The Voynich Ninja

The whole anatomy is different, not just the breasts. For some reason, the VM artist tends to draw women with a belly and wide hips, prominent behinds. This may have to do with pregnancy/fertility, but it may also just be their rendition of what was the beauty standard at the time.

Now compare that to your figure on the left. It's not just the breasts.

This debate is old. I must be the only forum member who maintains that they're all female figures. Whenever I've said this, someone has come forward and shown some figures that look masculine. And that could be true, but it would be purely for the author's amusement, tired of drawing so many women.

It would be a total lack of coherence if in a codex where we see more than 500 female figures there were only a few male ones. If the author's intention was to draw human figures in general, there would be at least 200 male figures, or 100. But that's not the case, because the intention to draw female figures is very clear, which has to do with the conception of the book and what the authors want to convey, which I omit to say because I already said it and I don't want to repeat myself.

I just don't see why "the author got bored of drawing women" can be the only explanation for a handful of male figures standing out. I guess such ideas are what's making discussion of Voynich imagery impossible. It's so easy to come up with something, dig in, and dismiss what doesn't quite fit. This is not meant as criticism towards any individual; it's simply the way we, as a collective, have decided to approach Voynich imagery. There are some safer exercises like comparing zodiac imagery, but when it comes to the interpretative work (which is also a valid part of art history), we haven't found a viable approach yet. Repeating our own truths and lamenting that we have to repeat them so often is certainly not that approach.

Because I believe the nymphs represent prima materia (the fertile, watery matter from which the universe was made), I don’t think it makes a difference whether there are breasts or not. Once in a while, the author seems to make a point of “maleness”, in this case I suspect to differentiate this particular atom of prima materia as quintessence/aqua vita/the stone/Christ/Mercury. 

The natural philosophers at this time believed there was a difference between celestial and earthly prima materia. 

The celestial contained the quintessence/water of life, synonymous in their view with Christ and life everlasting. This is what the undying stars are made of, and in the heavens, prima materia takes the shape of stars, as we see in the zodiac pages, where they are connected to stars by actually holding them. 

We immediately transition from the zodiac to this page You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , where, as Anton states, we see the canopy of heavn. It is cut out as if by cliffs, marking the transition from celestial to terrestrial. 

The prima materia of earth is polluted and doesn’t naturally contain the quintessence, except what is received from the heavens through rain(notice the rain cloud/rainbow on left). That means, to the alchemist, it is present in most things, but must be tortured and refined through alchemical process to find it. 

If you google “prima materia” there’s a great illustration by Michael Marier of prima materia in the form of cubes falling to the earth and found everywhere. I would include it but don’t know how. At any rate, that’s what I believe is happening on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. . Substitute the nymphs for the cubes. 

The prima materia of heaven joins the prima materia of earth, in this case, in a text that’s 50% herbal, in its green sap. From there, the alchemist takes over with his/her many processes to isolate the Christ figure, the aqua vitaof everlasting life. And that’s what I believe is happening in the remaining pages. That’s why there are so few Christian features, you have to find them buried amidst the distractions. 

To the realists I can only say that these are not my symbols, nor my concepts, nor my beliefs. They spring entirely from the natural philosophy of the time period, in particular from Arnaud de Villanova and Rupescissa. But I’m good with symbols, and getting closer and closer to a very holistic explanation of the balneological section as well as the rosettes.

Usually because Koen makes an observation I hadn’t seen before. So thank you, Koen!

All this talk of the “spurtle” (love that name) reminds me of a joke I heard as a kid. 

Q: What do you call a boomerang that doesn’t come back?
A: A stick. 

- still makes me snigger

The point is the spurtle is just a stick unless you can place it into a medieval context and worldview,consider its placement, its associations, comparable internal and external evidence, its relationship to the text as a whole, who is holding it, their gestures, its immediate environment. 
What’s its function or purpose?

It “looks like” is always a good starting point but that’s all it is.This stuff isn’t easy and requires research.  I cannot enumerate all the first impressions I’ve had to discard, and continue to do so, when it comes to this manuscript. 

Maybe one day the stick may become a boomerang, lol.

Koen, you attribute to me a certain self-sufficiency that is not in keeping with my personality. I said I didn't want to repeat myself, not out of arrogance but so as not to bore people.

 On the other hand, what I'm saying is that the Voynich authors intended to draw only female figures, and that if there are any male figures, they're unimportant. I don't think that opinion makes discussion about the codex's imagery impossible. It's my opinion, and I think I've substantiated it.

(25-09-2025, 10:24 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It seems clear to me that the VM artist(s) borrowed from that imagery.

Surprised that you say that, Koen.  I have always understood the consensus to be that the lack of religious imagery (not just Christian, but of any recognizable religion) was one of the notable features of the VMS. 

There is indeed a cross on f79v, but it does not connect to anything else.  So the shape may be a coincidence, or the cross may have been some other object, or the whole cross was added at a later time (like the crowns in the Zodiac).  What was it supposed to mean, that the nymph was a nun, indulging in a public bath? A female priest of some bizarre Christian esoteric sect? 

The figure (including the hand shape) would make perfect sense without the cross.

(And of course there is clear evidence of retracing all over the page, e.g. on the thigh and buttocks of that nymph.)

All the best, --jorge

(26-09-2025, 11:22 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The whole anatomy is different, not just the breasts. For some reason, the VM artist tends to draw women with a belly and wide hips, prominent behinds.  Now compare that to your figure on the left. It's not just the breasts.

First look at the figure on the right.  Belly, buttocks, thighs, no genitals -- definitely female.  But the breasts are obviously a later addition; the original outline barely bulges there. 

So, do we agree that "no breasts" does not imply "male"?

Now look at the figure on the left.  Thighs, belly, buttocks, no genitals... The buttocks are not as salient as in other nymphs, but there are other nymphs that are definitely female and have equally modest buttocks.  Like the lower right one on f80r.

In fact, I believe that the only male "nymphs" are the ones dressed as such, like the three ones in the outer band of f72r2 (Gemini), around 07:30.  I believe that the naked ones that seem to have male genitals, like the one on the outer band of f72r2 at 01:00, were meant to be elderly women or young girls, and were "endowed" by a Retracer who mistook them for males...

All the best, --jorge

Perhaps you are not acquainted with the dreams of Colette of Corbie from her biography regarding both the ring and the cross.

I’ll let Koen answer for himself but I wonder if you are familiar with his site The Voynich Temple, where he uncovers many Christian symbols and provides evidence for his theories? There’s more Christian symbolism than at first sight. 

Some of it is not obvious, or not where it should be, and it’s couched in symbolism. My question is therefore not why it is lacking but why is it so covert?

As they say, it's complicated. It's a combination of factors. The artist is clearly making an effort to disguise things. At the same time, there is a great loss of cultural contact. We don't know what information the VMs artist(s) may have known about the relevant culture prevalent 1400-1450. When it comes to heraldry, the artist may have been using a means of communication of which the "reader" is not aware. Heraldic elements like the nebuly line and papelonny fur or techniques like heraldic canting [rebus reading].

Then there was Colette of Corbie, totally contemporary with the VMs parchment dates. Plus, the connection of Pope Innocent IV to the original Poor Clares. Can anyone provide a better illustration of Colette's dreams than the VMs artist? <Not me.> Considering that this was a time of contention, and being caught on the 'wrong side' might be bad for the old career.