The Voynich Ninja

Koen, I'm not certain, because I haven't looked into it, but it would make sense to me that the visiblity vs obscured, and full armlength -i.e. cubit, or half-cubit etc. might refer to distance .. from the horizon, or from the zenith or whatever..

A little unusual because the 'isba or finger-breadth was more usual.   But I think something connected with measures might be the go.

Just a thought.

Marco: Thanks, this is the kind of exchange of ideas I was hoping for when I made this thread. 

I'm not sure if I explained well what I meant with attributes vs. non-attributes. The distinction is also not always clear.

Let's say there's an image of a man digging a hole with a shovel. This shovel is usually not an attribute, because it alone does not tell us who or what this man is. Is he a grave digger? A grave robber? A farmer? A gardener? Looking for treasure? Construction works?

So I would say that a shovel alone is not an attribute, it's an object one can use. A man shoveling is usually a realistic depiction of an item being used to interact with the environment.

The crossbowman is in between. The bow, in combination with his outfit, could possibly tell us specifically who or what he is, giving it the qualities of an attribute in this case. If he is meant for Sagittarius here, it tells us what he is, and whether or not he uses the bow is irrelevant. On the other hand, the weapon is quite literal and soldiers, hunters, guards or tournament archers really used bows.

This is the reason why the crossbow is one of the few items in the manuscript which I would analyze is having non-attribute properties. This can be seen as a guy actually about to shoot a bow, and it makes sense.

I included the Christian example because it shows pure attribute use. St. Stephen possibly never held a palm like that, and he certainly never balanced two stones on his shoulders and one on his head - while holding a book as well. The attributes tell us who or what the figure is, but he does not use them. Of course this is just one example of a billion. Attributes are used in art throughout the ages.

(PS: to avoid anyone arguing about the exact meaning of "attribute", this is just how I use the word because I think it allows us to make a meaningful distinction here.)

Now if we look back at the nymphs holding out an item with stretched arm, we see that:
- they occur in relative isolation
- the item does not interact with other nymphs
- the item does not interact with the environment

This is a little bit different in the image you posted, since there seems to be a slight interaction between figure2-item-figure1. 
In the VM there is clearly interaction possible between nymphs, we see them fight and hold hands etc. But items are not involved in that interaction, which to me seems like a possible indication of the St. Stephen type. Nymphs holding items can interact, but the item is not used in that interaction.

Diane:
Something like that seems possible, and it might explain the limited set of poses for nymphs that are standing in a row. I'm nowhere near understanding this level of meaning though - I'm afraid this will have to go hand in hand with understanding the text...

If the man with the crossbow is a shooter, then the man with a shovel is a digger. Is the crossbowman a hunter shooting at pheasants or deer, a soldier at war or shooting at targets. Maybe you can think of a few more things to do with a shovel, but there is no real difference.

Anything associated with a person in an illustration can be considered an attribute. The matter relevant to identification depends on whether the attribute is specifically connected to a particular individual, to a certain group or to several groups or various individuals. There is more than story of a saint being stoned to death.

While this line of investigation is interestingly off beat and I appreciate the collection of images, I do not see a positive outcome, for reasons Koen has already listed. If we look at the man with the shovel, what is he digging? We do not know. Why do we not know it? Because the essential data is not in the illustration.

What do we have when we try to identify the problematic examples of hand-held items? We have Koen's list:
"- they occur in relative isolation
- the item does not interact with other nymphs
- the item does not interact with the environment"

In other words, the essential data is absent. Add to that, that the item itself is often ambiguous. It can't even be identified as a crossbow or shovel. It's an illustration of a 'whatsit' doing nothing.

That being said, I am fully in favor of considering the use of attributes as a method of identification. It would be my suggestion that it is better to consider a system of attributes that would have been widely known at the most probable time of the VMs creation. Among the attributes used for identification, heraldry in its armorial and ecclesiastical forms was certainly significant.

(19-10-2016, 05:59 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Now if we look back at the nymphs holding out an item with stretched arm, we see that:
- they occur in relative isolation
- the item does not interact with other nymphs
- the item does not interact with the environment

This is a little bit different in the image you posted, since there seems to be a slight interaction between figure2-item-figure1. 

I agree. And the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. image is different in other ways. For instance, the figure on the right has a wound in her (his?) breast, so she seems to have extracted from her own body the heart she holds. This heart certainly is not an "attribute" but an element in some kind of story. Voynich objects could also be elements in a story, but not clearly so.

What I am more interested in at this stage is seeing parallels for figures with stretched arm with similar features to those you noted in the VMS images. Maybe those parallels will give us a hint on the possible function of the objects.

Marco:
It's a good idea to focus on this subset first, the outstretched arm. I agree that the pose seems important. What I wonder though, is whether the pose and the item "belong together" or not. There are a number of options:

1. The pose corresponds to the way the item is used or held. It's like a picture of a person using this item.
   
2. The pose is a convention, without necessarily corresponding to reality.
   
3. The pose and the item add meaning separately. The item, irrelevant of the pose, tells us something and the pose tells us something else. They are separate parts of a visual "code".
   
4. ???
   

And what would you make of the examples below?



On top we see the same item (though without the top spike) being held in the other hand, while the pose remains the same. I'm not sure if the word is supposed to have come in its stead or it is just a confusingly positioned label. That would make it even stranger.

The bottom two images (from archer page) show on the left that the arm can be extended to the back as well, and to the right that a star can also be held in this pose. These poses are relatively rare compared to the bent arm ones, and might be significant.

(20-10-2016, 01:21 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Marco:
It's a good idea to focus on this subset first, the outstretched arm. I agree that the pose seems important. What I wonder though, is whether the pose and the item "belong together" or not. There are a number of options:

1. The pose corresponds to the way the item is used or held. It's like a picture of a person using this item.
   
2. The pose is a convention, without necessarily corresponding to reality.
   
3. The pose and the item add meaning separately. The item, irrelevant of the pose, tells us something and the pose tells us something else. They are separate parts of a visual "code".
   
4. ???
   

And what would you make of the examples below?



On top we see the same item (though without the top spike) being held in the other hand, while the pose remains the same. I'm not sure if the word is supposed to have come in its stead or it is just a confusingly positioned label. That would make it even stranger.

The bottom two images (from archer page) show on the left that the arm can be extended to the back as well, and to the right that a star can also be held in this pose. These poses are relatively rare compared to the bent arm ones, and might be significant.

the text meaning in english,  from those picture is 

maybe you are interested in your search

1.1      = to be  challenge (to invite someone to take part in a competition)
1.2      = to be said , to be talk
1.3      = sorry i d ont now yet first leter from word 
1.4      = make an offering, especially because of or in order to receive favorable omens.
2.        = field
3 & 4   = to be different, changed

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

Please note that the pin, that holds the nymph on page You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. stuck into a pipeline (intestine or a vein) at You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. page.

Wladimir, this was a difficult choice but I decided not to include this item because it's not something held in the hand - he's just hanging on it.

Also, in the interpretative level, I am not inclined to read anything in this section as diagrams of human anatomy. The large tube looks like a piece of driftwood, specifically a piece of a ship's mast. The little bars would then be rungs for climbing.

Image of a mirror and a “shamrock”.
[font=Tahoma, sans-serif][attachment=2335][/font]
[font=Tahoma, sans-serif][font=Tahoma, sans-serif] You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. [/font][/font]

This isn't about the objects, but rather about how the object-holders are drawn... something I keep forgetting to mention is that the noses of the figures on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. are rounded and quite different from the straight, angular noses on about 80% of the figures on quire 13.