The Voynich Ninja

If on page. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. nymph reveals "object" (Anton is called sponge in another topic), then on the page. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. she take this object in her hand.

This can be a soap, pumice, stone ...

(16-10-2016, 02:51 PM)VViews Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Sam G,

that would be true if we had positively identified all the objects that they hold, or even the themes of the sections or the validity of our perception of what a section is; but we haven't.
So how can we understand why unidentified people (we're not even sure they are meant to be people) hold unidentified objects?  
The exchange above between Koen Gh and Diane in fact illustrates this: the discussion of how objects are held will almost necessarily have to make a first stop via the identification of said objects.
So I fear that this thread will end up as a collection of object ID's.

This still seems backwards.  If we could securely ID the objects, then there might not be a problem considering them in isolation, as we could probably safely do in the case of the crossbow for instance.  But since we can't securely ID the objects, and since most of them are probably too indistinct to identify in isolation anyway, it seems the only way forward would be to look at them in a broader context.

Koen Gh,
sorry but there is no justification for Diane's comment to me, no matter how you rationalize it.

I've said what I had to say, I didn't want this to turn into a huge deal where everyone gets offended, and if you all disagree with my view that's fine.
Sorry I couldn't be more positive, and I don't want to derail the thread with my considerations on methodology and scope if they seem irrelevant to all, so I'll abstain from further comments on this subject.
Please proceed, and may this thread live long and prosper.

Wladimir: I always thought those objects are different,  their shape isn't the same. Though it's hard to tell at such scale. Especially the top left picture you posted looks different to me, though the others may represent the same. Hard to tell...

(16-10-2016, 03:23 PM)Wladimir D Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If on page. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. nymph reveals "object" (Anton is called sponge in another topic), then on the page. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. she take this object in her hand.

This can be a soap, pumice, stone ...

I think You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. in general represents the kidneys in the human anatomy - in this context the woman is pointing to kidney stones.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
The object from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. looks like bunch of turnips or something similar.

[attachment=800]

Koen,
I like that id as the Lyre.

Part of the problem is finding a way to shift the previous century's mass of hypothesis and speculation built upon efforts to justify, after the fact, the idea that the manuscript's content is all the product of a Latin Christian author, or entirely of the Latin (i.e. western European) Christian tradition.

Since 1912, so many people have adopted that hypothesis, and then invested  time, effort, networking skills and personal image into supporting it,  that it is very difficult now to introduce more rigorous method or any wider parameters to the investigation.  The pattern of response to any evidence or conclusions which find that the content is not compatible with theories of a Latin Christian authorship, and (more recently) of central European Christian origin, tend to result in sustained efforts to discredit the research - not by addressing the evidence and argument - but by creating a general impression that the researcher themselves is 'bad'.
 
Georg Stolfi is the first I saw  subjected to  that sort of treatment and I'm not sure it had ever been seen before the 2000s.  Until then, the general tenor of discussion had been intelligent and about enquiry, not about camps whose leaders said, in effect, that whoever wasn't with them was against them.  But that sort of atmosphere did develop from the early 2000s until it finally killed Santacoloma's mailing list.

Discussions of liinguistics and cryptography have tended to remain much more open in their horizons, and intelligent and co-operative: people being more interested in getting it right than anything else.  Where the imagery is concerned, though, or theoretical narratives as 'history' the opposite and lower standards are often seen.


Nick Pelling did ascribe to the "Latin Christian author" idea, but he nominated  a fifteenth century Italian, when the popular theory was something to do with 16th or 17thC central Europe, so he was also subjected to the sort of campaign composed of "pals behind the scene" slander and public ridicule which proved so effective before and which has done so since.  Being subjected to personal insult, and then defending himself, he was said to be "agressive"... etc.

We saw something of the same occur in Sam G's perfectly sensible thread about an image in a north African mosaic.
 
Since I began publishing my research online, I have been treated to the same method that I call the "Stolfi discouragement" since it appears to have begun about that time and since then to have been directed to any who do not reach conclusions compatible with a central European, Christian, origin for the work's content.


I would suggest then, that if you want to begin a thread which might not result in matter that can be used to support the "all Christian European" content hypothesis, that you speak in advance to the moderators.

You can't blame people for feeling upset at the idea that their theory is flawed. But we have to be able to consider more than one theory, and in depth.

Postscript - Ellie's post went up while I was writing this one; it shouldn't be mistaken for a response to hers.

It looks like one of the nymphs on 84r is holding a rounded beige object under her arm.

True, Sam. I didn't include it because I wasn't sure whether it was a mistake by the painter. But I'd also give it more than 50% chance that it is an intentional object.

But there's also this one in a similar pose, where the hollow in the arm has been left white, and the one next to it has it colored green. I'm not sure what to make of these and what they could represent if it's not a painting mistake...

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

(15-10-2016, 09:19 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Talking just about the bathing section, I am especially intrigued by the fact that, bar a few possible exceptions, the objects are never used. They are held, and some nymphs appear completely unaware of the thing in their hands. I see two possible explanations.

1) The objects are attributes. They tell us who the figure is supposed to represent, without being of much importance themselves. Attributes are of all ages and cultures. 

As an example, here is St. Stephen: 



He has two stones on his shoulders, one on his head - he does not seem to notice. He's holding a large book but does not seem like he's about to read, and there is no apparent use for the palm he is holding. 

That is because these attributes tell us something about the figure. He was stoned to death. And the Martyr's palm tells us he's a martyr. 

Hello Koen,
thank you for posting about this interesting subject.

One thing I note when comparing the Saint Stephen painting with Voynich images is that the saint is a single figure in an individual frame: he is static and does not really make part of a scene.
We can be reasonably certain that the crossbow of the Sagittarius is his attribute (no [cross]bow, no archer) and the crossbowman is a single figure in an individual frame. But, as you wrote, the medallions are rather exceptional (or maybe, less exceptional than the rest of the ms).

I also find the fact that "the most common stance is to hold the object at the end of a horizontally stretched arm" difficult to match with instances of attributes in Christian art: that seems to me a more dynamic pose, like "offering" something. How can it be interpreted? I think it will be useful to find a few parallels.

In general, the fact that these objects appear in dynamic scenes with multiple characters seems to me closer to alchemical symbolism (e.g. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.) than to attributes in Christian art. But this is just my superficial impression: it's a complex subject which definitely deserves to be researched.