It is well-established (and clear to the naked eye) that plants depicted in the botanical pages can reappear - in part - among the botanical materials displayed alongside the vessels or cannisters in the pharmaceutical pages.
An outstanding case of this is found on page f102r2. There is a root at the bottom depicted along with the label: [koldarod].
This is unquestionably the same root of the plant depicted on f18v.
It seems that the plant on 18v has been collected for its roots.
But is there a connection between the label [koldarod] and the text on page 18v? Is there a textual connection matching the connection in the illustrations?
It is not an unimportant question. There is still debate as to whether there are meaningful connections between illustration and text, and whether these extend across pages and sections.
Ideally, [koldarod] would be the name of the plant (or its roots) and so the name would also appear on 18v - picture with picture, plant with plant, text with text.
This would be some demonstration that the text - whatever it might mean - is coherent. There is system.
Or is there at least some connection between the two texts?
* * *
Since 18v has only a small amount of text, the hypothesis is easy to test.
Of course, the label [koldarod] does not appear conveniently on 18v - nothing is that simple in the Voynich.
But the text, on first appearances, does have some suggestive prefiguring of the glyph strings that constitute [koldarod].
Of course, this is typical of the Voynich too - it is always suggestive.
Is there anything beyond an impression?
Let us go through the text and bold all the glyphs of [k o l d a r o d] and red all the bigrams: [ko ol ld da ar ro od].
Then, ignoring spaces, we enlarge all strings of four or more glyphs.
We arrive at this:
f18v
told.shar.ytshy.otchdal.dchal.dchy.ytdg-
qoeees.or.oaiin.shy.okshy.qokchy.qokchy.s.g-
or.shy.qoky.qoky.chkchy.qokshy.qokam-
qotchy.qokay.qokchy.ykcho.ydl.dar-
r.ychoees.ykchy.qol.kchy.qotchol.daiir.om-
qotor.chor.otchy.qokeees.chy.s.ar.ykar-
ychol.dor.chod.okol.daiin.qokol.dar.dy-
ytor.ykam-
tolol.sh.cphoy.daror.ddy.ytor.ykam-
okchor.qotchy.qokchy.ytol.doky.dy-
yka.dshy.dair.ykol.dom=
This is why the text on 18v seems suggestive of the label [koldarod]. The label does not appear on that page, matching the roots, but elements of [koldarod] are found in the text, albeit broken up by word breaks.
But is this peculiar to 18v? Perhaps all pages are similarly suggestive if we apply the same process?
Let us try a totally different herb, but a page with a similar format, 21v:
f21v
toldshy.chofchy.qofshey.shckhol.odaiin.shey.ckholy-
oeeesoy.qokchy.chody.qotchy.qokchy.choty.tchol.daiin- qotol.keeees.chotchy.tcho.choty.chor.qotol.daiin.dal- sho.chodaiin.choty.chol.daiin.daiin.chty.chtol-
osho.deey.ctho.l.sho.cthy.daiin.dait.oky-
sho.tsho.chotshol.chol.todaiin.daiin-
ykcho.lchol.cholchaiin.otchy.s.sheaiin-
cho.l.kchochaiin=
Compared to 18v there is little here; only two cases of the string [ol.da] which, in fact, is not uncommon throughout the text, especially the A Text.
Another test, a similar botanical page, 10v:
f10v
paiin.daiin.sheo.pcheey.qoty.daiin.cthor.otydy.sain
dain.daiin.ckhy.chcthor.choiin.qot.chodaiin.cthy.daiin-
dsho.ytey.kchol.olty.chol.dy=
qotchytor.shoiin.daiin.qotchey.shcthey.ytor.dain-
sho.ykeey.daiin.qotchy.qotor.chol.daiin.qokchyky-
shoiin.chor.shcthy.qoty.qotoiin.qokol.choraiin-
qokol.chyky.chol.cheky.daiin.dain.chckhan=
Again, only the (not uncommon) string [ol.da].
There may be other text with more matches to [koldarod], but 18v is certainly a case of it whereas 21v and 10v are not.
* * *
By my account, the label [koldarod] is a variant of the paradigm or template: CHOLDAIIN. It needs to be understood as that, in the first instance.
Accordingly, we can expect the string [ol.da] will be found because it is part of the template (of the A Text).
When we apply the word [koldarod] to other text, this is what we find: persistance of the template in [ol.da].
But the text on 18v goes beyond that. We find [kol.da] and [kol.dar], clear prefigurings of [koldarod].
One of the differences between our three sample texts is that 18v contains far more glyph [r] than the others. Of all the glyphs in [koldarod], [k], [o], [l] [d] and [a] are distributed as expected, but [r] only appears once on 21v and twice on 10v.
On the face of it then, there does seem to be a connection between [koldarod] on f102r2 and the matching herbal page 18v.
The text on page 18v shows an unusual concentration of the elements that constitute the label [koldarod].
The connection between the illustrations is matched by a demonstrable connection between texts.
It is not as explicit as label-for-label, as we might hope, but there is a demonstrable prefiguring of [koldarod] in the text of 18v.
* * *
To this I would just add that the word [koldarod] leads us to the word [otodarod] in the important page 57v.
This is the closest match to [koldarod] in the entire text.
The text on 18v gives us particles and fragments of [koldarod], usually broken by word spaces, but on 57v we find almost the same word [otodarod].
The placement of [otodarod] on page 57v suggests that it is a keyword of some kind, possibly related to the seasons.
It would seem that [koldarod] - labelling the roots of the plant on 18v - is a variant of [otodarod].
R.B.
No comments:
Post a Comment