The Voynich Ninja

Koen,

Sorry, I did not mean to imply that that crown, or any crown, was a papal crown. I was was referring to the general identification of a particular figure, based on a summation of evidence. Your 'Cleopatra' identification, based of the headgear, with the 'floral' top and the band across the forehead is quite similar, as far as it goes, but is there another independent factor that helps to confirm the identification? Whereas, with the Fieschi identification, there are half a dozen separate, independent, visual and positional elements that contribute to the identification.

Hope I'm not interrupting this conversation, but I don't think the point was that Cleopatra alone wore such headwear, only that it occurs as early as that and is not incompatible with arguments for a Hellenistic origin to the imagery.

Since this thread is particularly intended to explore some of those ideas not examined by theories of Latin-European/central European theories, I'm not sure if the Fiechi theory fits here - but I'm expressing doubt not censure.

Diane,

Well, you're probably right. It's wandered off a bit. But here is my point. We have a Hellenistic comparison, let's say. What is there in the VMs that the comparison is based upon? It is the perception of visual similarity. Something in the VMs looks like something that can be found in Hellenistic sources. Various comparisons have been made. Some have been quite similar, though I'm no expert, and others not so much. So my question is whether subjective, visual similarity is all that there is to be found in this particular, or any general, Hellenistic comparison? Is there anything more?

Compared to what?, one might ask. For example? And this is where the Fieschi identification functions as a demonstration of the combined use of visual similarity and specified location, and it's in the VMs and not hypothetically and somewhere else.  Then, if the intent was to represent Cleopatra, she would have the matching headdress, and could be sitting on a barge or be holding an asp or hiding behind a pyramid or something.

So the matter does not apply to Hellenistic investigations exclusively, but to all investigations in general. What are the criteria of judgement and how can validity be determined? How much visual similarity is enough? Wouldn't objective criteria be a useful supplement in any proposed identification?

I'll just adhere to the motto "pictures speak louder than words" and add some more evidence




Top: Isis, Roman bronze from Syria // Isis, Roman marble
Bottom: Isis, Ptolemaic period.

In all cases we see an Egyptian goddess with her original headdress reduced in various ways, often in the nymph's pose holding up an object. Nakedness optional.

And as these coins show, it doesn't take much to turn a sistrum into a gemmed ring:

R. Sale,

You speak of "subjective visual similarity". 

The "subjective visual similarity"  approach is usually unproductive and I neither advocate it nor employ it.

By that standard, you'd end up with the sort of person who first says "oh the front page of the Book of Kells reminds me of a Persian carpet"... and who then shifts from trying to understand the manuscript to trying to lobby for their "theory" that the Book of Kells is about Persian carpets.
 
Other people are content with hypothesing and conclusions that are no more than "ideas".

And that's ok.  But that's not the way I've been trained, and no professional works that way.

Because for many that you meet online, the manuscript no longer has an objective history and the purpose for being involved is because it's a hobby like some extra-clever cryptic crossword puzzle.  Something to occupy leisure hours, a reason to socialise, and a way to fill the long hours between work and work: it's just an interesting thing to puzzle over.


And why not?

In the comparison of the various crowns, it seems to me that a strong visual similarity exists with the VMs example. It seems that the strength and extent of that similarity is an evaluation that is to some extent subjective. But in general, visual similarity is one method used to evaluate to VMs illustrations, and subjectivity depends on the investigator's qualifications. I make no claims.

So what about the problem of VMs image evaluation? Rather than search for a more compelling example of visual similarity, why not look for a second method of evaluation? Is there an appropriate, traditional method of evaluation of images, other than their appearance? The location, placement and positioning of images within an illustration was often determined by tradition. The placement of specific elements in an illustration can be determined independently as an objective measurement without considering the details of appearance. The traditional standards of hierarchical, heraldic and sacrificial religious placement are mimicked in the positional facts of the VMs illustration of White Aries. It's simply a matter of measuring the proper markers and they are selected on the basis of visual similarity with historical examples.
.

R.Sale,
Yes, of course there are objective methods and standards, as you suggest.

In the world beyond Voynich studies, if you purchase a manuscript or an image in any medium, you could normally count on the manuscript-qua-manuscript's being *correctly* assigned its place and time in a couple of weeks or so.


About provenancing individual images, or disentangling evidence of diverse influences and evolution of imagery over time ... that takes rather more time, work, care, attention to detail, and solid study - usually supplemented by a fair amount of practice. 

Complete exegesis of the art in any manuscript, even one whose style is consistent with that where it was made (as the Vms imagery is not) can can take rather a long time... To use my favourite (because non-Voynich) example...People are still finding items to  add to to our understanding of the Celtic forms in the Book of Kells.

Diane,


If one takes the different levels of interpretation as suggested in each of your paragraphs, then what I am looking at is a few levels further down - at the level of political cartoons - or more specifically at the level of heraldic canting. It's a level of interpretation more on a par with Don's investigations of mnemonic devices than the researching of cultural provenance.

In the VMs, it depends on the recognition of heraldic patterns, specifically papelonny, which is a traditional fur and established in use well before the VMs parchment dates. However, heraldic interpretations have only received narrow consideration. And papelonny and plumetty, two traditional heraldic furs, have practically been consigned to obscurity as specific named patterns, because the are omitted from many modern, gloss, references.

So, without out the data to inform a definition, how is it possible to find a VMs example? It can't be done.

But if the pattern is known, good examples can be seen in the tub pattern from VMs Pisces outer ring, upper left. And from VMs Dark Aries inner ring, upper left.


Then from the next folio, White Aries, there are two tub patterns with blue stripes. They sit in positions that mimic the positions of the papelonny patterns on the two pages previous. There's a reason for that. A pair to a pair, one might say. And this is where the canting takes place. A hidden pun snaps shut. A little surprise, historical identifications, intentionally built into the illustrations.

On top, a standard Egyptian scene of Anubis tending to a mummy. This is just for stylistic comparison, no direct relevance to VM.
Bottom left, the same scene but from the Roman period, different style. 
Bottom right, VM basket, note the similar pattern and similar use of coloration.



In itself this isn't too impressive, but it can be added to the list here.

Koen,

Hey, no problems spotting the two examples of grid patterns. The difficulty I am having, and I'll have to attribute it to my curmudgeonly skepticism, is why it has to be that the one is derived from a *knowledge* of the other. It seems to imply that long ago there was a skilled Egyptian artist, who first drew this pattern, and no one else in several millennia of history has been able to develop this pattern on their own. They all had to have a *knowledge* of the Egyptian original, at least through its line of illustrated descendants. Somewhere there is a point where independent development begins to challenge the single source hypothesis, particularly in cases where the pattern itself is lacking any distinctive features.

And I would contrast this with other examples you have found, such as the 'ladder with dots" or the pool border with three bars and a space. These are much more distinctive.

In the heraldic system of tincture designation through the use of hatching lines, the vertical-horizontal combination represents the color 'black'.