The Voynich Ninja

I am convinced that the “wagons” (as Кoen called them) on f82r2 are a “mosaic” (combination) of elements from various plants.
First consider the principle of "mosaic" in relation to the jar 89v1. The upper part (yellow rectangle) of this jar is self-sufficient, and its outline is very similar to the inner jar 89r1. I suppose that this is a composite picture, meaning that a recipe from plant elements drawn to the right of the jar and placed in the lower part (blue rectangle) can be used by himself for some ailments, as well as in conjunction with the contents of the upper part (yellow rectangle ) for other diseases.
Applying this principle, we get that the jar 89r1 consists of three parts. That is, for a certain purpose, a potion can be added to the cup (red rectangle) from the inner vase or (and) from the cup located in the background.

[attachment=2704]
And it was not necessary to arrange a "fight" on the site of Nick.

Hi Wladimir,
I agree that the bottom jar in f89r1 may be decomposed into three parts that individually seem to make sense. I may also agree that the overall jar is comparable to the blue one in 89v1; but that blue jar, however complex, is coherent as a 3D object. This one is really special in not simply mappable into a corresponding object.

I would be interested in finding XV century parallels, other examples of messed-up perspective. They might give us some hints on how similar Escher-like illustrations might have been used. I don't expect that any close match exist, but also not-so-close matches could suggest something.

I attach an attempt to clarify my interpretation of the yellow / red-dotted ellipsoid as a cross-section. I am less and less convinced that this might have been the intention of the artist, still this was my initial "reading" of this illustration.

I have big doubts that in the 15th century they knew the basics of descriptive geometry and the combination of types and sections in the drawings, as we understand it at the present time. That's why I began to consider the "allegorical" content of the can.

(04-03-2019, 06:26 PM)Wladimir D Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I have big doubts that in the 15th century they knew the basics of descriptive geometry and the combination of types and sections in the drawings, as we understand it at the present time. That's why I began to consider the "allegorical" content of the can.

As your 89v1 example shows, the artist was capable of convincingly rendering complex objects. I guess he did so in an intuitive way, yet he was effective. In 89r1, he seems to be trying something different. 
It is certainly possible that he meant that illustration as "allegorical": the idea would be even more plausible if examples of allegorical pseudo-perspective were known. 
An alternative is that he pushed his limits too far: he tried to represent something even more complex (e.g. "matrioshka" jars, cross-section, a weird filtration-device with several interconnected parts,....) and failed. Even in this case, examples of similar failures before the rules of perspective were mastered could be illuminating.

What I was talking about was something like this (sorry for the lazy PS job).

[attachment=2707]

My most intuitive interpretation of the drawing was somewhat different still. I felt like they were trying to draw three legs in between the globe and the base. It's hard to explain and visualize though. I made a desperate attempt below, where I separated the three legs exaggeratedly to show what I mean. 

[attachment=2708]

All interpretations I can come up with are flawed though. But this is how it appeared to me.