The Voynich Ninja

I think some parts are copied and some parts are drawn (maybe from memory, maybe from imagination).

I don't think the various parts of the VMS are all from the same source. Bits from here and there.

And I think drawing skill (or lack of it) has a lot to do with how it has been drawn. Obfuscation might be another reason. It doesn't have to be just one reason.

So here's the problem. Let's just say that we can't identify the critter by the way it looks. Sure, someone can say it looks like 'X' or it looks like 'Y' and some will favor a particular identification. That's the way it goes and that is why the identification has not been resolved.

The identification is not based on appearance. The identification is based on structure. The structure has three parts as defined by the illustration from the 'Apocalypse of S Jean".  Those three parts sit in a specific relationship: 1) the lamb, 2), the cosmic boundary, and 3) the droplets (of blood). Once the structure is established, then the individual parts can be manipulated. The image from the Golden Fleece can be transposed into the structure of the 'Apocalypse' image.

The lamb in the "Apocalypse' illustration is clearly designated as holy. It has a halo, it is in a vesica piscis, it is framed by a cloud band. It is 'The Lamb of God" but it is certainly not the more typical example of the 'Agnus Dei', that is often shown with the Cross and/or flag. And the "Apocalypse' has the droplets of blood, which makes this "Blood of the Lamb" illustration and structure significantly different from the typical Agnus Dei image.

The VMs illustration has the same three parts as the 'Apocalypse' image. Once the structure is established, then any sort of animal as long as it has some sort of vague and ambiguous 'sheep-like' appearance *is* the lamb. Any sort of cosmic boundary *is* a cosmic boundary. A nebuly line is, by etymological derivation, equivalent to a cloud-band. That equivalence is also verified as a necessary part of the interpretation of the VMs cosmos. And in the third part, the VMs illustration has the vertical lines to indicate generic droplets.

So if the critter looks like an armadillo, pangolin, dog or dragon, why would that animal be associated with the cosmic boundary and the droplets? And even if it were a mythical creature involved in the condensation of rain, *do we have such an illustration from a relevant time and place?*  No. What we do have is the "Apocalypse" illustration of "The Blood of the Lamb". And the identification is based on the similarity of structure matches structure, not on appearance (of one part) looks like the appearance of some sort of proposed creature.

Similar use of structure and appearance are found in the VMs cosmos. The structure is similar, yet the appearance is intentionally dissimilar. The earth is an inverted T-O structure. But the comparison between the pictorial representation of the BNF Fr. 565 fol.23 image could not be more different visually from the linguistic description in the VMs. And the other cosmic parts are similar. Trickery and the use of ambiguity may be hard to accept on the basis of a single example, But then it turns out that there is more than one example.

(18-07-2019, 04:54 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It doesn't have to be just one reason.

I agree that we are probably dealing with a combination of factors. 
Some of the images are very badly drawn. They show a clear lack of skill. But then on the other hand, proportions of the nymphs are rather consistent, and a trademark of bad artists (like children) is variable proportions. Various plant  drawings are relatively complex and well executed. 

Of some images I feel almost certain that they are exact copies. The Zodiac figures are clear candidates. Others almost certainly must be new compositions for the VM or its now lost source. But even in those there are so often echoes of other works, like Balneis.

The problem Voynich researchers/ theorists so often face is that a leap of interpretation is usually required to bridge the gap between VM and proposed source image.

(18-07-2019, 04:54 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I think some parts are copied and some parts are drawn (maybe from memory, maybe from imagination).

I don't think the various parts of the VMS are all from the same source. Bits from here and there.

And I think drawing skill (or lack of it) has a lot to do with how it has been drawn. Obfuscation might be another reason. It doesn't have to be just one reason.

You could be right, especially if Agnus dei is indeed referenced. If more than one reference is made within the diagram, then the lines blur all the more. 

I agree that different parts of the vms likely came from different sources, or i guess it could be possible that they were copies of various origins of things already gathered together in a single source.

You are right there doesn't have to be a single reason for how it has been drawn. I was just trying to make the point that it could have turned out exactly as they wanted, that it is possible it wasn't a bad drawing of what they were going after. it  really depends on what that was, kind of hard to judge if it is a good drawing of something without knowing for sure what it represents. If they were trying to be ambiguous in its representation, then great job. If it is supposed to be unambiguously an armadillo, then not so good, unless it is a copy of a bad drawing of an armadillo, then it might be a great job again, if it looks just like the original drawing that we just haven't seen. It is hard for me to agree to there being a lack of skill without knowing more about what it truly represents, and from what perspective it is being portrayed, ie copy of something drawn before that they had in front of them, a reference to a collection of similar imagery seen over time, an impression of a true object, or a visualization of an idea about something that may not have been represented exactly in that way before.

If the illustrator was aiming for ambiguity then he or she succeeded.

(18-07-2019, 10:45 PM)R. Sale Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.So here's the problem. Let's just say that we can't identify the critter by the way it looks. Sure, someone can say it looks like 'X' or it looks like 'Y' and some will favor a particular identification. That's the way it goes and that is why the identification has not been resolved.

The identification is not based on appearance. The identification is based on structure. The structure has three parts as defined by the illustration from the 'Apocalypse of S Jean".  Those three parts sit in a specific relationship: 1) the lamb, 2), the cosmic boundary, and 3) the droplets (of blood). Once the structure is established, then the individual parts can be manipulated. The image from the Golden Fleece can be transposed into the structure of the 'Apocalypse' image.

1 The lamb is ambiguous, in a position not generally portrayed. I am not certain it can be a lamb, problems with the horns, tail. Now i will say it could be a bad drawing of a lamb, some representations dont look much like them either. 

2 the cosmic boundary is only below the animal, not around it. It is also not only below it but to the side of it. Unknown whether this was to continue around the back and other side.

3 the droplets of blood act strangely, first they sweat out of the vesica piscus in defiance of gravity. To me it seems more comparable to heat and fire. The people don't seem to want any on them. 

This does not seem to be the same as the vms situation at all. I can only see it as a vague reference, it is certainly not clearly so.

Quote:The lamb in the "Apocalypse' illustration is clearly designated as holy. It has a halo, it is in a vesica piscis, it is framed by a cloud band. It is 'The Lamb of God" but it is certainly not the more typical example of the 'Agnus Dei', that is often shown with the Cross and/or flag. And the "Apocalypse' has the droplets of blood, which makes this "Blood of the Lamb" illustration and structure significantly different from the typical Agnus Dei image.

The only difference i see is the timing, ie this is after the lamb has looked at the book, in the others the lamb waits. In this one we see the effects of opening the sixth seal. I am not alone in thinking the red depicts fire or molten rock.

From wiki
[b]Futurist view[/b]

The sixth seal will be the literal cosmic disturbances caused by nuclear war or a global earthquake that causes volcanic debris to pollute the atmosphere, which turns the moon blood red and the sun dark. In addition, there will be massive meteor showers (“the stars… fell”). Thus follows the first half of the Tribulation where God’s wrath consumes the earth.

Quote:The VMs illustration has the same three parts as the 'Apocalypse' image. Once the structure is established, then any sort of animal as long as it has some sort of vague and ambiguous 'sheep-like' appearance *is* the lamb. Any sort of cosmic boundary *is* a cosmic boundary. A nebuly line is, by etymological derivation, equivalent to a cloud-band. That equivalence is also verified as a necessary part of the interpretation of the VMs cosmos. And in the third part, the VMs illustration has the vertical lines to indicate generic droplets.

But it is an ibex mountain with a swamp boundary, draining into the sea. It was kind of interesting, i had recently determined the swamp motif due to the rann of kutsch and caspian sea examples, and today i was reading Strabo's description of the areas south of the alps and the word swamp was actually used, in the english translation of course. 

I am just saying that just because you could place this narrative on the imagery, it does not necessarily follow that this is the only possible interpretation, just as you could say to me for mine.

Quote:So if the critter looks like an armadillo, pangolin, dog or dragon, why would that animal be associated with the cosmic boundary and the droplets? And even if it were a mythical creature involved in the condensation of rain, *do we have such an illustration from a relevant time and place?*  No. What we do have is the "Apocalypse" illustration of "The Blood of the Lamb". And the identification is based on the similarity of structure matches structure, not on appearance (of one part) looks like the appearance of some sort of proposed creature.

Here you seem to say that if it doesnt look like a lamb, then it couldnt be anything but a lamb because there is no precedent for it to be anything but with the other two features present. 

But i have already shown that the features may not be what you think.the blood of the lamb is a sacrificial and communion related icon, not an apocalyptic one. Apocalypse and meteors, now there is the end of the world.

Here are some other versions of the one you posted, the important icons in your interpretation are not the important ones in the bulk of examples, many times the lamb is not involved, but instead Christ takes its place, the blood is stars falling, and the cloudband can vary or also be absent.

Quote:Similar use of structure and appearance are found in the VMs cosmos. The structure is similar, yet the appearance is intentionally dissimilar. The earth is an inverted T-O structure. But the comparison between the pictorial representation of the BNF Fr. 565 fol.23 image could not be more different visually from the linguistic description in the VMs. And the other cosmic parts are similar. Trickery and the use of ambiguity may be hard to accept on the basis of a single example, But then it turns out that there is more than one example.

i do believe the vms cosmos is a reference to Oresme, but is in a different section of the vms. This does not equate all cloudbands, especially since they differ. A similar nebuly line was used in cartography to denote shorelines and rivers, and even mountains.

(18-07-2019, 11:19 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I agree that we are probably dealing with a combination of factors. 
Some of the images are very badly drawn. They show a clear lack of skill. 

Are they from quire 13? If so please give examples.

Quote:But then on the other hand, proportions of the nymphs are rather consistent, and a trademark of bad artists (like children) is variable proportions. Various plant  drawings are relatively complex and well executed. 

I think there may be meaning in some of what may seem to be badly drawn.

Quote:Of some images I feel almost certain that they are exact copies. The Zodiac figures are clear candidates. Others almost certainly must be new compositions for the VM or its now lost source. But even in those there are so often echoes of other works, like Balneis.

That i can agree with, they seem different than the nymphs. I do think other works are referenced, and especially those which are known to be oft copied. 

Quote:The problem Voynich researchers/ theorists so often face is that a leap of interpretation is usually required to bridge the gap between VM and proposed source image.

Well for me the theory part is that it follows the world tour, but to me it looks more like a goat than a lamb, and although it fits better with my theory is not the reason i think it looks like an ibex, it just looks more like one, and has the added value of having a traditional reason for its head to be down.

For R Sale's theory i am not sure how the lamb falls in with it but it could be some of the same reasons as i think there is some merit to the idea, the connections to politics and religion of the area, or of the greater ecumene.

(19-07-2019, 10:25 PM)Koffee Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.EDIT: Sorry, I made a mistake, the discussion was about the goat/lamb/sheep, and I was looking more at the image of the lion when I started writing this, I will correct the post below.

It's not a lamb, it's a full grown ram.

Hi Koffee, welcome back.

Ah you beat me to it, i was going to ask how it could be a lion when there is a leopard later that looks more like a lion.

I used to think it was a ram but it is true the features are more like a goat, or the genus Capra. That is why my pet id on the dark aries at the moment is an ibex. A female, to be specific. Note the red dot. There is a red dot on the leo as well, i think she is female too, again, not usual in most representations of leo, and yet makes some sense. The darker bull is a male, not sure about the lighter one though.

It seems like some questioning of tradition might be embodied in the depictions of at least some of these, if they are indeed symbols of the zodiac, which they do seem to be, overall. Gemini looks similar to male female pairings of the time, but may yet be two men, as gemini used to be depicted, ie  as identical twins, not fraternal. 

I think the missing pages would hold Capricorn and Aquarius. The Aries and Taurus duplicates allow for more detail within the circles, note there are half the amount of nymphs within as for the rest of the circles. It may also be commentary on changing calendars over time, switching systems. Myself i think it is because these are not zodiac months but ages, but most of mankinds' written history occurs within the last three of these. We are still in Pisces now, just as they were in vms days, and before 6000 years ago or so things were more nomadic and less is known about culture, architecture was basic, and various languages remain unknown today. In Gemini we find the last of the clothed people, and the architecture (tubs) is all knocked over. It is knocked over in half of Pisces too  whether that is a premonition or something that occurred is unclear, seems like flooding is involved with them being coloured green and decoration gives way to pock marks by mollusks.

A red dot on Leo when it's used as a zodiac figure is quite common. Leo is a sun sign and it was traditional in some areas to draw a small red sun or add a red splotch to Leo.

(16-07-2019, 11:12 PM)R. Sale Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The “Apocalypse of S Jean” aka BNF Fr. 13096 is dated to 1313.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.


A folio from this manuscript was recently posted in J.K. Petersen’s blog discussing the possibility that the elusive VMs (f80v) critter was related to medieval images of the Agnus Dei. 
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
 

 
As a lamb or sheep, the form of the VMs critter has been compared with that of the ram seen in the image of the Order of the Golden Fleece, begun by Philip the Good in Burgundy in 1429. Apparently the “Apocalypse of S Jean” was in the library of Philip the Good as well. Speculation must allow that someone of that era could have known the structure of the apocalypse image and substituted  a reversed  representation of the Burgundian fleece in place of the lamb while retaining the other parts. Not only that, if this occurred in the 1430s, it is still within the parchment dates.

Just came across something coincidental, Marie of Savoy married to the Duke of Milan, her father was antiPope Felix V, her mother was Philip the Good's aunt.  Marie commissioned a breviary around 1428 for her hubby which has some pics similar to the vms dragon, among others. I got there from an Aries goat, but i am not sure it was supposed to be aries, havent found the book yet, just snippets.

[font=Arial,]marginal goat[/font]
Breviary of Mary of Savoy, Lombardy ca. 1430
Chambéry, Bibliothèque municipale, ms. 4, fol. 443r