The Voynich Ninja

Although I will observe mostly the image of the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. in this post, it doesn't mean that the matter is in this image itself. It is just one of examples, which shows the real artistic ability of the illustrator.
Yes, he tried to reflect details of dresses and headgears, material objects, hairstyles of presented time, etc.., as much as he could. If someone didn't still note, the VMs illustrator is not an artist, he didn't have an artistic talent.
Everyone who tried to draw knows that hands and arms of a human are most difficult parts to depict them correctly, all the more, for not artists.
Look at any of nymphs, you will see that exactly hands are quite problematic element for the illustrator, especially the second hand which is behind a trunk. Mostly it is depicted outstretched forward, sometimes – unnaturally twisted behind the back, in some cases it is absent at all. There are also a few feeble attempts to depict a distant hand in another position as these:



So, I think, a shooting or an aiming crossbowman is too difficult task for not an artist, therefore he goes the simplest way. Of course, he could depict a near arm bent in the correct position for shooting…, no, he couldn't, because his "crossbowman" is a right-handed person (or left-handed, really!?).
That is why I can't consider such detail as unusual position of an arm and a crossbow seriously. All this depend on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..

I experimented - since I am not an artist - a while ago. I managed the plants well, the stars and wiggle-lines took some practice - but the human/animal figures were beyond my learning abilities I would say the guy had some training as an artist.

(29-08-2016, 06:33 PM)EllieV Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I experimented - since I am not an artist - a while ago. I managed the plants well, the stars and wiggle-lines took some practice - but the human/animal figures were beyond my learning abilities I would say the guy had some training as an artist.

Hi Ellie!
So, you understand me.   Yes, even such nymphs as in the VMs require some training, but to draw figures (human or animals)  in different poses and from different angles is a real skill.

The view that the VM had "an author" who "lacked skills" is one I do not agree with. Most of all because it is clear to me that MS Beinecke 408 was (skilfully) copied from what were originally various sources.

One example: compare the hand under this plant to those of figures in other sections:



I'm not saying that this is a true-to-nature hand, but it looks much more realistic than the stumps given to human figures in other sections.

Another example I like is the elephant head in the leaf, which looks much more like an elephant than many other medieval elephants to, even though it's a leaf. Just reposting an image I made long ago:


To just state that "the author" or "the illustrator" lacked skills is, I think, a bit simplistic. Imagine that I am practicing my painting skills and I copy a Picasso. Does that mean I lack skills in the perspective department?

That said, some of the figures do indeed look awkward, especially "Gemini" and the archer. But this does not imply that anyone who worked on the artifact that is MS Beinecke 408 had trouble drawing arms correctly. It looks to me as if they were very skilled copyists.

Skill level depends partly on available resources.

For example, there are many artists who can render a good portrait from a photo, while only a small percentage can do it from life, and only a tiny percentage from memory.


I have seen artist Robert Bateman trying to sketch something he had previously painted with extreme accuracy. Without his reference materials, he struggled on a  'stick drawing level' to sketch a simple outline of the animal from memory.

(30-08-2016, 05:18 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Skill level depends partly on available resources.
For example, there are many artists who can render a good portrait from a photo, while only a small percentage can do it from life, and only a tiny percentage from memory.
I have seen artist Robert Bateman trying to sketch something he had previously painted with extreme accuracy. Without his reference materials, he struggled on a  'stick drawing level' to sketch a simple outline of the animal from memory.

You are absolutely correct. I want only to add that every artist has favourite objects for drawing in the sense - most simple, felicitous for him. Human body seems to be more difficult in depiction for everyone. Not the least thing is a size of the image, it is always difficult to draw little images and little details, especially with a pen and ink. 
On the whole, I have an impression that the author depicts most of pictures quite carelessly, some details are more important for him than the accuracy of proportions, painting etc. Some details look deliberate careless, as for me.

Manuscripts not meant for public use or not meant for a fine edition sometimes have lesser quality artwork, pretty comparable to the Voynich. Check out this You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. for some examples.

Also, even formal painted manuscripts might not always have great artists behind them. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

The one thing about the Voynich that strikes me, is that the paint used to color the MS looks unusually thin and badly applied. This makes me think amateur more than anything else -- like the guy didn't know how to mix paint correctly so ended up with stuff that was too runny and transparent (or else was being excessively frugal with it and trying to extend it by adding too much water.)

I actually like the second manuscript - it's got an elephant!



You are right, an apparent lack of artistic talent is often found in (early) medieval manuscripts, even those that may not have been for private use. At times images were deformed to such an extent that later copyists had no idea what it was they were copying and had to come up with creative solutions. (I also write about this phenomenon in my latest You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., which contains too many images to put on the forum).

One other thing though. There's a certain consistency to the weirdness of the Voynich drawings. Take the size of the heads compared to the bodies, or the big bellies and big upper legs. With relatively little exceptions in over five hundred human figures. I would call it a matter of style or even intention, rather than an outright lack of skill. See my previous examples which, to me, signal that at least someone involved in the process knew how to draw well if he wanted to.

Koen and everyone,
I think it is not fair to confuse a person's skill with limits to their knowledge; nor it fair to suppose that everything which doesn't agree with the conventions of medieval Mediterranean peoples expectations is "lesser" sort of art.

For example: that medieval elephant Koen shows isn't badly drawn at all; it's just ill-informed.  Look at the way the "hoofs' are drawn.  They are perfect for an ox, or some other animal of that kind.

It is also interesting that the superstructure, in which the men are put, is very close to being right - and that's something the draughtsman is most likely to have only heard about from a book, or a traveller's account, or another image (not necessarily one of European origin, nor in a manuscript).

One thing that draughtsman did have in common with us, is that he thought a picture should be a 'portrait of facts' - a photo sort of picture.

But not everyone saw picture-making as an exercise in "looky-like" and many other peoples would have thought that a total waste of time and paint.  Even the Roman writers thought Dioscorides' way of picturing plants (pictures-of-thing) weren't as valid or informative as schematic images which gave a lot more information.

Now, the VMS draughtsmen could really draw.  I don't mean the people who worked to make our present manuscript, but the people who first set down the images as they came to be copied in our present work.

They could draw - look at the lovely curves of back and belly of the figures in the bathy section as example, the facility and confidence with which an armpit is expressed, or how heads (however distorted) are set upon their necks.

Right - so if the draughtsmen could draw, but they didn't draw as we would prefer - it was a cultural thing, or a product of ignorance... or both.  That picture of the elephant is wrong because of the draughtsman's ignorance not his lack of skill, and at the same time it is presented in the way it is - with attempted literalism - for cultural reasons: it's what people of his culture expected of a picture.

So in the same way, the Voynich draughtsmen could draw; I don't think they could have been entirely ignorant of a woman's appearance (though it's possible), so the way the 'ladies' appear in the bathy- section and those months where the figures are unclothed - is a cultural thing.

For some reason there was a real reluctance on the part of the 'first' enunciators of these images to depict a living being (including animals) in any literal way.  That wasn't all that unusual in the older world, or east of Latin Europe.

I might also mention that golden hair had significance apart from literal fact, and that people could use any colour of paint they wanted to colour the hair of star/angel/ hour  type figures.   Significance, not literalness, is often the reason for such choices.  We don't even know whether Christ's mother Mary ever owned a blue cloak .. it's blue because of the colour's significance.  Same with hair-colour in many cases.



Some Centres in the calendar roundels are very different from all other imagery in the manuscript, in all respects including the presumption that pictures should be literal "pictures of" and not "pictures about" heir significance.

The most obviously 'modernised' is, of course, the archer. I doubt it looked as it does now until the early fourteenth century, but I do think its human form always pointed the bow downwards, regardless of the type of bow or clothing now given it.

On the other hand, the Balances still testify to an antique original form, one never employed in Europe, and not known in the Mediterranean as far as I have been able to discover, after about the 3rdC AD.

That hand that Koen mentions is perfectly beautiful; accomplished in drawing.   I could show you dozens of similarly long-fingered graceful hands in exactly that gesture: mainly Buddhist.   I agree with Koen's point about the "elephant-leaf".   However, I read it as a reference to a plant used for a dye - and particularly at the festival of Holi, when elephants are traditionally dressed up and people hurl lots of dye about. Big event on the calendar of anyone who sells vegetable dyes, even now.

But Koen reads that elephant as an elephant... and that's ok too.  Having a different opinion is no justification for hostility: that way madness lies.

Yes, my hypothesis (not more than that) is that some drawing elements in a different, (original?) style survived in the small plant drawings. The most beautiful images are found there, in my opinion, hidden in the plants. There is much more, like the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and the rearing cobra.



Much in this section points towards Egypt in my opinion, which is why I prefer to see the elephant as an African one. Similarly, I also recognize the Egyptian style in the elongated hand. But it is true that such hands are found in many cultures.


About the link between taboos, beliefs or cultural preferences and imperfect imagery, I happened to read an interesting example earlier today. This is not meant as a way to explain the Voynich imagery, just as an example:

"The Pyramid Texts were written in an unusual hieroglyphic style; many of the hieroglyphs representing humans or animals were left incomplete or drawn mutilated, most likely to prevent them causing any harm to the dead pharaoh." (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.)