The Voynich Ninja

Without wanting to overly muddy the pond, it may be worth considering the sumptuary laws. True, they were ineffective but they would have permeated into popular culture, and hence could give a hint as to the social status of the figures under consideration.

On a different note, I consider the dress to be quite Italian in fashion - we're basically looking at the chap in the forefront of this painting by Sandro Botticelli (Italy, 1470), but with a hat on his head. (And the hat may have been coloured in later, remember). It's a short overgarment worn over a doublet. 



The colouring on the figure is quite suggestive. It is coloured in a very slapdash fashion, in a green wash colour that is not very common within the book, and the strokes are diagonal against the grain of the figure. The hat has been crudely outlined and then badly coloured in using broad stokes of a much stronger nature than the main figure. It's as if they did the hat first and then finished off the body.

Most floppy hats of the era had trailing fabric, as in this example by Petrus Christus. But such hats would be expensive and belong to the aristocrats. I'm not sure how this would fit with the doublet clothes. The way I see it, the hat and the clothes belong to two different outfits, and could represent a carnivalesque inversion of order.

David, I've been reading about the evolution of mens fashion and it appears that the length of a garment is really a determining factor. Remember that before the 14th century they all wore these long loose nightgown like dresses. This gradually evolved into the houppelande. 

If I'm not mistaken (and I certainly could be because this topic is new to me) the clothing worn by the male Gemini still falls under houppelande. They were similar for men and women, but men's were belted lower while women's were belted beneath the breasts. 

The Italian example you provide is a couple of evolutionary steps further, I'd say it's a completely different garment, more appropriate to the later 15th century. 

You're right about the hats though, they are usually more complex, and the round ones without things dangling or rooster crests are hard to find. But they certainly existed. 

About the green color: this appears in a surprising number of manuscripts for such clothing, so I suspect it reflects some reality.


Don: I think you are right, we might add low belt as a factor. It was certainly a (horrible) fashion option, we've even had a thread about it. What's holding me back a bit is that really all proportions of the VM guy are way off. His head is even much larger still compared to other VM figures and his arms are chimpanzee like. So does the VN figure reflect the low belt fad or are the legs just out of proportion like everything else?

Yes, but Koen you are contradicting yourself. You can't base an argument upon lengths, and then say that "but the proportion of the guy are way off".

All we can say for certain is that he is wearing boots, a doublet, an overgarment with a belt, a neckline and long sleeves to the cuff (note the cuffs at the wrists) and a large floppy hat (and there is an argument for saying that the hat is not part of the original arrangement).

The outfit is in general the same as the one I posted, which is from 1470 Italy. Is there an argument for debating the length of the trim of the overgarment? Yes there is, but the proportions are so skewed that it would be impossible to come to a definite agreement. I suppose it would be knee height, which is longer than the one in the Botticelli I posted above.

Nor is there any outfit that I know of that would combine that sort of garb with a large floppy hat. It's a bit like showing a contemporary youth dressed in smart casual, and popping a top hat on his head. The styles and purpose of the garments don't mix.

From looking at a great many of these illustrations of tunics, the impression I get is that layers are another indication of wealth.


A single garment, a basic tunic, less wealth... an undergarment, an over-tunic (like a vest over the first layer), more wealth.

The VMS tunics look to me like they are single layer. I don't see any indication of undergarments with slits or layers to let the color and fabric of the under-layer of garments to show through.

Yes, that's basically it. The richer you were, the more you could display. Hence the sumptuary laws, which attempted to regulate clothing by social status, to prevent the artisans (who were starting to develop into a middle class) from showing off too much. The laws were also economic in nature, attempting to prevent expensive imports.

Slitting of fabrics was a popular southern tendency, but as I understand it this was frowned upon in the north as being "too showy". You did it to show that your undergarments (and I'm talking vests, not pants!) were of fine fabric and colour.

But in any case you wouldn't see this in the small perspective we have of Mr. Gemini.

From Pal. lat 1370, c. 1470s, human Sagittarius with simple tunic with scalloped-looking edge:

[attachment=2383]

If you ignore the fact that the tunic is worn by Gemini, and look at various drawings of human Sagittarius with a longbow and pleated/gathered tunic, there are a number from the 15th century that are similar (and if you ignore pleats, there are more, but here are a few with pleats/gathers):

Thank you JKP. I think it is interesting that the artist has chosen to depict specific cuffs, neckline, pleats and belt. There also appear to be some pleats, or something depicted by three vertical wavy lines, on the chest area.

The hat is the biggest tell. It is as if the illustrator is attempting to depict his social class with an expensive hat.

(22-09-2018, 01:23 PM)davidjackson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There also appear to be some pleats, or something depicted by three vertical wavy lines, on the chest area.

The hat is the biggest tell. It is as if the illustrator is attempting to depict his social class with an expensive hat.

This "tunic" may be a pourpoint (quilted). The hat looks like a béret (large, floppy). German: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..

Probably the hat is a chaperon (that's what David has in mind). Those usually have more frills than the simple one we see here, but it's still my best guess.

I'm going through its Wiki now which looks promising, there's a sub heading called "Using the wrong hole".

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

This bit is of interest for us, both concerning Gemini and the Archer:

Quote:A padded circular bourrelet (or rondel) evolved, which sat around the head, whilst the cornette became much longer, and gradually more scarf-like in shape, until by the 1430s it was usually straight at the sides and square-ended. Especially in Italy, the cornette was sometimes dispensed with, leaving just an un-flared tubular patte fixed to the bourrelet all round and hanging down to one side of the head. Reed (see refs) calls these sack hats

So on Geminiman only the bourrelet is visible, while the archer has a bourrelet without cornette, leaving just the patte hanging down.

Edit: don't google bourrelet.

Edit2: I'm actually not so sure anymore about the Gemini man. It's quite easy to find examples of just the "bourrelet" without attachments. Might this be another type of hat altogether? 

[attachment=2385]

Koen, that's why I purposely avoided using any fashion terminology - I'm not sure of any particular identification yet. Just the trend.

Interesting that we seem to be looking at Italian fashion here. Could just be that the scribe was referencing his version of a dandy?

Of course, what do you think of my earlier comment that the hat could be a later addition?