The Voynich Ninja

I was hoping to have something more substantial, however I think I've hit a wall at speculation. 
Though, I'd like to show some comparisons that are interesting and a detail that may be significant. 

Firstly, we have a missing a label. I believe the label might be EVA "x". 

[attachment=11618]

[attachment=11619]

This might suggest "x" has more meaning than other common letters, and problematic clusters of letters such as the below are not meant to be read as a word. 

[attachment=11620]

For the second part of this post, I would like to show a 15c German work on St Catherine of Alexandria. 

It is not always clear if works are of St Catherine of Alexandria or St Catherine of Siena, they share a name and story, in so much that they were wed to (the often infant) Jesus. St Catherine of Alexandria can be picked out by images of a broken wheel and sword, though they are not always used. 

This image shows St Catherine of Alexandria on the left and St Catherine of Siena on the right. The extremely long hair and crown is a tell-tale sign of St Catherine of Alexandria, she is also depicted sometimes as being a rather large lady. St Catherine of Siena tends to be more petite, slender and hooded but this varies and it's not always clear who's who, and some images are labelled as "St Catherine" without specifying which one.. but you can usually make a decent guess with this knowledge.  

[attachment=11622]

This is the image (below) I'd like to point out some comparisons to. The Wiki description is "Scenes from the Life of Saint Catherine of Alexandria, Germany, c. 15th century, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. -This three-part panel was originally part of a large altarpiece whose central image probably represented Saint Catherine with the wheel of her martyrdom. The left-hand panel depicts her vision of the Madonna and Child: the Christ Child did not find Catherine worthy because she wasn't baptised and refused to look at her. The middle scene illustrates her baptism. The right-hand panel presents her second vision of the Madonna and Child: as a baptised Christian she is now worthy in Christ's eyes and she is joined to him in a mystic marriage. The delicate figures reflect the continuing influence of the International Gothic style. Swabian painters of the following generation developed a more harshly realistic style."

[attachment=11623]

While there are differences and nothing substantial to tie in St Catherine of Alexandria or other famous instances, I feel the theme is similar and comparisons of this can be made. The story is of washing away sin and devoting oneself to faith, becoming pure, etc. In this case by baptism and "mystical marriage" to Jesus. 

The leftmost panel shows Catherine reaching out (spiritually - pleading/praying hands) to "Madonna and Child" and being ignored, this is shown by the lack of eye contact. I think the comparison speaks for itself.
 
[attachment=11624]

The central panel shows the baptism. While the overall image is "in water", I think the right most image may show something similar. Maybe the green/blue is unclean/clean, but note the long "this is the important bit" finger, as is often seen in manuscripts.  

[attachment=11626]

The right most panel shows the handing of the ring / symbol of marriage. Note that in these two images and the one of both St Catherine show the ring being placed on the right hand.

[attachment=11627]

While the eye contact in this image is unsure as the lady has been drawn with, what I'd call "happy eyes", the image to the right of this shows a considerable change in eye contact to that of the leftmost image, which is consistent with both the example and VM image. 

[attachment=11628]

A question I had, and others may, was "is it a ring?". Here is an image from "Der Ring", again German and 15c. (Note extended fingers also) (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.)

[attachment=11629]

Some other details I considered were. 
1. "Blue hair". Personally I think it's meant to be fabric over hair. It's up for interpretation.
2. "Pinecone shape". On top of the head of the lady with the ring is a "Pinecone shape". This might be meant to be an decorative item, a non-descript flower or top of a crown with a design. An interesting comparison could be made to a "nard" or "spikenard" which can be seen below in Pope Francis's crest and it is a symbol for Joseph (below) left is the star for Mary, top "IHS" for Jesus. However the nard for Joseph was a later association (around 1600). 

[attachment=11630]

The "nard" may be still significant to the overall "theme" however as famously it is known as the very expensive ointment Mary used to anoint the feet of Jesus using her long hair. It is also the symbol of Mary Magdalene. It is a symbol of devotion.

In the below image is a depiction of many virgin saints, full desc here - You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..
The image again shows St Catherine of Alexandria receiving the ring (note wheels on dress). Also in this image is Mary Magdalene, she is the one with the gold container of (nard) ointment, presumably to anoint the feet of Jesus. The other lady holding the hand of Jesus is Saint Barbara.

[attachment=11631]

3. Is the left lady wearing a crown + halo (or such). Obviously it's impossible to say, but I think there's some stylistic similarities

[attachment=11632]

4. St Catherine of Alexandria being depicted as a larger lady (note the neck area in VM).

[attachment=11633]


While this is all interpretation and speculation, I thought the overall the theme of purifying waters and mystical marriage was at least interesting to consider.

Pareidolia, but underwater

Elsewhere I noted that on the next page (f82v) the Painter who filled the pond at the bottom of the page seems to have obliterated some non-trivial details of the drawing and maybe even some text. 

The same may have happened on this page:

[attachment=11636]

This is the green channel of a clip of the bottom pond of f82v, towards the east side, with a bit of contrast stretching.

I think it is certain that the Painter painted over the bottom few mm of the waterfall (A), as well as the hair and neck outline of one of the nymphs (B,C).

Was there more stuff in that pond?  I think I can see a curl like a whirlpool at the base of the waterfall (J), and something like a trumpet with lobes or stripes etc (K,L,M,N). 

There may be more similar smudges in this pond.  Maybe even a label or two.

But these phantoms could also be just accidental dark lines created by overlapping of the the chaotic strokes of paint (which, like much of the paint on the VMS, seems to have been applied with a small and very crude "brush", such as a stick with a chewed-up tip).

What do you think?

All the best, -- jorge

The hair and the "waterfall" bits are 100% real and crap painting. The rest is just how paint as settled into the vellum plus how the scans picked stuff up. I've been burned too many times to fall for patterns in the paint again  .

I have also redrawn some of these images for another project and the lady with the ring is "done dirty" by the painter. The face and hair in particular are much better than the drawer usually does and some extra care was taken, if the paint was removed it would be very clear. I feel like a great deal of time was spent trying to make this lady a good one, in comparison with some others.

(11-10-2025, 12:24 AM)Bluetoes101 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The rest is just how paint as settled into the vellum plus how the scans picked stuff up. I've been burned too many times to fall for patterns in the paint again  .

As I wrote, yes, that may well be the case.  But Is there a way to check that? 

The curl at (J) in particular seems hard to explain as green paint effect.

Too bad that we don't have XRF or multispectral images of this page (or of f82v).

Anyway, here is it again, but red channel now.  The detail (A) is certain, the end of the waterfall. To me the (J) looks like splashing water at the bottom of the waterfall, and (K) is a whirlpool or something.  I find it difficult to parse them as green paint scratches.  The others, I admit, are quite dubious.  (L) would be two sides of a nearly vertical pipe. (N) and (P) are tips of the horns of two objects that look like crowns with three blunt horns. (Q) looks like "something".  (T) looks like the fringe of a canopy, like the one at the NW corner of f79v.  ® and (S) could be labels...

[attachment=11637]

And here is a more radical hallucination: the wavy edge of the pool is not original; it was added by the Retracer who also "enhanced" the nymphs.  There was no big pool. Instead, each of the full-size nymphs was in a small round tub by herself.  The whole green area had several channels, pipes,  whatnot.

But I don't know what to make of the small nymphs, though.  maybe they were in small tubs that got erased.  Maybe they were not there at all.

Al the best, --jorge

Some thoughts.

I think you are right in pointing out that there seems to be an overlap in themes. You see that there is more going on in these pages than just bathing ladies: at times we see hints of narrative or symbolic content. But to make it all "work", that's something else. This is the same thing I experienced with the Philomela story of f80r. The spindle as an attribute, the hands "bound" behind the back, the figure with a red-striped piece of fabric before the queen. So these elements are there, that align to a seemingly high degree with a narrative known in the Middle Ages.

And then, what I usually did, was try to make as much as possible fit. In retrospect, I think this is where it goes wrong, and the strength of the argument is undermined. Today I would say: point out what fits, but also point out what doesn't fit with equal enthusiasm. It's not our job to make it all work. This awkward "theory squeezing" (which, again, I have also engaged in), is keeping us from ever fully understanding the thought process that may have gone into these images.

Some examples: 

• Always be aware that whatever is happening cannot be a straightforward illustration. The figures in the pools do not behave like your average Balneis bather. But the figures in our stories don't spend the entire narrative naked in the pool. So whatever we're looking at must be layered, some kind of metaphor or synthesis.
  
• One thing we always run into with these narratives is that there is no consistency of character. Everyone is a nude female, including figures we'd like to be male. The appearance of "characters" may change a lot from one scene to the next. In your folio, we see the unusual case of several smaller than average nymphs compared to larger "queens", but the queens change appearance. If the blue hair is a veil, then this should iconographically be Mary, but she's the one inserting her finger in the ring. Is Catherine one of the small nymphs? It doesn't really work like this. But then why are there so many small nymphs in this pool?
  
• In trying to explain the robust lady, you selected a baroque painting. It doesn't take an art history major to see what's the problem there.
  

Enough with pareidolia, let's try a bit of good old paranoia.

Here is again the E half of the big green pool at the bottom of f82r.  This time let's ignore the things that may be hidden by the green paint, and focus on what is outside it.

[attachment=11643]

Here is what I see with my Ordinary Voynichologist Paranoia:

The blue tub's outline (A1) seems original. Why does the second outline (A2) stop at that point?  How come the wall (A3) of the tub extends below the floor?

The outline of the big green pool at (B1) does not seem to want to meet his buddy (B2) across the blue tub and pipe.

The upright pipe of Miss okairady has a left outline that extends down at least to (C1).  Why is there no outline on the other side, at (C2)?  Why is the area (C3) at right of the tube, clearly inside the big green pool, not painted green?

What is the line at (D1)? The outline of a fat arm? And the stroke (D2)?

The shoulder line of Miss olaiin must be the line that extends from the outline of her neck.  Then what are strokes (E1,E2,E3,E4)?

And, speaking of Miss olaiin, is (F1) her breast, or her thoracic third fourth eye, with swollen eyelid below and angry eyebrow above?

Three theories for the double trace (G1,G2): (a) there are actually two nymphs in that tub, (b) the nymph is actually a cut-out, part of the place's decoration © the Author was not happy and told the Scribe to make her plumper, (d) the Scribe had a glass too many and was seeing double.

Speaking of which, the right arm (H1) of that nymph is in a very strange and strained position. Could it be that it was added by a (ahem!) Retracer who did not notice the actual arm (H2), and mistook the hand (H3) for er... something else?

Lapsing into pareidolia mode again for a moment: could (J1) be the original outline of of the right arm of Miss dolol,  and (J2) be her hand?

People have been assuming that the green stuff inside the big pool is water.  But the Cutout Nymph at the NW corner is sitting inside a hole (K1) that was cut out neatly from that stuff.  Proving that it is not water, but rather stiff lime jelly.  And it is only a thin layer of jelly smeared on the floor, since the hole leads to a well-lit space under the floor.

Why did the Painter leave (L1) and (L2) unpainted?  Just to show us how sloppy he was?

Actually the big green "pool" must be a giant nymph-eating amoeba, since it reproduces by budding, as seen at (M1).

All the best, --jorge

That's all true Koen and thank you. I couldn't make a case for any of the figures being present. What I hoped to show was "vibe"/narrative similarity. 
I hoped to show some things I'd considered (towards bottom of post) without trying to make an argument but it wasn't clear. There were many more but I hoped to keep the post short enough to be digestible in relation to the (lack of) strength of content. For example Mary being shown naked or bear chested is strange, but this 1450 example shows it is not unattested. (on a side note, this painting is amazing! imo anyway)

[attachment=11645]

I don't think any of the characters are present, at least not provable in any way. There's just some "maybe" hints.
The art criticism is definitely valid, I just picked something obvious. 
This is 15c example (as with others, note neck).

[attachment=11644]

I will definitely take the notes on board and improve posts going forward.

Damn it Jorge, you are going to make me reveal my own hallucinations!
A while back, I had thought there was areas of multiple lines being used to convey a message, and the "solver" had noted these same patterns.
I believe the comparison images are from a 15c blood letting, as per moon cycle chart, but I'd have to check notes  
[attachment=11646]

But the MSI images showed actually, I'm an idiot. 

[attachment=11647]

it's not 1 for 1, but shows how you can't trust scans. There are some fully legit examples of writing under paint, I have a partial mapping of "p" throughout the manuscript somewhere, but for the most part I think it's smoke and mirrors

Good old paranoia, west half.

And here is the W half of the big green pool at the bottom of f82r.  Again, ignoring the things that may be hidden by the green paint, and focusing instead on what is outside it.

[attachment=11650]

Miss sokoly (shouldn't she have a falcon?) naturally has the privilege of a semi-private pool (A1).  But the edge (A2,A3) of the Big Green Pool seems to waver in its respect for her privacy.

Miss sokoly is definitely totally holding a ring (B1).  NOT pointing to the opening of a pipe, like many other Bio nymphs do.  If this were the case, there would be a pipe behind the ring, at (B2), and it has been decided already that there is not.

For explanation of the double outlines of the nymph at the top right, Miss okal, see the explanations for her sister Miss okaldy in the previous post.

The private tub (D1) of Miss okal and its connection to the Big Green Pool were evidently designed using four-dimensional non-Euclidean and non-Desarguesian geometry.

The pineapple (E1) is obviously a later addition to the figure, and must have been drawn around 1700 -- after the fruit became widely available in Europe, but before cultivation evolved it to its present size. That style of hat unequivocally identifies Miss sokoly as the great-great-great-great-great-great-grandmother of Carmen Miranda.

Miss olka-ky is very ill, already half-ghost, as revealed by her transparent arm (F1) and transparent chest (F2).  Her ears (G1,G2) reveal her mixed ancestry, from the Bear Clan on her father's side and the Cat Dynasty on the mother's side.  Or maybe her mother hailed from the planet Vulcan.

It seems that the spa operators had already taken notice of Miss olka-ky's half-alive state and started to merge her private tub (H1) into the public Big Green Pool.

As for the NW nymph, Miss okar (known as Miss Ocarina to her friends), she got the most advanced private tub (J1) of them all, with a shape that today still challenges students of Computer-Aided Design and equilibrists alike.

[attachment=11651]

All the best, --jorge

The missing label could possibly be a concealment of the legend of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..