- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
[split] male/female/uncertain?
- [split] male/female/uncertain?
-
[split] male/female/uncertain?
-JKP- > 30-11-2016, 09:43 AM
What about three categories... women, men, and uncertain? -
RE: Human figures, their number and clothing.
Koen G > 30-11-2016, 10:05 AM
(30-11-2016, 09:43 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.What about three categories... women, men, and uncertain?
This would be very useful, though it will be hard to agree on what "uncertain" means. I have been studying a lot of Carolingian and similar manuscripts lately, and they omit penises without shame. Also, the difference between pectoral muscles and women's breasts is not always as clear as we would expect it to be, and sometimes "breasts" are drawn on a man to indicate chest muscles.
Add to that the fact that, as Pelling argues, many breasts appear added later in a different pen, and suddenly a whole lot of figures become gender ambiguous. All this, has led me to believe that there may actually be more men in the manuscript than one would suspect at first glance. Especially since I believe the current artifact is a copy, which adds further complications.
But I have a feeling that it will be very hard to agree on such issues
-
RE: Human figures, their number and clothing.
-JKP- > 30-11-2016, 10:40 AM
Many of the nymphs do appear to have had breasts added later, in a darker pen, but if one takes an overall look at them, many of those already had a light-colored breast on the edge (not added on, but part of the original drawing), which makes it look like at least some of them were sketched in outline, with details left for later (whether by the same illustrator or someone else, I don't know). For those drawn from that angle, the gender is easier to determine. For those facing forward, it would be more difficult to know if it's male or female, but even so, often one can tell by looking at the belly, hips, and hair, which the illustrator has distinguished in most cases.
When I took a long look at the male-looking figures (with and without genitals), I got the impression the genitals were only included when they were directly relevant to the subject matter. For example, the page that appears to be a You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. wheel (example pic near the bottom), not only shows the genitals, but shows our male "nymph" ready and eager. The only other place that shows an erection (as far as I can remember) is the biological section, which has an ejaculating phallus, which would be appropriate if this is intended to show the reproductive or gastrointestinal system.
This further gives the impression that the nudity is not gratuitous, that it's used when it's appropriate, not just in bathing scenes and biological-looking sections, but in many of the pages that are possibly based on old myths (many old myths were of Pagan origin and the Pagan belief system considered nudity and procreation as normal rather than sinful and depicted nudity quite broadly). -
RE: [split] male/female/uncertain?
Koen G > 30-11-2016, 12:42 PM
I split the thread to imagery because this is an interesting topic.
I mostly agree with your last post, though it's not always that simple. For one, there are other indicators of gender than breasts. One of my favorite examples is this one:
First, the face. That is by no means a woman's face. The strong nose, square jaw, hard chin.
Now take a close look at the outer breast. You will see that the line from the belly actually continues to form a blank chest. This part has been somewhat erased (perhaps?) and changed into a breast, which looks like it has later been enhanced further with the dark ink. This tells us that even in the first inking stage, there was doubt and change going on with regard to characters' gender.
The somewhat feminine crown/diadem has been added in the dark ink, as is often the case (I call these "dark diadems").
If we ignore the long tail, the hairstyle is actually that of the Voynich men.