01-07-2017, 09:12 AM
JKP: that's a good point; if the Voynich imagery could have appeared "pagan religious" in some way, its owner would have been in serious danger. I wouldn't like to be caught reading the VM during any of the various inquisitions, for example (even though it didn't exist yet during the early ones).
I still think the VM imagery was secular in its subject and intentions, even though you are of course correct in stating that the ultimate origin of such pagan figures is religious.
Marco: one important point I did not mention in my previous response is that in normal medieval manuscripts, nudity is not gratuitous. A figure is nude because it's bathing, or being examined by a doctor, or...
The examples you posted also contain a nude woman, but she is literally riding a massive ****, allowing us to read this nude figure as purposefully vulgar. This was allowed and somewhat expected in marginal illuminations, which were often humorous - and part of that is vulgar humor.
The five hundred nude Voynich nymphs are not meant to be vulgar. Nor are they all being examined. Nor are they all bathing. Take the nymphs around the later Zodiac emblems. They appear to be walking in a procession, in various yet at the same time surprisingly limited poses. In the diagram below, the blue leg is always the one closest to the viewer, and it's always stretched. On the five hundred nymphs in the manuscript, there are only a few who violate this rule, including, of course, the crossbowman.
![[Image: legtrace.jpg?w=616]](https://herculeaf.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/legtrace.jpg?w=616)
Obviously medieval imagery which descends from pagan examples, like the Aratea tradition, sometimes maintain the nudity there.
One exception I can think of is that of "souls", in heaven or hell. Those are nude to show that they have left their earthly garb (and possessions and status) behind.
So this implies that the nymphs, taken as a whole, are either of pagan descent or "souls". Or both.
I still think the VM imagery was secular in its subject and intentions, even though you are of course correct in stating that the ultimate origin of such pagan figures is religious.
Marco: one important point I did not mention in my previous response is that in normal medieval manuscripts, nudity is not gratuitous. A figure is nude because it's bathing, or being examined by a doctor, or...
The examples you posted also contain a nude woman, but she is literally riding a massive ****, allowing us to read this nude figure as purposefully vulgar. This was allowed and somewhat expected in marginal illuminations, which were often humorous - and part of that is vulgar humor.
The five hundred nude Voynich nymphs are not meant to be vulgar. Nor are they all being examined. Nor are they all bathing. Take the nymphs around the later Zodiac emblems. They appear to be walking in a procession, in various yet at the same time surprisingly limited poses. In the diagram below, the blue leg is always the one closest to the viewer, and it's always stretched. On the five hundred nymphs in the manuscript, there are only a few who violate this rule, including, of course, the crossbowman.
Obviously medieval imagery which descends from pagan examples, like the Aratea tradition, sometimes maintain the nudity there.
One exception I can think of is that of "souls", in heaven or hell. Those are nude to show that they have left their earthly garb (and possessions and status) behind.
So this implies that the nymphs, taken as a whole, are either of pagan descent or "souls". Or both.