The Voynich Ninja

Thanks. Probably there is nothing but as you say we cannot be 100% sure.

By the way I really hate that fool who painted VM. He couldn't paint, he had no idea what he was doing and yet he did it anyway.

(03-01-2025, 08:42 PM)Rafal Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Thanks. Probably there is nothing but as you say we cannot be 100% sure.

By the way I really hate that fool who painted VM. He couldn't paint, he had no idea what he was doing and yet he did it anyway.

I think it was more laziness and not just inability to paint. Some things were easy to paint and yet the painter made only a half-hearted attempt to paint them. I don't think the author cared about producing a pretty manuscript; their concerns were more functional than artistic.

Quote:I don't think the author cared about producing a pretty manuscript

Like some other people here I believe it was not the author who painted the manuscript. There is a quite obvious difference of skill between the drawing and the painting. I believe the painter was some later owner of manuscript who couldn't read it and didn't know the plants names but painted it anyway in a bad way and using some random colours.

I personally think both opinions could be somewhat correct in that it was painted later and the person doing so did not possess the skill to do a very good job. I doubt it was a lack of care though, if you posses the skill to do paint well it doesn't take very much more effort for do a good job verses a bad one.

Bi3mw shared a manuscript that contains this image the other day, which may just be one of my favourite images I have seen in a piece from the time. Someone capable of this isn't going to do what we see in the VM even if they couldn't care less... drunk and had both hands tied.. 

I guess my opinion is that the artist didn't set out to make a "workhorse", they were just not very good. I guess you could argue they didn't hire someone better to do a better job, but yeah, on the artists part it is a lack of ability over care in my eyes. 

In contrast to the "sloppy painter" conjecture, take a look at the VMs nymphs' faces. Some "painter" has gone around painting little dabs of red on nearly all their lips and cheeks. Sometimes you have to zoom in to find it.

(03-01-2025, 11:50 PM)R. Sale Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In contrast to the "sloppy painter" conjecture, take a look at the VMs nymphs' faces. Some "painter" has gone around painting little dabs of red on nearly all their lips and cheeks. Sometimes you have to zoom in to find it.

If I remember right, for some of the nymphs the painter even corrected their sad facial expressions, literally turning the frowns upside down.

I can't believe I only just now stumbled on the "blue block", there was a thread from 2016 on here where it seems to have ended with "maybe soap" and debating if there is writing under the paint and if it says "sau" or "sal" (both salt)

I took your images and played with it a bit to bring out the ink, it seems likely the letters were maybe a trick of the paint/vellum unless the "s" "3" shapes are something, but that isn't the part that was being looked at as possible text previously. What is interesting is there does seem to maybe be a clasp in the middle which was briefly discussed in the thread.. unless whoever did it just got a bit wobbly here, and also the yellow sides have pointed tops.. seemingly very deliberate as they are outlined in ink. One feature makes me think book, the other less so... are you able to do anything more with this little section to bring it out? It is f102v2, top middle



Am I missing anything from this rough recreation? 

(13-01-2025, 06:56 PM)Bluetoes101 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I can't believe I only just now stumbled on the "blue block", there was a thread from 2016 on here where it seems to have ended with "maybe soap" and debating if there is writing under the paint and if it says "sau" or "sal" (both salt)

I don't think there is anything there, it looks like the light blue paint wouldn't mask the ink, if it was there.

[attachment=9783]

If you ask me- this blue block is Vitriol. Or Cu SO4 5H2O-- blue colour.
And the yellow heart is the sulpher, contained into it.
Conclusion- "Do not de-paint the manuscript!" Colours tell a lot.

BR: Vessy

Thanks Oshfdk, 

Personally I think more is better Vessy, after all it does seem to have settled an old debate on what people saw in the paint - Words, eyes, 2 clasps were a few. Plus I am a bit sceptical at taking the paint at face value, there's a good chance anything between red and blue could end up blue, and anything between red and yellow could end up yellow.. and much more on pages where they had restricted colours for whatever reason. So it could be telling a lot, or influencing a lot in the wrong direction. Not to mention it could have been added later by someone who also couldn't read the manuscript and we are taking their interpretation as the original artists. I guess we aren't left with much choice but to hope for accurate clues on some cases though, such as a block..