If we look at the women illustrations in Voynich, we can see that breasts are incorrect. They are not like real brests. So is it possible that the illustrator, actually never saw breasts in real life?
Can we conclude from this something about that person?
- The person was a child artist,
- The person was intentional celibate, like hermit,
- The person was young apprentice.
It is not possible that someone who has seen naked women will draw something so badly.
Generally, medieval European artists were not concerned with anatomical realism like we are. Even if one saw a million breasts a day, they'd still follow artistic conventions when drawing them.
So the question is not whether the VM artist was familiar with naked ladies, but rather how the drawings compare with those in other manuscript art.
People in VMS are generally depicted unrealistically, but that doesn't mean the artist didn't know what they looked like.
I assume that the reason for the "half-hearted" approach was that the artist didn't see the need to put in much effort, as the book wasn't intended for a wide audience.
I would disagree. A large number of depictions of naked women in various manuscripts are drawn with correct(ish) breasts. In the Bellifortis, the Balneis, even alchemical MSs, they were drawn "OK".
I remember reading an online study on medieval depictions of nude females, and in each and every one of them there was at least an effort made to draw the female anatomy with some degree of precision.
I think the OP has a point. Voynichese breasts seem "off". In my opinion, there is a difference between "badly drawn breasts", "low effort breasts" and "I've never seen breasts in my life before". The VMS would be the latter.
Could you be a bit more concrete? What precisely is off that other MSS do better?
I'm just imagining one of the new members wandering in to the forum, having a look around and stumbling on to this thread...
Look, sooner or later everyone has to contemplate what the scribes knew about boobs. Might as well be sooner!
(12-07-2026, 10:08 AM)DG97EEB Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I'm just imagining one of the new members wandering in to the forum, having a look around and stumbling on to this thread...
Well, since female nudes make up a large part of the VMS, I don't see why we shouldn't study them if we want to understand the manuscript better.
On this topic, here are a few examples of 15th century female nudes: You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
As you can see, these all look "OKish". In the VMS, it appears that the breasts are not effected by gravity. They are just floating around. I would argue, like our friend Jimmy here, that the VMS illustrator did not actually see real breasts at the time of drawing.
Perhaps we are in the presence of a child prodigy/young artist? Because the rest of the images look spectacularly original in their design and execution. Except for the nudes.
Perhaps the author did not intend to depict real women.
(12-07-2026, 10:27 AM)JustAnotherTheory Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I would argue, like our friend Jimmy here, that the VMS illustrator did not actually see real breasts at the time of drawing.
This deserves an adult discussion.
The shape of real breasts vary greatly. They are not all round or large; many can be smaller or pointier, saggier or something else. Without straying into NSFW, there are communities online that celebrate and promote specifically those types of features. So what are we basing "normal" on here?
I'll be the one to break the image deadlock. Take this example on You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. :
[
attachment=16507]
I find it difficult to believe that this was drawn by someone that had never seen a naked woman. It is an actually very accurate depiction of a slightly larger bodied woman (or of a pregnant woman). The breasts moving to the sides + the pubic hair demonstrates knowledge of how many women look in reality. I do not believe a young man or child who had never seen a naked woman would have been able to portray this.
As for the side views, yes many are pointy (but that
can be normal) but many are relatively "normal" too. These examples, to show a couple, do not look particularly "wrong" to me at all:
[
attachment=16508][
attachment=16509]
And although it's a potentially controversial subject, some of them could also be depictions of younger women undergoing puberty before they are fully developed adults. It
was the 1400s.