The Voynich Ninja

[Note: this thread is a forum-friendly summary of two blog posts on the subject of proportions in depictions of the human form. For a very brief intro (including a measurement of Nick Pelling's head-to-body ratio), see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. For a more detailed account of  the analysis described in this thread, see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..]


Last week, I decided to perform some measurements of nymph proportions. I had two questions in mind:
1) Are the nymphs drawn in an unusual style, or just badly drawn?
2) Can we understand the purpose of the illustrations better by looking at nymph proportions?

The second question is one I cannot yet answer, though I hope some useful ideas may emerge in this thread.

The first question then, was prompted by the recurring discussion about whether or not the person who drew these figures was technically skilled. Several people have a nuanced view on this matter, and Diane regularly brings up the objection that the draughtsman seems to have payed a lot of attention to certain proportions of the nymphs, which would be an indicator of a specific style rather than an outright lack of skill or training.

I thought: proportions can be measured, so let's do that. I only measured the vertical proportions for now, so not the width of the shoulders or length of the arms for example.
Historically, a number of systems were used to get body proportions right or at least keep them consistent. We do not know which, if any, system was used in the VM illustrations, so I opted for the height of the head as a point of reference, since this is very well understood.

• The height of the head is measured from the top of the skull to the chin. This negates the effects of hats or "high hair".
  
• It's all about proportions, not absolute measurements. Absolute numbers are irrelevant, since those can be affected by the zoom of the picture or just the scale of the drawing. Additionally, proportions allow us to compare a wide range of media and sources.
  
• I measured how many times a figure's head went into its whole length. Additionally, I selected the distance from top to navel and top to the knee of the straight leg as two other proportions. For example, "nymph x top to navel is four times her head."
  
• I measured most nymphs that were visible in full body, i.e. without the legs hidden. In a few cases, only the feet were hidden, which allowed me to still make confident measurements.
  
• Nymphs in all sections were measured to see whether there was any difference between sections.
  
• Clear outliers are discussed separately.
  

Just to get an idea: the average person is 7,5 heads tall. "Ideal" proportions are often preferred in art, with figures of eight heads tall. On my first blog post I measured a runway model for fun, and with high heels she looked as if she was a kind-of-ridiculous 8.7 heads tall.

I provided this image as a comparison for how it could be. In BNF LAT 12957 the illustrations betray little attention for proportions and a general lack of spatial insight. The female figure is a whopping 11.5 heads, while the male's head only fits 6.1 times in his total size.



My findings about the Voynich nymphs are the following:

The proportions of the nymphs were consistent across sections. Additionally, individual nymphs don't deviate more than half a head from the median, which is peanuts compared to the above example. 

The median values across 47 measured nymphs are:


There are slight variations in individual nymphs, but those are surprisingly small. For comparative studies, the most valuable number is that a Voynich nymph is on average a bit more than four heads tall. Compared to even a "compact" person of seven heads tall, these proportions are extremely stunted.

Using the chin, navel and knee, a nymph can be roughly divided in four parts:



This seems to point towards a more or less conscious "construction" of the bodies. That is not to say that these points were actually used. There are other possible markers like the knee of the bent leg, the eyes, the nipples, the groin... Many of those are still used as reference points in drawing today.


SPECIALS

• Both human figures in the marginalia have close to average proportions.
  
• The archer and the female twin are close to average as well. Virgo is a bit tall at 4.8 heads, though still within half a head from the median. Additionally, the robe might make the body taller than intended.
  

Now the strangest part. Apart from the archer, who had standard proportions, I measured six men in the manuscript. These were the ones who were unambiguously male and measurable. All of them are outliers. 

The young man on top of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is 5.4 heads tall, which is a full head more than the median. He is the least "compact" figure I measured. It is interesting that the pen lines appear to betray some uncertainty or correcting around his rump.

The five remaining men were all 3.7 heads tall. They were the most compact figures I measured, with 0.6 heads under the median. The fact that these were all men and all similarly proportioned in a different way than the nymphs seems relevant. Three of these were found on the Gemini page.




I don't know what any of this means, though I do believe now that more effort went into these drawings than one would think at first sight. Any thoughts?

It all depends how you pick you samples. Here I tried to "head-measure" the way you did some women drawn in  15th century, 3rd quarter, German manuscript (Goethe Univ ms germ qu 100). The proportions seem close enough to the VMs figures. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
[attachment=684]

Ellie, this is not about 15th century European or not. Where dit I say something like that? 

I picked my samples by selecting those nymphs of which I could measure the full body. A second requirement is that they had to be standing up, i.e. not too much bend in the body. Additionally, I treated all outliers in a separate section. If you think I made some mistake, do please test it yourself - the more data the better.

All I wanted to find out is whether proportions are consistent, and they are. That's data. It is very likely that these proportions are found more in Medieval European art than in Classical art. That is beside the point of this study.


But of course I would encourage the use of the results in comparative studies. Though in that case a full body standing figure would be ideal.

(01-10-2016, 10:14 PM)EllieV Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It all depends how you pick you samples. Here I tried to "head-measure" the way you did some women drawn in  15th century, 3rd quarter, German manuscript (Goethe Univ ms germ qu 100). The proportions seem close enough to the VMs figures. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Couple more examples - one from Bavarian bible, one from French manuscript

[attachment=685][attachment=686]

Also, actually looking at what you did, there are some methodological flaws.

- You compare the length of the yellow woman using the head of another one.
- You cut off below the neck and above the skull, while I said my my measurements were made from skull to chin.
- There is no lower point of reference - we cannot see where the women's knees are.

- And in the last example you posted, the woman is sitting!

(01-10-2016, 10:22 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Ellie, this is not about 15th century European or not. Where dit I say something like that? 

I picked my samples by selecting those nymphs of which I could measure the full body. A second requirement is that they had to be standing up, i.e. not too much bend in the body. Additionally, I treated all outliers in a separate section. If you think I made some mistake, do please test it yourself - the more data the better.

All I wanted to find out is whether proportions are consistent, and they are. That's data. It is very likely that these proportions are found more in Medieval European art than in Classical art. That is beside the point of this study.


But of course I would encourage the use of the results in comparative studies. Though in that case a full body standing figure would be ideal.

Fair enough. I was just surprised by your choice of image for comparison. You found the smallest head available

---

(01-10-2016, 10:33 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Also, actually looking at what you did, there are some methodological flaws.

- You compare the length of the yellow woman using the head of another one.
- You cut off below the neck and above the skull, while I said my my measurements were made from skull to chin.
- There is no lower point of reference - we cannot see where the women's knees are.

- And in the last example you posted, the woman is sitting!

LOL. I didn't notice - I placed the head over the woman I was measuring. The Hague manuscript has a figure that is standing - so it should cover your methodology.

I agree with you that the human figures in the VMs are proportionally consistent.

---

(01-10-2016, 10:22 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Ellie, this is not about 15th century European or not. Where dit I say something like that? 

You linked to a post of yours that discusses the human proportions in various forms of art - non of them is 15th century manuscripts. In the footnotes you say "D.N. O’Donovan often cites the nymphs’ relatively large heads as a meaningful cultural indicator.". Can you or Diane explain what cultures are indicated by large heads?
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
[attachment=687]

Ellie: in my first post I show classical statues, exactly because they use idealised proportions that are different than those of the voynich nymphs. If I wanted to argue that the nymphs are Greek or Egyptian by that, I'd surely be shooting myself in the foot.

Like I said in my second post, an actual comparison with other art forms will be reserved for the last post in the series.

I'm not an expert on head sizes in other cultures, maybe Diane can say something about that of she reads this thread. 

All I had in mind was to gather some data on the proportions of the nymphs and their consistency. The four part division and the differently proportioned men were a surprise to me and I don't know what that means.

(01-10-2016, 11:11 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Ellie: in my first post I show classical statues, exactly because they use idealised proportions that are different than those of the voynich nymphs. If I wanted to argue that the nymphs are Greek or Egyptian by that, I'd surely be shooting myself in the foot.

Like I said in my second post, an actual comparison with other art forms will be reserved for the last post in the series.

I'm not an expert on head sizes in other cultures, maybe Diane can say something about that of she reads this thread. 

All I had in mind was to gather some data on the proportions of the nymphs and their consistency. The four part division and the differently proportioned men were a surprise to me and I don't know what that means.

All right. I agree with you that the VMs human figures lack classic proportions and the body proportions across the VMs seems fairly consistent. I'm looking forward to your last post in the series.

Koen, I chuckled all the way through your proportions blog (yes, I actually read a blog post for a change).

What you've done is interesting and I look forward to future installments.


My opinion is that the proportions of the VMS drawings are not so terribly off, it's that the illustrator has no sense of underlying anatomy (muscles, bones, and especially joints). They are drawn with a 2d view of a 3d world and quite clumsy in that respect.

They're not bad, they're better than some people can do and attention to detail throughout the manuscript is pretty good, they're just not rendered the way an artist sees the world, which includes what is inside and behind the subject of the drawing in addition to what is seen by the viewer.

Interesting analysis.  I hadn't consciously thought about the nymphs' proportions before, but for some reason the nymphs have always made me think of Lego minifigs.



I think it's the disproportionately large heads combined with the simply drawn faces and the restricted range of poses that the nymphs are usually found in.

Clearly an indication of Danish influence in the VMS.