The Voynich Ninja

(11-09-2016, 09:07 AM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(11-09-2016, 08:21 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Maybe they don't feel they have the background to evaluate imagery from other cultures. 

... Like you I'd also prefer to stay on topic here. So what is your opinion about the parallels in the patterns?

I think the observation about the detailed nick in the "star" shape is a good one—it's not a random blip of the pen, it's obviously intentional.

I'm not convinced it was inspired by a round fan (and there are other items besides fans that might have been an influence) but if it was, it's more likely the kind that folds end over end rather than one that has "veins" in one direction interleaved with ones in the other direction (somewhat like a peacock's tail). The first has triangular points (like the VMS imagery), the second has a more even rounder profile. I like seeing the example though, for its sheer aesthetic appeal.

Koen,

I should have posted the whole circuit of the fan, sorry.  Nor did I mention that I looked into the big Ethiopian fan.  It has the images of the saints of the day: it is a calendar.  Originally these were carried about, but the sticks could be removed, and then you had a fold-out.  The fan has since been put in a museum, but when I wrote to the curator, they told me that using fanfold documents which opened out into a circle rather than in the European way was very common, and that in fact it derived from use of palm-leaves as books.  This custom was (and in many cases still is) unremarkable from north Africa, through Egypt, Ethiopia and Arabia into India as as far as southeast Asia.  But unlike them, this fan-fold calendar in the VMS is of fabric (paper/papyrus), and  at the place marked by the usual "beginning and end" line, it has a motif which even tells us when the year begins - I'm not sure if the centre was originally meant to be the moon as it is now, or that's a misinterpretation by the fifteenth century copyist.  (I've already written posts about each of these things, so won't offer more detail.  Still, if the centre is the moon, that's appropriate enough because the next section in the VmS foldout is also moon-focused and is - I concluded after going into the whole thing in some depth - a chart for calculating the 'establishment of the port' by the old mariner's method.  Very interesting pair of diagrams.


PS - here's the post about the 'star on the pedestal' if you're into historical, astronomical or cultural minutiae.  I reprinted and expanded it slightly from the original analysis - I treated that section of the manuscript fairly early on, and realised there wasn't a single current worker likely to have seen the original.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Funerary portrait from Fayum, Egypt, Roman period. 



What I find interesting here is the way the Ankh is held. It does not remind me of the VM, but rather as a possible bridging context between it and the Cross.
Also note the pattern on the edges of her clothes


Just for comparison, here is a 13th century icon, one of thousands of examples:

Limestone head of Cleopatra III, Ptolemaic period.

This one might require some more imagination. The Voynich crown appears to have had its lower part overpainted in a thick red, obscuring whatever lies underneath. A series of circles is still visible on top. 

The image below shows queen Meritamun with a crown of Uraeus serpents, as so often topped with sun disks. 



Meritamun is a bit early, but the same crown was still used by the Ptolemaic rulers, including the most famous one. I just use this image because it's a nice statue.

An interesting comparison, but, if you stick your nose right on the VMs image, you can see where the obscuring red paint is mostly localized to the front, while on the side there are sections where parchment shows through. So it's difficult to support a claim that there are any snakes hiding there. When is a crown just a crown?

Heraldry has a whole system of different crowns for kings and queens and nobles of various ranks. I can't say if there is a better match, but potential contemporary (1400s) comparisons would seem to be more logical than sources from a millennium plus earlier.

Let's say the Cleopatra comparison is a good one. What is Cleopatra doing in the VMs? And how is that identification any better than that of the Fieschi popes?

R. Sale - 
You ask two questions. One is easy to answer, the other is very complex. Let's start with the easy one.

Quote:And how is that identification any better than that of the Fieschi popes?

Ptolemaic queens like the Cleopatras were very often represented as naked or scantly clad women. Popes were not.




Now to the hard part.

Quote:What is Cleopatra doing in the VMs?

Well, first of all, I'm not sure if any of the several queens called Cleopatra are in the MS. Egyptian iconographic symbols often lasted millennia and could be found on different persons. When the Ptolemies took over power, they still had their portraits made in "Greek" style, for example on coins, but they also loved to have themselves represented with the royal symbols of this ancient culture they now ruled. And there were blended forms as well.
 
However, especially in the Late Period and Greco-Roman period some changes to iconography occurred, and it is often possible to tell in which period an artefact belongs. What I'm trying to say is, an Egyptian crown does not generally point to a specific ruler, but it can contain hints about the specific period. 

So it is possible that this image just meant "a queen" to the original audience, without necessarily being a Cleopatra or Berenice or... I just happend to find the best comparison in a statue of Cleopatra II (the Cleopatra is number VII).

This is the same as one would expect in a medieval context when a woman wears a crown. The woman is a queen, but without any context we're not sure if she's supposed to be a specific one or a queen in general.

Now why Egypt and not Europe? That's hard to explain in a few words. There's hundreds of thousands of words on Diane's blog about why the VM's content likely originated in the Hellenistic period. There's the examples in this thread. There's the fact that the Greco-Roman-Egyptians were much more comfortable with general nudity than Latin Europeans were. I don't think anyone in the 15th century would draw their queen or king or pope naked, unless the work were humorous or satirical. I'm not sure if one would get away with putting a pope's crown on any naked woman?

There's the fact that the manuscript lacks unambiguous references to Christianity and Islam, apart from a reinterpreted image or two. There's the fact that the manuscript lacks all reference to medieval warfare, apart from perhaps the crossbowman who surely is a later addition. 

There's the fact that Baresch found the plants in the manuscript exotic, thought of it as Egyptian and had it sent to the most prominent Egyptologist of his time, hoping that he could identify the script as Egyptian. We now know that the script is probably not Egyptian and might have been a late addition, but Baresch had only the images to inform him, and whatever he had been told about this artefact when it came into his possession.

There's the fact that this work is still not understood, even though most people agree that it is a genuine historic artefact - i.e. not a Voynich forgery. 

There's the fact that, even though the vast majority of Egyptian artifacts have been lost (or are still resting on the bottom of the sea), we still have enough to find striking, coherent parallels. 

Both crowns I have posted were worn by the Ptolemaic queens, and to some extent before and after them as well. I'll throw in a third one.

The rearing serpent, known as Uraeus, has been a symbol of Egyptian royalty throughout the centuries, from well before Tut's day all the way to Caesar's. What we see in the Ptolemaic period, however (an evolution that started at least in the Amarna period), is that the horizontal loops of the serpent's body become more pronounced and start to form a cross-line. In some cases, the serpent's shape is abstracted to such an extent that it looks like a cross alltogether. Again, this is in Egypt's later periods.

Now this is where it gets interesting. The female rulers would often wear this now roughly cruciform symbol on a simple circlet or diadem. 



That's basically all rulers with loopy cross-shapes on their foreheads. The statue right above our nymph is another Cleopatra that's only recently been found off the Egyptian coast. Unfortunately, as in the vast majority of statues, the top of the snake (i.e. the top circle) broke off. 


And as a bonus, there's also a Uraeus serpent in the small plants section.

Koen,

It seems to be the easier questions are the ones that cause people to trip up. Your argument seems to be that there can not be representations of popes, because there would not be representations of naked popes. And therefore it appears that you believe that all the nymphs in the VMs are nude. And while that is true for the majority, it does not apply to all of them. Some are clearly drawn and painted in a way that would indicate that they are clothed. See VMs You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. in particular.


If representations of Hellenistic headgear can be considered a valid source of influence in the VMs, why shouldn't medieval armorial and ecclesiastical heraldry of the 13th century be considered as well? You have proposed comparisons based on visual similarities and some are quite good. My identifications also derive from visual similarities, but those comparisons are augmented by independent, positional confirmations built into the illustrations. Positional confirmations are established through proper hierarchical positioning, favored heraldic placement, page choice based of religious, sacrificial tradition and the heraldic canting of the papelonny pun. Each objective statement of location makes the subjective identification that much stronger than visual similarity alone.

(23-09-2016, 04:34 AM)R. Sale Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Your argument seems to be that there can not be representations of popes, because there would not be representations of naked popes. And therefore it appears that you believe that all the nymphs in the VMs are nude.

I'm well aware that some of the figures, at least in their current form, are clothed. That would be a weird thing to deny.
But I do think that if the crown is supposed to be a papal one, or one referring to a specific medieval royal, it would be weird to have that person represented by a naked woman.
The crowns I'm talking about here are all worn by naked women. Cleopatra was often shown as a naked woman. Popes weren't.

In fact, I believe that having a naked woman wear a papal crown would have been utterly blasphemous. Same like the naked woman with the cross.


I'll just keep adding on evidence. How much is needed? 
Today's features is once again from the Greco-Roman period in Egypt, one of the famous Fayum funerary portraits. These show people in contemporary clothing. Sometimes the women have their breasts bared, sometimes they don't, but nudity is not a problem.

The example below is not as photorealistic as some of the others, yet attention is given to her clothing, including the pattern on her diadem. Or whatever is the best name to call her head band. We see a number of vertical stripes and dots. One of the several relevant Voynich nymphs is inset.




Edit: in my previous post I explained the third crown in a row as a Ptolemaic royal symbol and I missed the opportunity to make a hat-trick joke

(23-09-2016, 08:25 AM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(23-09-2016, 04:34 AM)R. Sale Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Your argument seems to be that there can not be representations of popes, because there would not be representations of naked popes. And therefore it appears that you believe that all the nymphs in the VMs are nude.

I'm well aware that some of the figures, at least in their current form, are clothed. That would be a weird thing to deny.

[...deleted for brevity...]


I'll just keep adding on evidence. How much is needed? 
Today's features is once again from the Greco-Roman period in Egypt, one of the famous Fayum funerary portraits. These show people in contemporary clothing. Sometimes the women have their breasts bared, sometimes they don't, but nudity is not a problem.

The example below is not as photorealistic as some of the others, yet attention is given to her clothing, including the pattern on her diadem. Or whatever is the best name to call her head band. We see a number of vertical stripes and dots. One of the several relevant Voynich nymphs is inset.




Edit: in my previous post I explained the third crown in a row as a Ptolemaic royal symbol and I missed the opportunity to make a hat-trick joke

Koen, it's hard to see it when it's rendered as a sculpture, but that kind of headband was usually constructed of rolled fabric and thus would be closer to a turban than a diadem. I need to get some sleep so I don't have time to dig up my pictures, but here are a couple of modern re-creations of the same general idea: