- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
f77v top nymphs
- f77v top nymphs
-
RE: f77v top nymphs
-JKP- > 25-10-2017, 07:05 PM
I find it interesting that the image of Cassiopeia from Canterbury Cathedral is like a chain of associations...
The field of color around her feet is very blue, and it's round...
which in turn reminded me of a baptismal font (blue for the water)... baptismal fonts were in many of these churches...
which in turn caught my attention because the figure in the VMS has her feet in a rounded vessel painted blue (with a cloudband-shape surrounding it, which may denote something holy), and she's not entirely naked, she has a fancy headdress (as the figure in the cathedral glass has a crown).
And yet the VMS still hints at a biological association (the blue vessel at her feet is very womb-like). -
RE: f77v top nymphs
Koen G > 25-10-2017, 08:21 PM
Thanks for the interesting reply, Marco. I will reply in depth when I have access to a computer again, which will be in about 10 days. This argument really needs images, which is hard to do from a phone.
It's funny to see how I didn't know much about constellations yet when I originally made this thread.
By the way, this is not VM related, but Lippincott's file also includes some rare manuscripts which show Cassiopeia in the side view, hunched over crying pose, just like she is shown in Roman frescos. I find it fascinating to see how classical examples spawned various threads, some really rare. -
RE: f77v top nymphs
Koen G > 26-10-2017, 01:55 AM
By the way, who was is that mentioned Cassiopeia before? If it was more than a quick mention of the resemblance, I'd be very interested to read their argumentation.
Marco: something I can add already: one clear point where we disagree is whether or not a reference to the constellation is intended. I think this is the case, while you rather see a Cassiopeia-type, perhaps only a use of her pose.
I think constellation imagery is used as a canvas for "something else." We may agree that we don't know yet what this something else is. This complicates things, but it is useful to establish this first. It seems safe to say that at this point, nobody is able to offer a satisfactory explantion for the entire image.
So let's phrase it like this: is an explicit reference to the constellation *within this composition* intended or not? I say yes, and for this particular drawing there is a strong argument in the figure to her right, which refers to Andromeda. For now I must refer to the blog post, where I discussed her to some extent. Do you find this identification entirely implausible? -
RE: f77v top nymphs
ReneZ > 26-10-2017, 07:24 AM
Koen, one of the first I remember is the web site of P.Han:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
See in particular this page:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
See also here, in the course of the comments:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. -
RE: f77v top nymphs
Koen G > 26-10-2017, 08:33 AM
Thanks, Rene! I'll assume it's only Han then. Ellie's comment on Klaus' site was a result of this very thread
I should really have a closer look at Han's site, I was unaware that there was some overlap between our work. I never read much of his site because the astronomy he refers to is way too modern. For example:
Quote:I suggest this this part of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. shows constellations, including some that were not in existence before the end of the 17th century
Still, now that I look at it, I think he may have been on the right track about some things. Would he still be interested in Voynich stuff? -
RE: f77v top nymphs
ReneZ > 26-10-2017, 10:49 AM
-
RE: f77v top nymphs
MarcoP > 26-10-2017, 12:19 PM
(26-10-2017, 01:55 AM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.So let's phrase it like this: is an explicit reference to the constellation *within this composition* intended or not? I say yes, and for this particular drawing there is a strong argument in the figure to her right, which refers to Andromeda. For now I must refer to the blog post, where I discussed her to some extent. Do you find this identification entirely implausible?
Hi Koen,
for the discussion of this topic, it is again useful to refer to You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..
I have given this subject a lot of thought. Here are some of the reasons why I consider implausible that the right nymph was meant to represent Andromeda:
1 – Andromeda is “the chained woman”, posture is typically not enough to identify her
As the attribute of Cassiopeia is the throne, the attribute of Andromeda are her chains. Often, when these are dropped in astrological imagery, the rocks or poles to which she is chained are still present. If both the chains and the rocks are gone, we are only left with her pose. The classical pose has her standing with one arm outstretched to the left and the other to the right. I think the symmetrical Leiden Aratea pose is rather peculiar: a female figure in that pose could maybe still be associated with Andromeda, even without chains and rocks. On the other hand, the medieval variations in the posture of Andromeda are so disparate that (without a strong indication that the context is astronomical, such as stars on the body, or a nearby winged horse and triangle) it is impossible to identify the figure as a constellation. In the context of medieval illustrations, pose by itself is not sufficient for identification.
2 – Nymph poses recur, there are hundreds of possible “Andromedas”
A while ago, Vviews posted about the recurring poses of Voynich nymphs:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Some of the most common poses (“the classic”, “the brandishing”) and one less common pose (“the spread”) are comparable with medieval illustrations of the Andromeda constellation (“the spread” is also comparable with the classical pose). Possibly, more than half of Voynich nymphs are comparable with Andromeda illustrations. There are whole groups of nymphs in a “brandishing” pose similar to that of the nymph on the right. I don’t think these can all be Andromedas.
3 – The Andromeda constellation has two legs
Lippincott presents something like 300 images of the Andromeda constellation: none of them is represented with the legs in such a perfect profile view that only one leg is visible. Astronomically, the scheme of the constellation includes two vertical alignments of stars (corresponding to the legs and torso) and one horizontal alignment (corresponding to the arms). The two vertical lines converge to alpha Andromedae, Alpheratz, that Ptolemy saw as shared as the head of Andromeda and part of Pegasus (al Sufi’s image mirrored). The fact that only one leg of the nymph on the right is visible makes this nymph a particularly bad match for the constellation: not only there are hundreds of nymphs in the ms that could vaguely resemble Andromeda, they are better matches than this specific nymph.
-
RE: f77v top nymphs
Koen G > 26-10-2017, 03:14 PM
Marco: true, the pose resembles a common nymph pose. As I demonstrated though, this was an extremely common Andromeda pose in antiquity and a 'rare strand' - yet still clearly present - in medieval imagery.
I don't know why the nymph has only one visible leg. It cannot be denied that the VM uses its own specific "leg programme". See my post: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. . This has left me convinced that there is some meaning to the way legs are depicted. If Andromeda's legs are planted firmly on the ground, might that symbolize her being unable to move? I don't know. As you say, Andromeda is supposed to have two legs.
Maybe it's as simple as this: most nymphs are "walking" or at least in contrapost. Andromeda can't be walking since she's stuck. Even in "being freed by Perseus" depictions, her feet are sometimes planted firmly next to each other: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Does VM perspective turn this into one visible leg? To keep it simple, that's the explanation I would propose.
There are a few additional arguments in favor of Andromeda. The nymph is standing in wavy water. In other depictions she's usually bound on the beach, but given the VM's artistic range, this is a very appropriate depiction of the myth.
Also note that this is one of the relatively few nymphs who is clearly a maiden. Unmarked face, firm breasts, no big belly... I have shown in my post that the headgear can be seen as making the figure 'foreign'.
But those things can all be debated. What really sets this nymph apart from the others is the fact that she's standing in wavy water. Anyone who knew the story of Andromeda would have recognised the allusion. -
RE: f77v top nymphs
MarcoP > 26-10-2017, 03:57 PM
(26-10-2017, 03:14 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Anyone who knew the story of Andromeda would have recognised the allusion.
I think this way of expressing your very own, very personal opinion is not the most appropriate. Statements like this suggest that you are not interested in discussing evidence.
Also, you are saying that no one of those who looked at the ms in the last century knew the story of Andromeda (you are the only exception). Are you sure? -
RE: f77v top nymphs
Koen G > 26-10-2017, 04:09 PM
And if you keep misrepresenting my arguments we won't get far either. I mean of the intended audience. What modern viewers recognise or not is irrelevant in understanding the intention of the image.
By picking on a phrase you don't like, it's easy to sweep aside the additional arguments I provided. Even if 'Andromeda' were written on the nymph, at this rate even this would not ne sufficient evidence.