- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
No text, but a visual code
- No text, but a visual code
-
RE: No text, but a visual code
Antonio García Jiménez > 16-01-2022, 07:26 PM
It was also Mary D' Imperio who saw that some female figures seemed to be holding spindle-shaped objects, something that was developed in this forum by Koen.
Here is the clearest example
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
What are these ladies supposed to do with these spindles? Take a bath with them in the water?
Obviously, as is typical of the time, it is an allegory. The figures are a personification of the fixed stars and show that they are the ones that spin the hours of day and night, the ones that spin circular and eternal time. -
RE: No text, but a visual code
bi3mw > 16-01-2022, 09:11 PM
(16-01-2022, 07:26 PM)Antonio García Jiménez Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Obviously, as is typical of the time, it is an allegory. The figures are a personification of the fixed stars and show that they are the ones that spin the hours of day and night, the ones that spin circular and eternal time.
The distaff became the iconic symbol of women par excellence in the Middle Ages. It does not necessarily have to be interpreted that way.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. -
RE: No text, but a visual code
Koen G > 16-01-2022, 10:47 PM
Yeah, by far the most common meaning of spindle/distaff as attributes is "this is a good woman who does her societal duties". I am not sure how this standard meaning would translate to the nude figures of Q13 though
Whatever the spindles mean, they must have some specific meaning since Q13 isn't exactly generous in its depiction of objects. If the spindles simply mean the nymphs are stars, and all nymphs are stars, then why don't all nymphs have spindles? -
RE: No text, but a visual code
Antonio García Jiménez > 17-01-2022, 08:56 AM
Interesting article.
But what I see are images of medieval women doing routine work. They spin dressed indoors or outdoors. There are some funny drawings, but nothing that can perplex you.
What I do not see anywhere, except in the Voynich, is a woman above the clouds spinning naked. This obviously must have a meaning beyond what we see.
Koen asks a very pertinent question: If the spindles simply mean the nymphs are stars, and all nymphs are stars, then why don't all nymphs have spindles?
Of course those who made the Voynich did not make it easy. All we can do is interpret, but interpret by looking at the whole book, not just this section. There is a neighboring section in which the same female figures are inside zodiacal signs, which are nothing more than constellations of stars. In addition, each one holds a star.
There are also cosmological pages in the book full of stars. There is also another section without images at the end of the codex where there are stars at the beginning of what look like paragraphs.
Finally, we have the opinion of an expert in iconology like Panofsky who identified these female figures as astral spirits. And another renowned researcher like Father Petersen who held a similar opinion.
And what for me is a very convincing argument, that this is precisely the interpretation that, according to medieval thought, allows us to unite the two parts of the book: the herbarium and the cosmological part. It is what gives the book its full meaning. -
RE: No text, but a visual code
Koen G > 17-01-2022, 01:27 PM
Between Panofsky and Petersen, the former speaks with much greater authority about iconography. After a few hours with the MS (and not just bad copies), he came to some conclusions, including that is was made ca. 1420. We know this is correct, and it is one of the most "knowable" things about the MS:
* Confirmed by carbon dating
* Confirmed by a modern art historian Rene quoted once
* Independently confirmed here on the forum by collecting examples of bagpipe sleeves
It is impressive that Panofsky was able to date the thing as he did, but we can understand now how it was possible. Dating fashion and the way human figures are drawn is one of the things professional art historians do.
That said, there are some issues when we want to use Panofsky's statements as arguments in support of our own theories:
* His comments are briefly reported, without much argumentation. This does not allow us to interact with them in a scientific way. How certain is he that the nymphs are astral spirits? Is it a hunch or a firm conviction? Why does he think this?
* By the time he did the interview you quote from, his views had been tarnished by the sunflower, and he had adapted his formerly correct dating to the sixteenth century! This means that, being the professional he was, he also had to adapt his assumed cultural background for the MS. Most of what he says in that interview is unreliable, because his views have been entirely skewed by false information. At this point he is clearly struggling between what he thought he understood initially and the revised views he must adopt in light of the sunflower.
* There has been no continuous research into the VM as a whole by qualified art historians. Normally, influential early works are revised, adapted, corrected, or even entirely superseded. This normal scientific process has not taken place.
tl/dr: if you want to use Panofsky's astral spirits quote, I'm afraid you will have to do so in a 16th century context. -
RE: No text, but a visual code
R. Sale > 17-01-2022, 07:34 PM
So, here is the thesis (Post #721): "Obviously, as is typical of the time, it is an allegory. The figures are a personification of the fixed stars and show that they are the ones that spin the hours of day and night, the ones that spin circular and eternal time."
1) It is an allegory of the time. [Time approximating the C-14 dates, anywhere up to 1450.)
2) Personified stars (as naked nymphs) that spin circular and eternal time - with a spindle.
Is this an allegory of the C-14 era? Where are the C-14 contemporary nymphs spinning time to be found? If we could see them; if we could better interpret such images - if there are any, then we would have an allegory of the time. Otherwise, it's an allegory, but with a less specific chronology.
If there are any celestial nymphs out there spinning time, and you have an image of yourself from prior to 1450 CE, please send a picture to this ninja thread. Must have spindle etc. and have celestial connections.
So, the purpose of the various images of "normal" women spinning is that this was the 'allegory' of the C-14 dates. If there is evidence for another type of allegory, relevant to that time, specific to spinning, then it should be considered. -
RE: No text, but a visual code
R. Sale > 17-01-2022, 08:43 PM
And what does it say, to the left - in red? The image of Dame Necessity and <Something>?
Is Dame Necessity a celestial nymph? Or a star?
There are several spinners and weavers in mythology: Arachne, Philomela, Penelope and Ariadne. Only Ariadne has a celestial connection to the Corona Borealis. She was also associated with mazes. The spinning nymphs of the VMs are there to tell you that the VMs is a maze. But you already know that. -
RE: No text, but a visual code
nablator > 17-01-2022, 09:07 PM