The Voynich Ninja

Who's that sitting on the medieval rainbow?  There are Christian representations and there are classical deities also.

Who's that not sitting on a rainbow in VMs f82v? The VMs double rainbow is vacant. Who is it not sitting there? Not Dr. Who. It could be any of the relevant possibilities either Christian or classical. It could be any one of those possibilities from a modern perspective.

Tradition indicates the opposite. If previous historical implications are any guide, this is an interesting possibility that connects to Philip the Good, and dates to 1433. Dijon is the Burgundian capital at that time.

The Sacred Bleeding Host of Dijon: 

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

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


Sitting on a rainbow - or not. This seems to be part of a pattern put forth is some other parts of the VMs. First - the oak and ivy - whatever is discordant can be combined. Second - whatever is synonymous, whatever belongs together can be separated. In this case the double rainbow throne and its essential occupant have been separated.

While identifying an absent figure really is hypothetical, there is the clear potential for historical confluence regarding the traditions of Melusine, the Golden Fleece as the 1313 Agnus Dei, and Sainte Hostie as the missing occupant of the rainbow throne.

And the close arrangement of these folios in the VMs. How is that  a coincidence?

Quote:And the close arrangement of these folios...

i guess you mean all the ones with rainbows? Or are you including the oak and the ivy and other images? 

But i don't think the pages are in the correct order as they are bound. Or do you mean that is part of why they are not bound in order, that the current rebinding contains clues in itself? everything that seems like random chaos is purposeful and included in the unfolding? All coincidences planned?

i understand you to mean that the absence of a figure in a double rainbow setting on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is meant to imply same. ie, you are to be aware of the religious double rainbow portraits, see the similarity, note the absence, and derive some sort of meaning from that? 

I don't understand how the sacred bleeding host links figure into what you are saying. there is only one colourless example of a rainbow? And all the ones not on a rainbow, what is that supposed to indicate? That in fact the rainbow images are not that frequent? I also don't understand pulling in the oak and the ivy or how they are discordant or why that helps them fit in.

I would be open to the idea of well known imagery being used as some sort of code but i don't see how it all comes together.

Is it a possibility that they are not rainbows at all, were never meant to be indicative of absent religious icons, and have a completely different meaning altogether?

The images in primary consideration in the VMs are (1) You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. the so-called mermaid. If interpreted according to the tradition of Valois ancestral belief, this is Melusine. (2) You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. the so called critter (aka armadillo) If interpreted according according to to the Burgundian origins of the Golden Fleece and the combination of the 1313 Apocalypse of S Jean (BNF Fr. 1396) owned at that time by Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy, then both of these items share a limited and fairly well defined situation of potential historical provenance.

And if the inspiration for the the VMs rainbow (3) You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is taken from a source that shares the same Valois-Burgundian provenance, then the image of the figure sitting on a rainbow, Sainte Hostie, has strong connections that are particularly and peculiarly linked to the provenance of the first two examples.

Not that an item may have an alternate interpretation. Not that an item may have multiple interpretations. But if that were the case, it would seem more likely that each interpretation would have a provenance that was unrelated to the provenance from the other investigations.

Here are three separate items, with interpretations historically validated, which share a coincident provenance, that falls within the range of the most restrictive version of C-14 dating. That's a fact. Can it be dismissed as mere coincidence?

The matter of oak and ivy is a trick employed in VMs illustrations to foil potential identification. If VMs illustration X is composed of elements from two sources (A and B), how can it be identified?  If A and B are unknown, it cannot be identified. If only A (or only B) is known, it still cannot be fully identified because it contains the elements from the other, unknown source. Only if both A and B are known can X be identified as the combination of two sources.

Various investigators have suggested the Golden Fleece in relation to the the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. discussion. However that provides no explanation for the nebuly line and the rest of the illustration. That comes from the Agnus Dei image in the Burgundy library. The match is a structural sequence: lamb / cosmic boundary / emanation = droplets of blood.

The VMs cosmos is only partially explained by similarities with the image from BNF Fr. 565 fol 23. Each cosmic representation has the sequence: inverted T-O Earth, surrounding stars, encompassed by a cosmic boundary with 43 undulations shown. The VMs cosmos then contains part B, the large outer circle and eight curved, connecting spokes. The only remotely plausible comparison for this part is the Shirakatsi diagram of the Eight Phases of the Moon. And even this is not impossible given the few direct and many indirect connections between Burgundy (including Flanders) and Armenia, Trebizond, and Byzantium.

The other method of misdirection in VMs illustrations, the separation of normally associated elements, the rainbow throne and its occupant, the VMs cosmos and the scallop-shell pattern, cloud band (moved to the central rosette), or the intentional division of VMs Aries and Taurus, are also examples of disguise and deception used to create sufficient ambiguity to foil identification by those who lack the full details of the chosen tradition and cannot follow the artist's hidden agenda.

R. Sale, I've been following your detective work in Burgundy with much interest. Whether or not the VMs has a direct connection to Duc Philippe le Bon, I think that looking into one of the most supportive patrons of the literary arts during the appropriate historical era is, at the very least, a reasonable source of indirect clues. It's likely that Philippe le Bon was one or two degrees of separation from someone involved in the creation of most central European manuscripts written in the early 1400s.

I don't have the art history background to offer any specific feedback, but I think your points regarding the Golden Fleece / Agnus Dei, the myth of Melusine, and the Oresme cosmos are well argued and deserve to be taken seriously.

That said, I think Linda has a good point: I don't think we have enough evidence to definitively conclude that Q13 depicts any rainbows. The images you posted that definitively do depict rainbows in contemporary artwork differ from all of the arc shapes in on VMS f82v in some non-trivial ways. I'm not saying that none of the latter are rainbows. But it's not at all obvious to me that they are rainbows.

Thanks for your comments. My only contention about the creator of the VMs is that it was someone who was somehow aware of and familiar with these various factors that came from the Berry library and the Burgundian court and library.

As to the double rainbow of VMs f82v, there have been several prior identifications from various sources, well prior to any of my investigations. That being said, an artist desiring to represent a rainbow just goes ahead and does the best s/he can. An artist wishing to represent a disguised or hidden rainbow has other problems. How to create object that might be a rainbow, or might not be a rainbow? Ambiguity is one option - the use of muddy colors, etc. A second option is 'dilution' of the image. Combine the ambiguous rainbow with other objects that look even less like a potential rainbow. Having seen some of the false-rainbow /non-rainbow objects already, the ambiguous, real rainbow just looks like another non-rainbow object.

There is no way IMO, that anyone can look at the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. illustration and jump directly to the Burgundian explanation. However a rainbow is a rainbow, and while depictions may not be visually similar, the phenomenon referenced by the depiction is equivalent, even when the image is grisaille.

While it is clear that illustrations in the VMs are open to various interpretations, the point I'm trying to make is this: if item 1 has several interpretations - A, B, C; and item 2 has several interpretations - C, D, E; then item 3 has interpretations - W, X, Y, C; then it is time to pay more attention to the common factor ( C ), and determine whether it is applicable in other situations. The historical situation involved in this rainbow investigation provides a potential explanation that fits in with research on several other VMs topics.

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