+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: Imagery (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-43.html)
+--- Thread: Merpersons (/thread-145.html)
RE: Merpersons - Diane - 28-02-2016
Sam, that image of Jonah is from
Brit.Lib. MS Add 21160 fol. 292. Catalogue describes it as made in Germany during the 2nd half of the thirteenth century.
Sam, that image of Jonah is from
Brit.Lib. MS Add 21160 fol. 292. Catalogue describes it as made in Germany during the 2nd half of the thirteenth century.
-
David,
re yours of February 20th, 2016, 09:59 am
It's carved. but scrimshaw usually means the sort of work which looks like etching - fine lines cut in and then filled with a darker pigment. Often has hatching and cross-hatching. Scrimshaw is chiefly associated with the whalers, though walrus and other tusks were used.
RE: Merpersons - bi3mw - 02-12-2021
In relation to the two examples of Job and Sam G I have here another "nymph" which stands in a fish mouth. The central motif is part of a larger scene that I can not quite interpret.
Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, Ms-662 réserve, around 1490, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
RE: Merpersons - nablator - 02-12-2021
(02-12-2021, 06:07 PM)bi3mw Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In relation to the two examples of Job and Sam G I have here another "nymph" which stands in a fish mouth. The central motif is part of a larger scene that I can not quite interpret.
Jonas. See the tumultuous waves on the left (cropped)?
RE: Merpersons - R. Sale - 02-12-2021
Agreed: Jonah and the whale.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Not a merperson.
RE: Merpersons - bi3mw - 02-12-2021
Jonah seems very androgynous to me here. Is this representation usual ?
There are also examples where Jonah can be clearly identified as male:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
RE: Merpersons - Koen G - 02-12-2021
I suspect they were aiming for "unblemished": pale skin, blond hair, youthful appearance.
Regarding the larger scene, I think there are some Pharisees among the onlookers. This is probably a reference to Jonah's typological meaning: his resurrection from the fish foreshadows that of Christ. Apparently Christ was even explicit about this in the NT, promising the Pharisees "the sign of Jonah", which is his resurrection. Learned figures watching Jonah's resurrection would have reminded the audience of the (more relevant) NT verse.
RE: Merpersons - R. Sale - 02-12-2021
So, firstly, I'm no expert. And secondly, I think I know what you're getting at. However, calling the representation 'androgynous' is a bit odd, if the definition of androgynous is to have characteristics of both the male and female genders - when, in the given illustration, basically, there are no representations indicative for either sex. Of course there is a general reluctance on the part of many medieval Christian sources to depict genitalia. So this results in a neutral, asexual person, who is probably male if there are no breasts. Besides which, the image derives from the narrative, not the other way around. But then you also need to know the narrative. Of course, Jonah is an obvious choice, given the provenance.
What is less obvious at the start of the 'Merpersons' investigation was the difference between a generic mermaid and the historical mythology of Melusine. Not to mention drawing a clear distinction between the dragon version of Lusignan and the more mermaid-like version of Luxembourg and the Valois. For the VMs mermaid, one clue to her identity is supplied by the recovery of the Melusine narrative.
RE: Merpersons - bi3mw - 02-12-2021
(02-12-2021, 08:47 PM)R. Sale Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.However, calling the representation 'androgynous' is a bit odd, if the definition of androgynous is to have characteristics of both the male and female genders - when, in the given illustration, basically, there are no representations indicative for either sex.
Yes, instead of "androgynous", "indeterminate" would probably be a better description. You know now that it's a male figure, if you didn't you wouldn't be so sure in my opinion (narrow shoulders, soft facial features).
I would say that @Koen has given a good description / reasoning about the appearance here.