The Voynich Ninja

I was hoping to find out what this ring referred to in iconography. I only found Allen's tentative proposal that it symbolizes the Zodiac belt, which is not so strange since Aries is the leader of the Zodiac. It is only found on a minority of Aries images, so perhaps it once had a separate meaning. I've seen images of Capricorn with such a ring as well, though on him it can be explained as a transition between his two parts... If the ring was exclusively associated with Aries, however, it might still refer to other things, like March or the March equinox or...

Also, the flowing fluid motif that you describe as representing waves crashing into a ship, and wool, and the head of Aries also shows up on f76v, f77v, and f82v, and it's part of a general theme of depicting flowing fluids in many different ways.  I highly doubt that it was intended to "evoke" (that word again!) the set of associations that you attribute to it.

Streams of fluid involving groups of dots separated by sets of lines (which you relate to missing Zodiac constellations)... look at the upper corner of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. or the right margin of f77v, among other obviously related variations of this motif.

As far as the "Gemini" thing, whether the nymphs are touching or not (and the manner in which they're touching) is also a prominent theme throughout the entire section.  Look especially at the nymphs in the pools on bifolios 78-81 and 75-84 but also other places.

Basically all of your proposed interpretations involve wrenching a single instance of a given motif completely out of context and explaining it in such a way that it can't possibly relate to the others.  But I think it's clear that we're looking at a consistent form of symbolism running through all of these illustrations.

I'll admit that the Aries is a very strange example and I had doubts about it myself. Even though I'm more certain now, this won't be the most convincing example to others.


From the same page, here's Ophiuchus:


On the mythological narrative layer, this nymph is the shipwrecked Ceyx holding on to a piece of wreckage. Note how the pose of the legs is identical to that of some comparative figures. The ridiculously long arm brings to mind the part where the snake wraps around his body.

And this one is Perseus:



The weapon and Medusa head are missing, since on the myth layer this is a storm and storms don't carry swords or heads. The wavy line above him consistently symbolizes the north pole circle (ever visible circle), and indeed Perseus touches this circle with that hand.

Additional fun fact: this is one of the only figures in Q13a that has no support under its feet. Obvious, since Perseus could fly (winged feet in the comparative examples). The other "floating" figure is one of the bird constellations.

I don't think the Ophiuchus thing is similar at all.  That cylinder isn't wrapped around the nymph like the snake is in all the examples you provide, for one thing.

The Perseus thing isn't that close either and you have the same problem I explained above - arbitrary interpretations of repeated motifs (wavy line, hand in the end of a pipe) that can't possibly apply in any of the other cases.

It has to work on both levels of meaning. A ship's mast cannot be wrapped around a body like a serpent. Hence it is evoked by the way his arm is drawn. I know you don't like that word, but one cannot analyze all levels of art without it. An obelisk might be said to evoke the shape of a phallus. That is a valid observation, whether the resemblance is intentional or not.

Here I'm presenting some random examples, but if you check the recent posts on my blog you'll see that the elements aren't taken out of context at all. I analyze a whole folio and the constellations are clustered and in order. 

I don't see why you formulate such a strong statement that I arbitrarily interpret repeated motifs. It has been discussed ad nauseam here that wavy lines represent boundaries between (heavenly) realms. So this is a perfect motif for representing the ever visible circle, which was considered the "true" heaven in astronomy, because it never dips beneath the ocean.

Can't possibly apply to any other cases? Why do you say that? Some examples:

Draco sits above the line, Bootes beneath it:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

The two ladies on top of the same folio are placed on two layers of wavy lines, because the theme of this myth is how Callisto became placed at the pinnacle of the heavens. The Ursae obviously sit above the pole circle.

I haven't analyzed this folio yet (that takes way more work and time and research than you seem to imagine) but this figure is clearly Cassiopeia. This has even been suggested by people before me. She touches the line with her feet:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

So does a woman putting her hand in the end of a pipe always represent "holding a Medusa head"?  Does the same flowing fluid motif always represent both wool and waves hitting a ship?  Does a fluid stream with lines and dots always represent omitted constellations?  These things all occur more than once.

How about this: can you explain to me which of the following images are evocative of wool and of waves hitting a ship, and which are not?

I'm not saying I understand the entire section, that would be impossible. There will be things we will never understand. So far I have analyzed and understood decent parts of five (5!) folios only. So I cannot say what the details you selected represent. They don't all look exactly the same, some of the "waves" are larger and flatter. I really don't know.

The hands in pipes clearly have some specific meaning, and I don't know what that is either. I'm just sticking to the parts I have studied elaborately and I believe can talk about with some confidence.

Never trust someone who claims to understand the entire manuscript

Well I think you're kind of dodging my point that your interpretations require that these repeated motifs don't mean the same thing in each instance, and that they must be different in all cases.

Contrary to what you say about not trying to understand the entire manuscript, I think it is actually a good idea that the repeated and systematic aspects of the illustrations should be interpreted in a consistent way, rather than looking at one page in isolation, coming up with some explanation for it, and then ignoring the fact that the interpretations of specific motifs make no sense at all when applied to the other pages.  It's basically the same as with interpretations of the text that make sense when applied to one small section and yield complete nonsense everywhere else.