The Voynich Ninja

In a Scythian image that resembles the zodiac symbol for Virgo, the figure (male) is holding a ring-garland and a palm-frond (both traditional Virgo symbols). When Christianity became dominant in the west, the male Virgo was changed to Virgin Mary (female). The Scythian image is "brandishing" the ring-shaped wreath.

Also, garlands (the kind you wear on your head) are sometimes brandished this way in medieval images and wasn't it René who mentioned the possibility of a diadem? A diadem is similar to a garland (worn in the same way) and would look very much like a ring in a simplified drawing.


While it looks like a ring in the picture, I suppose there is a possibility the VMS "ring" is a diadem or garland.

There are 4 such pictures in the vms.

Only 1 picture has really a ring: it is the man/boy/woman You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Just last week, i assumed that the other 3 pictures with that thing are not a ring nor an amulet.

JKP,
As you've often said yourself about other Voynich illustrations, the artist was capable enough to represent what he wanted to draw.
So, I think, if he'd wanted to draw a garland (or wreath), he would have been quite capable of drawing one, and would have shown edges more like the ones he drew on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (now that, I might agree, could be a garland)
But on the balneo ladies' rings, we don't see those kinds of edges which we should on a garland or wreath: the "ring" is perfectly smooth, with one central feature on top.
Could they be diadems? Perhaps... but then the challenge is: find a medieval or ancient diadem that is a simple smooth circle with just one 3D ornament in the middle.  I'd love to see an example, picture, link, whatever... I've looked, but so far, I can't find one example that looks even remotely like that.

(14-04-2016, 01:25 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.While it looks like a ring in the picture, I suppose there is a possibility the VMS "ring" is a diadem or garland.

That is quite possible. I follow Diane in that it's likely that the items on this page have been slightly altered by the 15th c copyists. 
A while ago I wrote about how "the cross" might be an adaptation of a cruciform object commonly carried by Nike (Victory). Nike was one of the few Greco-Roman gods who got adopted into Christianity without too many modifications.

Her most common, and dare I say, timeless attribute, is of course your suggestion of a garland.

Here she is on a Seleucid coin with a "cross", a "ring", and nymph-like-head proportions to boot. (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.)


The depiction of Nike holding the victor's crown was, and is, of course, very widespread. Just showing this coin because it shows a nice parallel of how the garland could have been translated into a ring.

(14-04-2016, 05:36 PM)VViews Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.JKP,
As you've often said yourself about other Voynich illustrations, the artist was capable enough to represent what he wanted to draw.
So, I think, if he'd wanted to draw a garland (or wreath), he would have been quite capable of drawing one, and would have shown edges more like the ones he drew on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (now that, I might agree, could be a garland)
But on the balneo ladies' rings, we don't see those kinds of edges which we should on a garland or wreath: the "ring" is perfectly smooth, with one central feature on top.
Could they be diadems? Perhaps... but then the challenge is: find a medieval or ancient diadem that is a simple smooth circle with just one 3D ornament in the middle.  I'd love to see an example, picture, link, whatever... I've looked, but so far, I can't find one example that looks even remotely like that.

I see a distinct risk that the discussion may not always be about the same object on the same page.

Going back to the blog of VViews: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
these do look like rings, a bit oversized, and the second one is least clear due to the application of colour.

The one pointed to by davidsch is a ring on someone's finger. Little doubt about that one.

The one I compared with a diadem is  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. .

Quote:The one pointed to by davidsch is a ring on someone's finger. Little doubt about that one. 

Yes, so my question to you all:  why did the author choose to display different versions of a ring ?

One on a finger and 3 others that have been blown up in proportions about 10 times, and then not on a finger but like throwing away or like pointing.
Also the entire form is completely different.
This makes no sense, it is not a ring.

Davidsch,

there could be many reasons why a ring would be depicted differently in different sections of the Voynich.
1) Iconography: If (and I stress the conditional here) the ladies with oversized rings are based on a heraldic inspiration, and the man with ring could be based on some other iconography: then we have a simple explanation.

2) Context: It is also important to remember that these are two different sections of the Voynich, so context may explain why, in the case of the ladies, the ring itself may be more important (and therefore emphasized) than the person holding it. See the illustration I posted above with the jeweler in a book of natural history: what is relevant to the text is not the jeweler, but the fact that stones can be set in rings) whereas in the case of the illustration you mention, the ring could be an embellishment indicating a person's social status: here, it is the person that is important.

Also, there are many manuscripts in which an object is shown at various levels of "magnification". See for example the oyster in another You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. about the umbrella/pinecone things: side by side, we have two different versions of the pearl oyster shell, one features both valves, and the other is a close-up on one valve. Yet they are both oyster shells.

In my view most image explanations and details in the vms, 
although they may sound plausible for most people, are too much depending on:

* may be's, probabilities, could be's
* missing folio's, different order / configuration of the pages
* images that do not resemble at all are searched/modified until they do match

The author/painter already showed he knows how a ring looks and he showed he knows a ring sits on somebodies finger.

You refer to the "umbrella" thread where i exactly have the same issues and concerns, so that does not build your case very much.

I really can not understand, but perhaps it is wiser for me, not to interfere in postings like this. In that case: sorry and carry on.

Davidsch,

You asked a question ("Yes, so my question to you all:  why did the author choose to display different versions of a ring?"), and I gave you my answer, which is nothing more than my view.
Was it a sarcastic/rhetorical question? Did you not really want an answer? It's hard to tell, because now you seem annoyed that I have given my honest answer. I try to stay away from sarcasm in writing because it doesn't translate well.

Your comments on the thread about "umbrellas" have nothing to do with the fact that in the oyster illustration we see the same thing (an oyster) being depicted in two different ways, not just in the same MS, but side by side on the same page. 
Please re-read my comment above: I referred to that example because you claimed you don't understand why an object would be depicted in two different ways: I did this to show you a case where this happens. But perhaps that was sarcasm as well, and maybe you didn't really want a response.

I am not hell-bent on these objects being rings: to me they look like rings, and they definitely look more like rings than wreaths. Apparently Glen Claston once suggested they could be pessaries. Why not, but I've not yet seen an illustration of a pessary that looks like that.
I'm open to whatever you or anyone else might suggest for these objects as well: just show me a picture of something that actually looks more like these objects than a ring.

ETA: I just went to your blog, where you have a post suggesting this could be Freya's amulet. Yet in one of your comments above, you state that "the other 3 pictures with that thing are not a ring nor an amulet" . And now I'm completely confused about how to understand when you are being sarcastic or not, and what you really mean.

I am really sorry if i formulated it the wrong way: sometimes i am extremely frustrated and try to hide it, (but fail there).

I try to write interrogatively here on the forum because i learned that otherwise i get corrected on grammar, or other tedious things and not on contents.
Most often this was not my intention, and i just want to help or provide information. However, when i do so, i always get opposite reactions.  

So, i stopped providing accurate information and sometimes i just try to guide people in the right direction. 
That direction of which i am confident is the only correct one.  But i can understand this is all very vague.

If i would have posted:  i think they are this or that.
I simply would get burned and that idea would have been discussed briefly and then the general idea still remains they are just rings.

>>Your comments on the thread about "umbrellas" have nothing to do with the fact that in the oyster illustration we see the same thing (an oyster) being depicted in two different ways,

I was referring to the fact that complex similarities are sought. 

Again, sorry for my posting, i can understand your reaction.
At this point i think it is better for me to become a more silent member of ninja and just read a lot and post less.

ps. that blog is very outdated. The Freya thingie is from 2014 i believe.  I used the blog (which i never submitted to google i believe) as a private notebook at first.  All new relevant information is behind a password and is not publicly view-able.