since our study is of a herbal - might just as well have compared the structure of vords to that of a fruit: there is an inner seed surrounded by flesh which is then surrounded by an outer skin:

SKIN - FLESH - SEED - FLESH - SKIN

This model, at least, might not have been far from the mind of the medieval author. If he had conceived of vords in such a structure then he might have compared it to the structure of a fruit (with the purpose of the structure being to protect the seed.) It does the same job as Stolfi' metaphor, but is more apt and more in context.

Other medieval metaphors:

ARMOUR – COAT – BODY – COAT – ARMOUR

OUTER WALL – INNER WALL – CITADEL – INNER WALL – OUTER WALL

* * *

But that is not the metaphor that I think is at play. Another metaphor is supplied by the work itself. The study of the text cannot be separated from the study of the illustrations: they are symbiotic.

In a previous post (here) I considered the Voynich map in terms of elevation. The map, I suggested, is structured in three levels, three elevations, and describes an ascent. Thus:

This can also be shown in cross section, thus:

Here is Stolfi's structure: LOWLANDS - MIDLANDS - HIGHLANDS - MIDLANDS - LOWLANDS. Or, hills - mountains - peaks. In any case, steps of topographical elevation.

As I have written previously, (see here) one of my first impressions of the manuscript is that the map must be its key. Indeed, my entire reading of the work as a whole extends from a reading of the map. I am of the further view that the map is also the key to the Voynich language. The matrix of the language is to be found in the map.

In recent posts I have been exploring a vord paradigm as a tool for approaching the Voynich text. But again: text and illustrations are symbiotic. The map supplies a visual correlate to the paradigm. There are wide implications to such an identification.

R. B.