The Voynich Ninja

In the 14th and 15th century enema bags (clystra) usually looked like giant hypodermics, or bellows, but some of them were bags, tied at one end (no stick coming out of the tied end though), but this earlier one nevertheless caught my eye even without the stick because of the line of dots:


Ms CLM 337

VViews: I agree that the pose in itself is relevant, and can perhaps be considered in isolation from the object in question. I came to a similar conclusion in my overview of handheld objects (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.)

Still, if one were to argue that the cross is indeed the cross of the Christ, I would find it highly problematic that a manuscript would allow it to be held in the same, very remarkable way as a device for cleaning the colon.

That said, here is my view about the figure and the problematic aspects:

• The figure represents Ursa Minor
  
• The Thing is supposed to evoke both the image of a spindle (see this thread) and a navigator's device (see Diane's posts).
  
• The navigator's device is obvious: Ursa minor has been a favorite for navigators since before Aratus' time (he calls her Cynosura):
  "Now the one men call by name Cynosura and other Helice. It is by Helice that the Achaeans on the sea divine which way to steer their ships, but in the other the Phoenicians put their trust when they cross the sea. But Helice, appearing large at earliest night, is bright and easy to mark; but the other is small, yet better for sailors: for in a smaller orbit wheel all her stars. By her guidance, then, the men of Sidon steer the straightest course."
  
• Aratus' quote above also explains the images of the spindle. Today, the tail of Cynosura is very near the pole (Polaris). This was different in other ages as the pole shifts very slowly through time, but even in a source as old as Aratus it was already seen as very close to the pole, much closer than Ursa Major.
  
• If the image of a torch is meant, the explanation of a guiding light in the darkness is obvious.
  Virgil, Georgics 1. 137 ff: "The mariner grouped and named the stars, Pleiades and Hyades and Lycaon's daughter, the radiant Bear."
  
• The pose of the figure's upper body evokes the shape of Ursa Minor (though to be proper, she'd have to be standing on her head). In that case, the very tip of the thing coincides with Polaris. This is why I find the "spindle" part appealing, because it would place the tip of the spindle so very close to the celestial pole, around which the heavens themselves revolve.
  
• The base upon which she stands evokes the "high heavens", the very centre of the northern celestial pole. The cloud bands are self explanatory. So is the evocation of frost on the bottom of the base, since the north pole was very often described as frozen and stormy. Phrases like "the frozen pole" are found in many classical works.
  

(30-11-2016, 04:27 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

• The figure represents Ursa Minor
  

Hi Koen,
as far as I know, in Medieval times, Ursa Minor was usually represented as a Bear.
See for instance the images in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..
Is the iconography of the constellation as a naked woman holding a spindle documented?

Since the Voynich Zodiacal signs are consistent with the astronomical / astrological iconography common in the XV Century (the two fish, bull, virgin girl, feline, human archer etc), wouldn't it be surprising that the constellation is represented in such an unrecognizable way?

Thanks JKP!
That seems to be the type that ReneZ showed being used in the Balneis illustration. Good to get a clear view of the object... and like the poppy proposed by MarcoP, it explains the row of dots, which the spindle doesn't.

(30-11-2016, 04:50 PM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Since the Voynich Zodiacal signs are consistent with the astronomical / astrological iconography common in the XV Century (the two fish, bull, virgin girl, feline, human archer etc), wouldn't it be surprising that the constellation is represented in such an unrecognizable way?

That is of course true, though I wouldn't call the iconography of the Zodiac section "common" - but that is a separate discussion.

I think that most people would agree that the VM in general is either a rather creative work that alters mainstream imagery, or a product of an otherwise unattested tradition. So I try to explain as many elements as possible.

I believe that for the "narrative" bathing folios (the non-pool-ones, where the illustrations are mostly in the margins), this can be best done by describing them as showing constellations and a somewhat related myth simultaneously. Hence most of the "actors" are people - though I think it helps to see them as mannequins, meaning that their bodily appearance is subordinate to the attributes and pose.

As you know, the "why" is not always the easiest question, even in "normal" manuscripts. My best guess is that it has been done for mnemonic purposes.

(30-11-2016, 05:01 PM)VViews Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Thanks JKP!
That seems to be the type that ReneZ showed being used in the Balneis illustration. Good to get a clear view of the object... and like the poppy proposed by MarcoP, it explains the row of dots, which the spindle doesn't.

I agree. The fact that the sources quoted by Rene and JKP are two medical manuscripts, one about baths and the other about ingredients, mostly plants (Dioscorides), makes that interpretation very attractive to me.

Also, the image at the bottom left of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is more similar to their examples (no "spike" and a softer shape).

So just to make sure we're on the same page here: this side is designed to be inserted into a person's rectum?

No, I think it's the other side, based on ReneZ's illustration which shows how it is supposed to be held.
The bag's "handle" then isnt really a handle: it is more like a tube or cannula.

(30-11-2016, 08:51 PM)VViews Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.No, I think it's the other side, based on ReneZ's illustration which shows how it is supposed to be held.
The bag's "handle" then isnt really a handle: it is more like a tube or cannula.

Ah, that would be more plausible.

But if these two objects are the same, then that would imply that the lady on the left is holding the cross of Jesus, and the one on the right is holding between her very finger tips the part of the Thing that goes into people's rectums 

Yes, but as I explained, and sorry for not responding to your reply to that before, although apparently you have come to the same observation as me that the number of poses is limited, I don't think the poses are significant.
My opinion is that the 80v pose is a generic pose, in this case, related to the nymph's placement on the page but unrelated to the thing she's holding.
I won't have all of my Voynich-related files with me until the end of the week and it's a shame to explain this without being able to illustrate what I'm saying, but I'll post examples of what I mean either here or to my blog, or both, hopefully this weekend.
Basically, IMO the exact pose doesn't really convey much information (I know, that's not your view at all). She could be holding anything, a Thing, a cross, a ring, a flower, another nymph.. the artist just copies the same pose.