- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
Nymph Proportions
- Nymph Proportions
-
RE: Nymph Proportions
EllieV > 03-10-2016, 03:24 PM
(03-10-2016, 02:38 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Ellie - Perhaps I should have said "art style" indicator instead of "cultural indicator"
I agree with you if you mean it in this sense.
I tend to view the art style of the VMs human figures in the context of the whole manuscript. Romanesque human proportions maybe a result of exposure to Romanesque art - as evident by presence of Romanesque architecture. I've seen arguments for Hellenistic, Oriental and even Aztecan art styles in the VMs. I am not arguing to exclude those as possibilities. I simply hope that when attempting art analysis of the VMs the Latin Europe will be included.
-
RE: Nymph Proportions
Koen G > 03-10-2016, 04:35 PM
At the moment I'm really agnostic about the human figures. There are clear parallels in some European manuscripts, but those are exactly the type of manuscripts that are known to have relied on older sources. I'm not exactly trying to pinpoint VM style - that may be impossible. The approach I prefer is to cast a net around it.
I do honestly believe, Like Diane, that the ultimate origins of the material are Hellenistic. But the nymphs could have gotten their current form in stages, from anywhere between 300 BCE to the 15th century, because the various sections must have been copied at least a couple of times. I think that a formal approach to proportions is one of several ways to tighten the net. -
RE: Nymph Proportions
Diane > 04-10-2016, 06:38 AM
Ellie
Thank you for that nice illustration from Romanesque carving. First, I'd like to say that it's nice to see comparisons offered outside the single medium of manuscript art. Secondly that I've also found much of relevance in stone-carving from the Romanesque period - especially from France and Spain. What we see there, by the way, is a lot of non-standard forms, and studies of just who was hired to do that work are interesting in this context. We can trace the work of individuals who moved through Europe just as we do with manuscript art.
But apropos of the nymphs' proportions: the point is not whether they have big heads, but how the bodies are drawn: that is, with enlarged heads and reduced 'boneless' limbs, enlarged thighs and reduced shanks and specific objects (reall or symbolic) in their hands.
It's a bit like the "feline" thing - it's not enough to focus on the curled-through tail; the spotted hide, rounded ears and every other feature, together, give us the characteristic style.
The proportions of the underlying skeleton, and a perception of the body as flesh built upon a skeleton is generally a constant of western imagery, where I do not see the same attitude informing any of the 'nymphs' images, though certainly present in the central emblems of the calendar. It's one of the many reasons that I think the latter series needs to be considered separately from the rest. But that's just my opinion.
Sam,
As I said in those posts, the "holy virgins" in the helios zodiac in Vat.gr.1291 are a relic of pre-Christian practice, and apart from that ninth-century copy of an originally 3rdC work, don't survive long in the Christianised empire.
I think that effort to provide Christian equivalents (as 'holy virgins') for the old idea of the hours may be due to the early popularity of the 'Shepherd of Hermas' - though that's speculatiion on my part.
The style appears to me akin to Syrian style, and Syria also provides some of our earliest 'helios' zodiacs. So while the limbs are nicely rubbery and some of the gestures (as you say) comparable, I cannot think it permits any particular point to be made about the Voynich figures except that they also belong to a pre-Christian custom.
Apart from anything else, the Voynich figures are not 12 in number. On whether or not they are meant to be virgins, I won't speculate.
Koen,
Not to disagree for the sake of it, but just to be clear - I don't see the non-European style of the nymphs as a result of evolution, or decay between, say, the early centuries AD and the 15thC. I think the originally Hellenistic forms had been altered very early, partly as a result of regional customs in art where they were set down, and partly due to a cultural tabu against what we'd call realism in depicting any living thing. Again, apart from the central emblems in the calendar, this is another constant throughout the manuscript.
I think much of the reason that there is such a division in approach to the manuscript's imagery is the same as that affecting discussion of the text. You find some trying to argue that their theory is plausible while others are attempting to explain the particular phenomena observable in the manuscript. This has always been the case, and (for example) Nick Pelling is strongly in favour of the value of forming hypotheses and then trying to test them. I find, in practice, that people develop a strong personal attachment to theories and easily slide away from investigating the artefact, to hunting support for that theory. I much prefer to analyse and then provenance the evidence offered by the artefact itself. Apart from anything else, it saves me having to spend time trying to persuade people to believe.
Like everyone else, I began by expecting it would prove to be some weird amateur notebook by a Latin author. Research has proved every one of those initial expectations (save, perhaps 'notebook') untrue. -
RE: Nymph Proportions
Koen G > 04-10-2016, 07:59 AM
Diane. What I'm doing now with the nymphs is a bit like as if one were to map where the glyphs occur. Just an overview of the form, related or not.
I don't know where and when which parts of the human figures originated. If the nymphs walked a unique path of transmission - which seems likely - we won't find any precise parallels for all their features. So this is one way to get a better view -
RE: Nymph Proportions
EllieV > 04-10-2016, 03:08 PM
(04-10-2016, 06:38 AM)Diane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Ellie
Diane,
Thank you for that nice illustration from Romanesque carving. First, I'd like to say that it's nice to see comparisons offered outside the single medium of manuscript art.
Ironically, the best image comparison in your article You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is from manuscript written in 1361 Catalonia, Spain (formerly known as MS Sassoon 823, now LJS 57).
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. -
RE: Nymph Proportions
Koen G > 04-10-2016, 09:03 PM
David - it does indeed seem that several parallels for the Voynich nymphs exist in such manuscripts. Do you happen to have an example of a standing figure that I could use in my proportions check? In the thread you linked there are only seated or incomplete figures and googling the name you provided only brought me back to Voynich Ninja
-
RE: Nymph Proportions
david > 04-10-2016, 09:30 PM
The images I posted came from a book in my personal library. I've just checked and it doesn't have any standing figures other than a reproduction of this image:
![[Image: Galician-Didacus_Gelmiri.jpg]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/Galician-Didacus_Gelmiri.jpg)
(but a search for Diego Gelmírez brings up a few more images in this style) -
RE: Nymph Proportions
Searcher > 04-10-2016, 10:33 PM
Koen,
All I could find is that some figures of the Picatrix have similar human proportions and... maybe, similar position of the hands.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. -
RE: Nymph Proportions
-JKP- > 05-10-2016, 12:38 AM
Good example, Searcher, especially the guy on the right of the three figures holding his sword by the blade. While not exactly the same proportions, it is somewhat reminiscent of the VMS archer.