Well then, here is a calf that looks like a miniature bull
[
attachment=9652]
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
Introduction (page1-2)
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
There are four biblical manuscripts from the Lauber workshop in e-codices.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Zürich, Zentralbibliothek, Ms. C 5 1431-1437
Frauenfeld, Kantonsbibliothek Thurgau, Y 19 c. 1450
St. Gallen, Kantonsbibliothek, Vadianische Sammlung, VadSlg Ms. 343c & d c. 1450 Old and New Testament
Solothurn, Zentralbibliothek, Cod. S II 43 c. 1460
There are numerous illustrations of Moses, particularly in the first two. His horns are consistently lyre-shaped, but they are relatively short and well separated. There are several illustrations of bulls, nothing special, and there's this little guy.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
None have the tall, close together horns of the VMs Taurus bulls.
While Lauber's workshop is promoted as the exemplar for the mass production of hand-made manuscripts and there clearly are matching illustrations in the different texts - take Abraham and Isaac, for example, each version has its own unique details. The idea of a "fixed template" from which all versions were copied seems to apply only in a very general sense.
Beware of demons with lyre-shaped horns.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
Funny thing about these guys, they all fit into the 1350 - 1440 gap. The devil's in the details.
It seems that the Voynich illustrator was somehow obsessive with this "far front leg raised" motif. It does occur in zodiac illustrations from other cycles, but not so systematically, I think. As with human figures, it seems the Voynich illustrator prefers consistency over variety.
[
attachment=9663]
An interesting side of image comparison is that artistic skill plays a role, though this may not be easy to assess. There are a number of features that possibly depend on skill rather than artistic choice, e.g.:
- weird back legs (which are anatomically wrong)
- genital confusion (like the previoius point, this could be an "interference" of human anatomy?)
- smooth outline (which basically ignores anatomical detail)
My guess is that these features are particularly likely to be due to the Voynich illustrator (they had likely seen correct drawings but couldn't or didn't care to render some of the details). I am speculating, of course.
These are a couple of illustrations from You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. that I think have a similar "feel" for poor execution (though I doubt they can score particularly high).
- You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. Zodiac emblems from other pages from this manuscript have been discussed in the past
- Liber Floridus Leiden, Univ-bibl Ms 1° 31
[
attachment=9662]
Lippincott collected illustrations from seven copies of the Liber Floridus, so in this case one can see the influence of individual illustrators with respect to their sources.
[
attachment=9660]
Thanks, Marco. I think that at least the thing with the hind legs was caused by the VM artist's lack of skills. But even this is hard to assess. For a long time it was thought that the lobster's tail-legs were a similar unique screwup. But I've found quite a number of those so far, all related. No signs of weird bull legs in those though, nor anywhere else, so I still lean towards the VM artist's having done this themselves.
As for the raised leg, neck and head appearance, I think a reasonable explanation would be that medieval depictions of other animals became contaminated with
horse, like 2010's era Ikea meatballs.
See the equestrian statue of Marcus Aurelius, the 1410 Monument to Paolo Savelli in Venice, various randomly picked manuscript images below. When a horse is going slowly (trot?), its front leg motion is more dramatic and emphasized, leading to the "raised front leg" pose. We see this reflected in art across cultures.
[
attachment=9667]
I'd hypothesize that some of the standard depictions of horses may have influenced the appearance of other beasts in certain traditions. This would have led to bulls that are "trotting", have a horse-like neck and face, have their pizzle moved to the back...
The pose of the horse's legs in statues of rulers is dictated by some clear principles, so they may not be very useful as comparison material.
If the ruler died in battle: horse rests on two feet and has two feet in the air.
If the ruler died as a consequence of injuries from battle: horse has three feet on the ground and one raised. This is probably the most common, and is seen in both examples.
If the ruler died in bed (old age/sickness): horse has four feet planted on the ground.
The thing about the "code" of horse legs is an urban legend perpetuated by tour guides. Marcus Aurelius died of illness or poisoning, Paolo Savelli died of the plague.
My point is that when horses walk, as they would e.g. during a parade, it's the raised front leg that draws the eye. This led to centuries of depictions of horses with one front leg raised, which in turn may have influenced the depiction of other "beasts".
I see the raised leg as a potential indicator of motion, whereas four legs on the ground indicate the animal is standing still. Exceptions for reclining animals and lions.
So, what's with the VMs Aries and Taurus illustrations? They have their faces in a bush or a basket, but they are still moving forward?
(05-01-2025, 06:52 PM)R. Sale Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.So, what's with the VMs Aries and Taurus illustrations? They have their faces in a bush or a basket, but they are still moving forward?
Yes, this is bizarre. In my opinion, the best explanation is that a tree that was originally in the background, has been reinterpreted and "corrected" as a foreground basket.
A systematic reinterpretation of background trees (which commonly adorn this genre of imagery) as animal food would explain two things:
1) Walking bulls with baskets of food. The walking is normal, the basket is not.
2) Aries apparently eating a tree. Sheep (Aries) eat grass and weeds, while goats (Capricorn) eat leaves. Note that nothing forces us to interpret the tree as not being in the background, apart from the fact that it overlaps with the animal's mouth.
[
attachment=9674]
(05-01-2025, 08:05 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Yes, this is bizarre. In my opinion, the best explanation is that a tree that was originally in the background, has been reinterpreted and "corrected" as a foreground basket.
I've been wondering how so many mistakes (like the horrible anatomically wrong legs) could have happened when copying the Zodiac from a model. A direct copy can't be that bad. I imagine a scenario where the author of the VM's drawings did not have access to the original but had to rely on someone's bad sketches.