The Voynich Ninja

Much has been written about the items held by the nymphs, and they are notoriously hard to identify with certainty. That is why, for my most recent You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., I decided to take a step back and look at the way items are held, trying to avoid interpretation on an individual level. I did not look at barrels, tubes and stars, since there are too many of them and they are not really handheld items.

There are three "sections" in the manuscript that show handheld objects:


The calendar roundels.

Almost all of these are stars, or flowers that look like stars on a string. This is also the case for Virgo. The exception is the crossbowman, who is exceptional for several reasons:

• only unambiguous weapon in the manuscript
  
• only item held, or at least "handled" with both hands, in the entire manuscript
  
• perhaps the only item that can be interpreted at a basic level without discussion. It's a crossbow!
  

All of this make the crossbowman rather exceptional.

Separate diagrams
These are the diagram on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and both diagrams on the reverse of the large foldout. The three of them feature four human figures in a circular or square arrangement.

On You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. there is only one handheld object, a white disk or globe. It is held in a unique way, with a very large angle in the arm, making the item almost hang above the figure's head.


The other two diagrams are also exceptional object-wise. These are the only folios where we see nymphs holding more than one item. Also, the only person actually wearing a ring. It is also very interesting to note that these figures have been drawn as fully clothed to begin with, without any overpainting in thick Pelling paint.





Quire 13 (bathing section)

This leaves the vast majority of object-holders in the bathing section. The most common stance is to hold the object at the end of a horizontally stretched arm. The first five examples are very clear, while the bottom two are a bit different. Still, it is interesting to see that five nymphs hold very different objects in the same way.




Four nymphs hold the object by their side like they don't care:



Some objects are held behind the back, though poses differ:

Note that the object held by the bottom nymph is the same as the one held out by one of the first group, only there a spike is at the top. This likely has to be seen as an "in use" and "disabled" version of the same thing.

Then there are some specials: one held in or near the mouth, one wrapped around the body, one is manipulating a waterflow, one holding up a large ring, and one apparently tripling its arm length to extend an "apple" ahead of another one.


CONCLUSIONS

• The crossbowman is an exception on many levels.
  
• There is variety in the way objects are held, but also a number of recurring poses. Especially the "horizontal stretched arm" is common.
  
• Objects are generally isolated from other nymphs and the environment. They are held, but it is not clear for what reason.
  
• One object per nymphs, with the exception of the four-way diagrams.
  

INTERPRETATION
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. 
Hence, it is conceivable that the items are meant to tell us who the nymphs are.

1. 2. A second option is that the items are more important and the nymphs are just there to hold them, like mannequins. If the item is all that matters, it is of no importance who holds it.

Naked people are, in a way, like mannequins, stripped of all social markers. And mannequins are like naked people

There is some overlap between these two options, and I don't think they are mutually exclusive.

The second option is problematic in a way though. Why choose naked women as mannequins? This could only be explained against a cultural background where such a thing was acceptable, which, I believe, would exclude most areas under the rule of Catholicism. 

So well, that's how I see the objects as a whole. What do you think?

Koen Gh,

Not to sound negative, but I find the subject of the post to be too broad: it seems to me that the relationship between the various Voynich people and the objects they hold is possibly very different in the various sections of the Manuscript, and even within the "bathy" section.
Also I should add that in at least two of the images you posted (hard to point out because they are not numbered), I just don't see an object, but simply a nymph with her hand in the steam/water/whateverflow.
Finally, your premise of not taking into account nymphs holding pipes seems arbitrary: on the contrary, I think that in the "balneo" section, the fact that some nymphs hold pipes may be just as significant as the fact that some of them hold other objects, or have their hands in water, or are reaching for something in the water. Ignoring those nymphs can only distort any conclusions, IMO.
But maybe I'm missing the point? As I said, the subject of this post is so broad it's almost unwieldly.

VV: the differences between sections is exactly my point, so that's not a problem. 

The pipes are not handheld objects, so I leave them out. This seems more like a figure interacting with the environment. The same goes for the figures apparently hiding stuff, but I touch upon that in my blogpost.

There is one nymph manipulating a waterflow, the others should all have items. 

The point of this post is to discuss the question: how do handheld objects function in general? I made some observations that seem to apply to a broad range of them. The discussion can be about the question whether my conclusion that the objects may function as attributes is likely or not.

How is manipulating a waterflow different from interacting with the environment?
(That particular image, by the way, is extremely interesting to me: thanks for the zoomed view).

And your two statements above that "the differences between sections is exactly my point" and that you want to understand how "handheld objects function in general" are contradictory.

I consider the observation that objects behave differently in the various major sections to be one of the general level, i.e. not the individual object level. 

The waterflow one should probably not have been included, but it's not like it skews any statistics... I put it in the 'specials' category but feel free to pretend like it isn't there. 

I made this thread because I think the question 'how do the (groups of) objects in the manuscript behave' is one that could help future discussion about particular items. 

Tough perhaps this is too much of an ideological taboo

Koen,

I agree with VViews that

Quote:it seems to me that the relationship between the various Voynich people and the objects they hold is possibly very different in the various sections of the Manuscript, and even within the "bathy" section

but I tend to think it's not a good idea to reply to a thread by suggesting, in effect, that the thread is "wrong".  If I think it's a waste of time, I try not to waste my time just to make the poster feel bad.  Just my position.

Koen, I think you are right, though, about the objects held being attributes.  Attributes of what/whom is the issue then.  And for a coherent answer, one has to be able to offer a consistent explanation for all the emblematic objects upon each page, and preferably across a section where the figures holding them are comparable.

I haven't been able to do that so far, but I do think I know what one of the objects is meant for..




The thing is not a cornucopia as one might suppose, and as many do.  I think it shows an object used to determine time, and thus to determine place -  the same sort of thing as that which has been wrongly described as the "Baghdad Battery" and I'm not the first person to compare the object with that one - though I believe I may be the first to have equated it with the sort of instrument which tells time and allows the observer to calculate their position on the earth.

This coin shows the gridded earth with the cornucopia-that-isn't, in its bendy form.






A cornucopia was an empty horn filled with food... You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. The spike signals the difference.

Because I also say that these 'nymphs' refer to astronomical forms, I should suggest an id. for the stars associated with the object, but  I can think of too many possibilities and have no way to judge between them.  Just two: 1i)  Serpens Cauda (Serpent Tail) aperhaps with Ophiuchus;(2) One of the Ursae in a form akin to the Egyptians "Azde" constelltion.  People debate whether that was originally U. Major then U.minor, or only the first, or only the second etc.  I won't go into that.

If such  was the intention of the person who first formed these images, then an object's being hidden would imply that at a given latitude those stars can't be seen.

Koen, did you want such suggestions or have you already a posited explanation for the emblems and so on?

The one I'd most like to  understand is  "dead duck". 

Diane: might the spike be meant for a flame, though? Like to use it at night or something? I think so because this "crown with spike" is also found on torches. And there's a nymph holding the same object without the spike.

About the "dead duck", that is one I think I understand pretty well, though it may be a bit too Aratus for your liking (I wrote about this one in my You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). The problem with these attributes is that I believe they have two separate layers of meaning, which is why they never look quite exactly like one thing or the other.

I think this one refers to the constellations Engonasin and Lyra. I use the name it had before it became known as Heracles, when it was still known as Aratus' "kneeling phantom". It is believed that the Greeks did not know what to do with this constellation since they adopted it from previous traditions. There is no reference to Hercules in the image, but there is to kneeling and the lyre.



The human figure is similar to Engonasin as he is found on ancient celestial globes, and the relative position to Lyra is similar as well. The difference is that the VM figure isn't kneeling - I believe none of the nymphs are. But the base she is standing on is shaped like a large bent knee (the one that touches the floor).

It could also be a towel though 

Diane,
I never "suggested" that the thread was "wrong". I don't believe there is such a thing. Diane, please don't put words in my mouth that I never used.
I said, meant to say, and stand by my opinion that, IMO, the thread topic is so broad that it can be unwieldly, and that the decision to include some objects and not others seems arbitrary to me. I gave my reasons for believing so.
That is all.
If I mean to suggest things, trust me I will just say them outright, not imply them or whatever.
You write that the goal of my statements above is "just to make the poster feel bad"... What the heck?!
It is disappointing that your first resort is to ascribe malice to me, when all I did was express my honest views. I note that it is the second time this week that you have attacked me for no reason whatsoever.

(15-10-2016, 10:09 PM)VViews Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Koen Gh,

Not to sound negative, but I find the subject of the post to be too broad: it seems to me that the relationship between the various Voynich people and the objects they hold is possibly very different in the various sections of the Manuscript, and even within the "bathy" section.

...

But maybe I'm missing the point? As I said, the subject of this post is so broad it's almost unwieldly.

It's a pretty bizarre criticism, because considering all the cases where a human figure holds an object in totality would seem to be the only way to determine if there are in fact different relationships between the people and the objects they hold in different sections, and in fact statements about this are among his conclusions (e.g. noting that the crossbowman seems different from all the other cases).

---

(15-10-2016, 11:17 PM)VViews Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.And  your two statements above that "the differences between sections is exactly my point" and that you want to understand how "handheld objects function in general" are contradictory.

No, they aren't, because there is no reason why one cannot do both.

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.

Also, regarding Q13, there are several indications that it is probably meant to be two separate quires, or even that each bifolio is a unit. So the choice to consider them all as one homogenous section within which they all play the same role seems arbitrary.
The fact that lots of nymphs aren't holding objects (not even pipes or stars), and that some are holding each other also adds to why I think the choices are arbitrary.

Aside from that, my criticism only aimed to bring more focus, and I hope that others will likewise let me know if they think that the topic of some of my own threads is unwieldly, or that the limits of what I include are arbitrary or whatever.
The forum comments are about as close to peer review as we're going to get, so I embrace them, as long as they aren't personal attacks. And just to be clear, my comments are  in no way meant as a "diss" to Koen Gh.
In the end, it's just my opinion and it shouldn't stop anyone from going forward. 
I hope I am proven wrong!