The Voynich Ninja

@R.Sale, perhaps you are trying to make something fit that cannot be fitted.

As Koen has already pointed out a few times, fashion in this general era cannot be pinpointed to a specific region.

It appears as if the human cross-bow equipped sagittarius fits the general German area, but not a very limited time frame. At the same time, the clothing fits a reasonably narrow time frame, but not a narrow geographical area.

Looking at it though the very narrow viewport into this time presented by extant and publicly available illustrations in manuscripts, paintings and tapestries would allow one to easily miss the right origin.

In my view, this is still an open investigation and an ongoing request for additional information.

I agree with the general assessment of the data regarding the crossbowman and his clothing, specifically bagpipe sleeves. Your statement: "It appears as if the human cross-bow equipped sagittarius fits the general German area, but not a very limited time frame. At the same time, the clothing fits a reasonably narrow time frame, but not a narrow geographical area."

The crossbowman suggests a geographic area, the bagpipe sleeves suggest a chronological era. Both of these are compatible with the single source C-14 interpretation.  Your reference: Cod. Sang. 827.

Further investigation now turns to the VMs archer's hat. The 'potential' Italian suggestion has no date, no specific location, and no indication why a *white* sack hat or chaperon would be preferred over any other color choice. The 'potential' connection to the Cabochien revolt, is specific in both time and place, as well as to the color of the hat. I'm not saying that this solves this VMs investigation, but I am saying that this is valid historical information within the C-14 dates that further supplements other potential Valois and Burgundian possibilities.

I can show over two dozen different, medieval representations of Eleazar and the elephant. That doesn't mean that any of these artists were there to witness the event. Why should it be assumed that the VMs artist was present to witness the so-call "right origin" event??

Manuscripts, paintings and tapestries may not show the presence of "le chaperon blanc", but the historical narrative unequivocally confirms it.

(17-12-2017, 10:07 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.My original point, that I remember seeing an illustration of two lobsters for cancer, still remains open....

Two lobsters/crayfish for Cancer in a French (Bourges) book of hours: Lyon BM 5141 (ca. 1490) f. 6v:



You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

There's also the earlier (still later than the VMS) example from post #11:

(07-12-2017, 01:08 PM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Two sets of two crayfish each appear in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (Western  France, 1455-60).

I think it's possible that the Lyon ms derives from NAL 3191, but who knows? There also are considerable differences, e.g. in NAL 3191 most of the signs appear multiple times, like two couples of crayfish (red and black), sitting and standing bull etc.
(top NAL 3191, bottom Lyon):
[attachment=8824]

About double cancer, it might be worth remembering this ms from post #46

(10-12-2017, 12:45 PM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.As far as I know, double crabs appear in a single manuscript: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (England, ca. 1325-1330, discussed by Olga Koseleff Gordon).

Gordon's paper is You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..

Here cancer is represented as two crabs seen from above, inside a circular frame. Personally I doubt that NAL 3191 derives from the much earlier English ms: I think it's more likely that double-cancer was independently created at different times and places. But, again, who knows?

[attachment=8822]

User PTR47 posted this image on Reddit. Aries is a good match in general, but I find the background particularly interesting. I think it's a very rare feature, possibly unique in its VMS form.

Ms Morgan M.347

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

[attachment=9887]

These are definitely of the right type, the bull also. At this point I am quite convinced that in the bulls and goats, background trees were reinterpreted as food for the animal. 
This particular flavor of zodiac images is fairly widespread in German MSS though. We are probably looking for a subgroup where some of the other signs match better.

Interesting details. The artist has a certain predilection for wings. The female Gemini has wings. Virgo has wings. The Sagittarius centaur has wings. Ever seen a centaur with wings? And Pegasus not only has a pair of wings on its back but a wing on each hoof as well.

This MS seems related: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

But it's always a complicated give-and-take of good properties. For example, the lion's tail in the Penn MS is really good.

I've been thinking for a while already, there must be a better way for us to track relevant Zodiac features. This post will just be some disjunct initial thoughts, I apologize in advance. I'm just thinking out loud.

Let's take the bulls as an example. We know there is a type of bull that's seen in certain Zodiac series and is shared by the VM series. It is red, has long, lyre shaped horns, is contaminated with horse (long, upright neck), lifts the far front leg, is facing left, stands on terrain. Some of those features may have been intriduced by the VM artist themselves, but most of them appear to belong to the type.

Moreover, this type of bull might travel together with good lions, good lobsters... But a bad sagittarius as a hypothetical example.

Okay, so then where do good bulls and human archers intersect?

Do we keep using "crossbow" as the most defining secondary characteristic after "human"? Is there a "type" of archers that is similar but doesn't necessarily have the variable attribute "crossbow"?

Is "type" something intangible that might be overlooked when too many checkboxes are tracked? 

How do we determine the most important features, the "deal breakers"? 

Might there be value in, as an experiment, just using one feature per Zodiac figure? The one that is most likely to link to a source group? Or the one that defines the highest level type?

For some that's easy:
* Cancer is a lobster, not a crab
* Sagittarius is fully human
* Gemini is a male-female pair (is "clothed" part of the type or part of the fashion?)
* scales are without a person or hand holding them

Some are harder:
* Leo: upright tail? Low mane? Something about the tongue? (I doubt the usefulness of the latter)
* Aries is a complete mess. "Terrrain" might point to a genre rather than an iconographic type of the animal?
* Taurus could probably be cornered with lyre-shaped horns + upright neck
* Fish I don't even know if there should be a type here, they are two fish. 
* Scorpio's exact appearance might be a unique VM deviation. Four-legged? 
* Virgo: the VM makes it hard on us here. Holding flower is not really an option. And we can't see if she's sitting or standing. Dress type is fashion, not iconographic type.

In a perhaps less chaotic summary, I think it might be helpful to do the opposite exercise of the one we did in this thread: which features (one, max 2 per sign) most reliably link the VM figures to a tradition for the figure? And where are those types found together? Which are the odd ones out?

I think this is very similar to what Marco once published on Stephen Bax' site. But perhaps it can be refined and expanded upon.

(30-01-2025, 03:44 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This MS seems related: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

But it's always a complicated give-and-take of good properties. For example, the lion's tail in the Penn MS is really good.

I've been thinking for a while already, there must be a better way for us to track relevant Zodiac features. This post will just be some disjunct initial thoughts, I apologize in advance. I'm just thinking out loud.

Let's take the bulls as an example. We know there is a type of bull that's seen in certain Zodiac series and is shared by the VM series. It is red, has long, lyre shaped horns, is contaminated with horse (long, upright neck), lifts the far front leg, is facing left, stands on terrain. Some of those features may have been intriduced by the VM artist themselves, but most of them appear to belong to the type.

Moreover, this type of bull might travel together with good lions, good lobsters... But a bad sagittarius as a hypothetical example.

Okay, so then where do good bulls and human archers intersect?

Do we keep using "crossbow" as the most defining secondary characteristic after "human"? Is there a "type" of archers that is similar but doesn't necessarily have the variable attribute "crossbow"?

Is "type" something intangible that might be overlooked when too many checkboxes are tracked? 

How do we determine the most important features, the "deal breakers"? 

Might there be value in, as an experiment, just using one feature per Zodiac figure? The one that is most likely to link to a source group? Or the one that defines the highest level type?

For some that's easy:
* Cancer is a lobster, not a crab
* Sagittarius is fully human
* Gemini is a male-female pair (is "clothed" part of the type or part of the fashion?)
* scales are without a person or hand holding them

Some are harder:
* Leo: upright tail? Low mane? Something about the tongue? (I doubt the usefulness of the latter)
* Aries is a complete mess. "Terrrain" might point to a genre rather than an iconographic type of the animal?
* Taurus could probably be cornered with lyre-shaped horns + upright neck
* Fish I don't even know if there should be a type here, they are two fish. 
* Scorpio's exact appearance might be a unique VM deviation. Four-legged? 
* Virgo: the VM makes it hard on us here. Holding flower is not really an option. And we can't see if she's sitting or standing. Dress type is fashion, not iconographic type.

In a perhaps less chaotic summary, I think it might be helpful to do the opposite exercise of the one we did in this thread: which features (one, max 2 per sign) most reliably link the VM figures to a tradition for the figure? And where are those types found together? Which are the odd ones out?

I think this is very similar to what Marco once published on Stephen Bax' site. But perhaps it can be refined and expanded upon.

You might want to look at this thread: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

With Gemini, I think the presence of clothing is significant. The style of clothing is fashion.

In Leo, the presence of the lion's tongue is the thing. Nearly every heraldic lion has a tongue displayed.

In Virgo, it's the hat. Only the Virgo of Prague has been shown wearing a hat - a very similar hat.