+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: Imagery (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-43.html)
+--- Thread: [split] Could the manuscript be a copy of older documents? (/thread-1503.html)
[split] Could the manuscript be a copy of older documents? - Koen G - 04-02-2017
Edit: this was originally a reply to David's medieval nymph thread. Since it got into another direction quite fast I split it.
Hi David
I'm dealing with a rather dynamic two-and-a-half year old at the moment so I can't answer as elaborately as I should, but I'll give some initial comments already.
One thing I still don't understand is why people discard the possibility that the manuscript's imagery was copied from an older tradition instead of a 15th century creation. This is not a hypothetical scenario, it happened a lot. I will again refer to the various traditions of astronomical manuscripts, where we see 15th century copies of 9th-10th century manuscripts. These, in turn, were relatively accurate copies of Greco-Roman imagery. So once again, "ancient sources" is a valid possibility that should be considered as much as "medieval creation" and renaissance.
What makes the Voynich different then? Well first of all, the fact that the in-between material has been lost, probably because the tradition was not mainstream in the first place. This means that the best parallels are found in the ancient artefacts which lie at the basis of the now lost tradition.
And secondly, the fact that the usual medieval adaptations have often not been applied. When medieval scribes copied older sources, they would often put contemporary clothes on the figures. Clothing is a huge cultural marker, so adapting it to a "modern" equivalent will make it easier to understand for your audience. This is why it's not unusual to see Hercules as an armored knight sometimes, or rulers as medieval kings. This has happened in the VM, but only in a minority of the figures.
Unfortunately, this solution is more complex than assuming a 15th century original creation. If the manuscript's imagery goes back to Greco-Roman originals (most likely first centuries CE, in my opinion), then which alterations were made in between? How many in-between copies have there been, and by which cultures? Were all sections altered equally? Did all sections originate in the same setting? When were the sections first gathered? Which alterations were still made in the 15th century copy that is left now? When was the text made the way it is now and why?
Anyway, if you can explain to me why even intelligent people like you discard the possibility that the VM might be a fruit of a tree with rather deep roots, I might learn something
Other points:
- I agree that the nymphs are vessels, not individuals. It is almost as if the manuscript uses the nude human form as a default carrier of concepts, without that human body itself having much significance. But isn't the usual medieval approach that such concepts are still tied to an individual saint or other figure? Also, they are usually clothed. We must look for situations where the nude human form is a "blank" carrier of meaning, like mannequins. The pose, position and any attributes are much more important than the actual person. I'd say that the word "person" doesn't even apply to Voynich nymphs.
- A while ago, when I asked for parallels in medieval art for the nymphs' proportions, I was surprised to get many suggestions from Romance regions, often some centuries older than the VM. This agrees with some of your observations. This might shed some light on the earlier medieval stages of the transmission of the material.
- The scarcity of christian thought and symbolism in the manuscript and the preference for nude figures is not something I find hard to explain
. But it is indeed necessary to address this in any kind of analysis of the figures.
- The way the faces are drawn is something I've seen in other manuscripts as well. This should still be studied, it might again teach us something about transmission. But I'm afraid this way of drawing faces was relatively common - I can't say without several days of looking at faces in manuscripts first
RE: Medieval nymph tendencies - davidjackson - 04-02-2017
RE: Medieval nymph tendencies - Koen G - 04-02-2017
RE: Medieval nymph tendencies - VViews - 05-02-2017
RE: Medieval nymph tendencies - Koen G - 05-02-2017
RE: Medieval nymph tendencies - Diane - 06-02-2017
RE: Medieval nymph tendencies - Diane - 06-02-2017
RE: Medieval nymph tendencies - davidjackson - 06-02-2017
RE: Medieval nymph tendencies - davidjackson - 06-02-2017
RE: Medieval nymph tendencies - Koen G - 06-02-2017