| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Latest Threads |
Partial Deciphering of th...
Forum: Voynich Talk
Last Post: MarcoP
5 minutes ago
» Replies: 3
» Views: 219
|
[split] Voynich-like plan...
Forum: Imagery
Last Post: ReneZ
6 hours ago
» Replies: 14
» Views: 189
|
Eleven Moon Phases in Fol...
Forum: Astrology
Last Post: Dobri
9 hours ago
» Replies: 116
» Views: 9,396
|
Una hipótesis
Forum: Provenance & history
Last Post: Crispin Elicea
14-05-2025, 11:22 PM
» Replies: 14
» Views: 390
|
A Ardıç - "The Code Is De...
Forum: News
Last Post: joben
14-05-2025, 02:04 PM
» Replies: 54
» Views: 3,505
|
Favorite Plant Tournament...
Forum: Voynich Talk
Last Post: Aga Tentakulus
14-05-2025, 06:17 AM
» Replies: 9
» Views: 413
|
[split] Color annotations...
Forum: Voynich Talk
Last Post: MarcoP
14-05-2025, 05:24 AM
» Replies: 83
» Views: 42,368
|
Solutions [discussion thr...
Forum: Voynich Talk
Last Post: Aga Tentakulus
13-05-2025, 07:19 PM
» Replies: 56
» Views: 10,106
|
Why not positional variat...
Forum: Analysis of the text
Last Post: Aga Tentakulus
13-05-2025, 07:01 PM
» Replies: 69
» Views: 8,261
|
Big Red Weirdos
Forum: Voynich Talk
Last Post: Cile cile
13-05-2025, 06:11 PM
» Replies: 64
» Views: 45,136
|
|
|
| Nymph Proportions |
|
Posted by: Koen G - 01-10-2016, 09:25 PM - Forum: Imagery
- Replies (45)
|
 |
[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..]
![[Image: untitled-3-recovered.jpg?w=606]](https://herculeaf.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/untitled-3-recovered.jpg?w=606)
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.
![[Image: badexample.jpg?w=616]](https://herculeaf.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/badexample.jpg?w=616)
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:
Code: Top of skull to navel: 2.3 heads
Top of skull to knee of straight leg: 3.4 heads
Total size: 4.3 heads
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:
![[Image: 4heads.jpg?w=616]](https://herculeaf.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/4heads.jpg?w=616)
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.
![[Image: wow.jpg?w=616]](https://herculeaf.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/wow.jpg?w=616)
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?
|
|
|
| Built on Deuteronomy |
|
Posted by: R. Sale - 01-10-2016, 08:25 PM - Forum: Voynich Talk
- No Replies
|
 |
Considering the VMs, the establishment of validity, discovering the intended and meaningful interpretations of the illustrations, has presented a significant challenge. Even where visual similarity is strong, it still stands alone. And there are clearly places in the VMs where visual isimilarity is less than robust. And perhaps some images are intentionally ambiguous.
The solution to this difficulty is found in the laws of Deuteronomy. The establishment of validity in those laws requires the testimony of two or more witnesses. Visual similarity may exist, but it is not conclusive on its own - not in a medieval fantasy-land like the VMs.
A second witness is needed and it is found, not in the images themselves, but in their traditional placement within an illustration and their location relative to each other. Objective, positional fact is the second witness to the validity of interpretation.
And in the VMs Zodiac, the need for two witnesses is converted into the pairing paradigm. Pairs in the medallions of the first five houses of the VMs Zodiac establish the paradigm. Heraldry and history continue the paradigm. And they continue to fulfill the requirement of Deuteronomy for two or more witnesses. The Vms Zodiac pages are constructed to accommodate these witnesses, but, given the nature of the VMs, some subtleties have been employed to diminish the strength of visual similarities. However, the second witness still stands firm. Positional facts based on tradition provide multiple confirmations, even though visual similarities appear a bit cloudy, particularly when stuffed into an optical illusion, etc. The use of an optical illusion is evidence of intentional ambiguity. Intentional obfuscation means that identification through visual similarity will probably not work. This means establishment of validity relies on the existence of a second witness and the creation of certain VMs illustrations that were built on the teachings of Deuteronomy.
|
|
|
|
| Can it be done without a "Rosetta Stone"? |
|
Posted by: Koen G - 01-10-2016, 09:25 AM - Forum: Analysis of the text
- Replies (19)
|
|
This morning I was reading the wiki about the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. Like some other alphabets, it has interesting properties, like Voynich-resembling glyphs and a non-decimal system for writing numbers - but that is not the subject of this thread. It was the following sentence that made me wonder:
Quote:Examples of Palmyrene inscriptions were printed as far back as 1616 but accurate copies of Palmyrene/Greek bilingual inscriptions were not available until 1756. The Palmyrene alphabet was deciphered in the 1750s, literally overnight, by Abbé Jean-Jacques Barthélemy using these new, accurate copies of bilingual inscriptions.
If Voynichese is the result of enciphering in the strictest sense, it is just a matter of finding the key. Like "oh the vowels have just been left out and then you can convert it to Latin". This can be found, if studied long enough.
However, what if Voynichese is a historically developed writing system that is only known from this one source? For example, Byblos script is known from a dozen of inscriptions, and as yet it remains undeciphered. So if Voynichese is not a "find the key" cipher - is it possible to ever understand it without external sources like a bilingual document?
|
|
|
|
| Proportions of Objects |
|
Posted by: -JKP- - 30-09-2016, 07:11 PM - Forum: Imagery
- No Replies
|
|
Diane wrote:
I'm not sure if I should start a new thread for this - if so, apologies to Stellar and I'd ask the admins. to change it.
However, since there are mathematicians on board here, I would be very grateful indeed for any comment on the ratios given the central 'world' in folio 57v. I should add that I have some reservations about the diagram on this folio; certain stylistic details make me suspect that it could have been added considerably later - perhaps by Kircher.
However, these are the proportions of the centre. If anyone would care to comment. For example, do they match the ideas of any of the classical or ancient geometers about the world's proportions? Have they any significance in Pythagorea ideas? Any insights welcome. I posted this in March 2013, but there was no response at that time. (fingers crossed).
![[Image: f57v-centre-measures.jpg]](https://voynichimagery.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/f57v-centre-measures.jpg)
The posts where I treated it, if anyone wants the context, are:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
and another in response to a kind person's pointing out some work done by Rich Santacoloma, and which showed that the centre of f.57v has more than one "centre".
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
I'd love to know what any mathematicians and/or classical-and-ancient historians make of those numbers.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I like to start with good data (and to verify what I'm working with), so I took a sample of this part of the drawing and enlarged it proportionally to set the scale to the same scale as the top leg in your example above (4.75).
Then I used the software to tell me how long the legs were (so I wasn't projecting an expectation of the length onto the measurements) and recorded it to the third decimal. The legs begin in the center of the VMS "dot" and go to the inner edge of the rosette. This is what I got... Going counter-clockwise from the top, rounded to two decimals:
4.8, 4.8, 4.7, 6.0
I'm inclined to think it's just a sketch (not a precise drawing), but I'm willing to look at things from another perspective. I'm posting the drawing so you can see where each measurement was made and decide for yourself if the sampling is valid enough for discussion:
![[Image: CenterProportions.png]](http://voynichportal.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/CenterProportions.png)
|
|
|
|
|
![[Image: f69r.jpg?w=840]](https://voynichnumerology.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/f69r.jpg?w=840)
![[Image: pi-numerology1.jpg?w=840]](https://voynichnumerology.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/pi-numerology1.jpg?w=840)
![[Image: indented1r.png?w=840]](https://voynichnumerology.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/indented1r.png?w=840)
![[Image: rainbow.jpg?w=840]](https://voynichnumerology.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/rainbow.jpg?w=840)
![[Image: 51FuSUJRJzL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg]](https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51FuSUJRJzL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)