I thought it would be a good idea to try to draw up a list of the Voynich Manuscript’s male zodiac nymphs, as a dataset that might be useful when attempting to map between zodiac nymphs and feast days. And yet if you try to do this, it turns out to be really hard, because… what are we looking for, exactly? As the following image from f70v2 should make clear, is the absence of clearly delineated breasts really enough?
Also, if you hope to visually read the nymphs’ red lips as if they were (emblematically female) lipstick, this too is more than a touch problematic. From reading Caterina Sforza’s Gli Experimenti, I recall recipes for hair bleaching/colouring, face whitening, hand cream and rouge for the cheeks, but nothing for lipstick. In fact, lipstick seems to have played no great role in the fifteenth century: cosmetic historians tend to fast-forward to Queen Elizabeth I, who is said to have painted her lips excessively red (some have even theorised that a toxic layer of lipstick led to her demise).
Other nymphs appear to have male, uh, features, but this is often a result of how long you stare at them. The scans are good, but they’re far from definitive, let’s say. Meet the particular Gemini nymph I have in mind here:
As a result, I ended up spending a good amount of time looking at all the zodiac nymphs under the (virtual) microscope. (I used Jason Davies’ “Voynich Manuscript Voyager”, because the printing in the various facsimile editions I have wasn’t good enough to do this.) Which was when I found the Aries hats…
The Aries hats
Starting with Aries, the page layout changes format from 30 nymphs per page to 15 per page. This is accompanied by a change in style, where the drawings are slightly more detailed. This change continues through Taurus, but then flips back to 30 nymphs per page for the remainder of the zodiac.
What I found interesting was that “light Aries” (the second set of 15 zodiac nymphs for Aries) has a number of zodiac nymphs with a distinctive head-dress.
Though there are more hats on the page which follows (Taurus), only one of those has the same distinctive “bobble” on the top, and that is atop a (I think quite different) hat which is far more akin to a turban, AKA chaperon. (You can see mid-15th century chaperons here and here. And maybe here.)
So… what is this hat, then?
Is the thing on top a pom-pom? If not, then what?
The bobble on top seems far too small to be a fitted cap, so I think we can rule out hat styles like the galero. It seems to be a decorative style rather a practical style: or might it be a small peak on top, like a much smaller version of the truncated cones seen in some mid-fifteenth century hennins. Maybe it’s a pom-pom, but I have my doubts. (Plenty of them)
And having now trawled miserably through several thousand fifteenth century images looking for similar hats, I have found not a single one, and I have to admit defeat. Even the useful set of headdresses courtesy of Susan Reeds’ thesis is of no obvious help to us here, while Sophie Stitches has a good page of sources that also doesn’t seem to help. If it’s a kind of flat hat, Susan Reeds notes that “[a]s with cauls and sugarloaf hats, flat hats were worn mostly by men in the gentry or courtier/professional/official classes“.
So… what is this hat? My general feeling is that it must be a kind of hat that was probably unique to a particular time (perhaps no longer than a decade) and a particular place. Whoever finds when and where might well make a significant step forward here. But it doesn’t feel like that person is going to be me.
Diebold Lauber manuscripts
Finally, I had a good look through a number of Diebold Lauber manuscripts, but found only fragmentary matches, such as these from Cod Pal Germ 314:
(Last one from f49v).
Cod Pal germ 137 was equally unimpressive, with only a few knots on top of hats that are more in line with what are known as “acorns”:
Feel free to do much, much better than me in the hunt for this hat…
Dare I say it, but I think those in the bottom set of Voynich images are foreshadowing Steeleye Span by a few centuries!
According to Wikipedia in one version of the traditional folk song, the young man is a street hawker who is mourning his separation from his lover who has been transported to Australia … where she realised that there were plenty of other fish in the sea: flathead, leatherjacket – you know the type!
NickP … you know it, I know it, this wordy pursuit of a badly drawn and innocuous bobble is just an attempt by you to post something other than what is about to be revealed in South Australia.
I share the tension.
Peteb: even once we’ve heard SA police’s much delayed announcement, it’s still entirely possible we’ll know more about the bobble than the Somerton Man. 😬
Nick –
Is there a separate caption for the last of your examples from Cod Pal germ 137? It’s unlike the rest.
For the others – knitted and crocheted hats typically end like that. Knitted fabric began as an offshoot of net-making, and early examples have been found, but I’d guess crochet for most of the examples, knitting in Europe taking off among the city populations, I think, only from about the 16th-17thC. I can’t check it, though. I no longer have my copy of Agnes Geijer’s brilliant study.
Sorry – I should have said “Is there separate caption for the last example from *Cod Pal Germ 314*”
For your examples from Cod Pal germ 137, the fifteenth century is a bit early for needle-made fabrics, now I think about it. Irresponsible to guess when specialist studies – archaeological- and conservation reports supplementing histories of costume – will serve you better.
Without the pom-pom, those look like some kind of chaperon.
If I forget for a moment how bad is the Voynich Author at painting, I can say that I found a couple of pictures showing some headgear similiar to that.
One is the man at the centre of the Battaglia di San Romano by Paolo Uccello, who is wearing a mazzocchio with a distinct little ball at the top.
Another one is the man with the turban in a print depicting the meeting between Charles the Bold and Frederick III.
[1] https://www.uffizi.it/opere/battaglia-di-san-romano
[2] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/166Friedrich_III_und_Karl_von_Burgund.jpg
Bobbles appear several times in this manuscript Nick. Noticing the clothing style is in f.82r below is much like the voynich archer. I linked all the bobbles to save anyone interested time.
https://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/en/list/one/zbs/SII-0043
Country of Location: Switzerland
Location: Solothurn
Library / Collection: Zentralbibliothek
Shelfmark: Cod. S II 43
Manuscript Title: “Historienbibel” from the workshop of Diebold Lauber (‘vom Staal-Story Bible’)
https://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/en/zbs/SII-0043/72v
https://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/en/zbs/SII-0043/82r
https://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/en/zbs/SII-0043/107r
https://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/en/zbs/SII-0043/116r
https://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/en/zbs/SII-0043/131v
https://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/en/zbs/SII-0043/252v
Steve: thanks, a very interesting Diebold Lauber manuscript bible (I checked through all the Cod Pal germ bibles, didn’t find anything interesting there)! Given that it seems to have been commissioned by the town clerk in Solothurn, I can’t help but wonder whether the distinctive hat might actually be a cultural nod from the artist(s) to him. The dial’s not at 100% yet, but it’s definitely a good lead to follow, thanks!
Stefano Guidoni: I’d say some of the headwear on the Taurus page is very much like a chaperon (one of which seems to have a pom-pom), but the Aries hats seem somewhat less extravagant and layered.
Uccello’s mazzocchio headwear is cool, though given that it is basically a torus, it would superficially seem to be a type of roundelle (as described by Susan Reeds) without a top ‘cap’ part (as per the three dark mazzocchio headwear instances in the Battaglia di San Romano painting). This makes the presence of a golden pom-pom on the top of the spiral roundelle headwear in the middle somewhat mystifying. In Uccello’s “Flood” fresco, the mazzocchio is around someone’s neck (though perhaps with a feather coming up from behind the wearer’s head?), so is definitely more like a cap-less roundelle.
Peteb: of course you’re right, it’s part of a drawn out series of diversions away from more important relevant issues that NP would rather distance himself from just now. Stands out like a top tasseled coif of olden times…or bulldogs balls, take your pick!
Worth considering?
The Voynich Manuscript, Dr Johannes Hartlieb and the Encipherment of Women’s Secrets Get access Arrow
Keagan Brewer, Michelle L Lewis
Social History of Medicine, hkad099, https://doi.org/10.1093/shm/hkad099
Published: 22 March 2024
marble bust. ‘Pythagoras of Samos’. Rome. Coliseum, 2ndC – 1stC BC.
(British LIbrary’s digitised mss – still down.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turban#/media/File:Pythagoras_in_the_Roman_Forum,_Colosseum.jpg
@Steve
What you call a hat with a bobble is a Jewish hat. This cannot be seen in the VM.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judenhut
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_hat
What you see is something like a priest’s cap or beret with a ball.
You can recognise some in this picture.
https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=2229143957308246&set=pcb.1970377369738721
Priest’s cap in the original and in the picture (1350)
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=1997124463843531&set=g.504064963036643
https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=1997124063843571&set=g.504064963036643
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=1997121997177111&set=g.504064963036643
The mazzocchio is, properly, the torus or roundel, however it was used as a part of the Italian chaperon, especially in Florence. As such it was usually covered with fabric. Example:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/Florentine_15th_or_16th_Century%2C_probably_after_a_model_by_Andrea_del_Verrocchio_and_Orsino_Benintendi%2C_Lorenzo_de%27_Medici%2C_1478-1521%2C_NGA_12189.jpg
The pointed hats of that Diebold Lauber’s Bible are Jewish hats. There are many different kinds of Jewish pointed hats, but I could not find any with a large roundel or turban like those of the Voynich.
Well, unless those are not roundels or wrapped fabric, but large brims seen from below. However I think that would be a very strange pictorial choice, unusual and confusing, a mixture of bad perspective and poor style.
The other is a chaperone (bound).
Philip of Burgundy has often been depicted like this.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philipp_III._(Burgund)
Lauber has a nice example here (link).
https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-4173-post-57902.html#pid57902
https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-4173-post-57901.html#pid57901
@Peter M.
Thank you, Peter.
I’m not sure how to ask this question without sparking indignation but it is an honest one.
Is the aim of this conversation to discover where, and by whom, headwear like that shown – well or badly – on the calendar-figures, or is it to support an argument made by Koen Gheuens that the Voynich calendar, or some part of it, is connected with Diebold Lauber’s workshop?
If the aim is to find ways to further a ‘Lauber workshop’ theory, I can understand why no-one seems to be looking further. Nick’s example from folio 49v in Cod Pal Germ 314 is certainly impressive – but what sort of person is identified by a hat of that type?
If, however, the aim is to investigate questions raised by the manuscript itself, why such an extraordinarily narrow range of sources?
By the 15thC, European males were wearing a wide variety of headwear and in Italy and in France, at least, it was quite the fashion to sport a hat designed in an antique or an exotic style. You see versions of the Turkish fez, of the turban, and in the following link, what is said to be a hat worn by a French army officer, an which is plainly modelled on Russian and more exactly on Mongol style – except made of velvet, and adorned with pearls, and according to the drawing’s caption.
(The drawing comes from a well-respected English history of costume).
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/24/e1/87/24e187c0c0858e6c75e5b086e4dc82d8.jpg
It’s worth keeping in mind, too that the Voynich figures are very small, and from brow to top, the headwear measures between one millimeter and two millimeters.
We can’t expect superhuman hand-eye co-ordination, and a tiny, roundish detail *might* be meant as a pom-pom, or as the crown of the head, or the slightly pointed end of a piece of fabric. Or a pom-pom.
There are many books at internet archive on the history of dress, but some are only meant to help fancy-dress parties, or as guides to theatricals. Some of the nineteenth-century ones look good, but filled with historical errors, romanticism and so on. Best to ask the conservation department of your nearest museum for the names of current standard references if your aim is to research these drawings.
Peteb: ‘follow my leader’ never fails, they can’t resist!
@Diane
You write “Nick’s example from folio 49v in Cod Pal Germ 314 is certainly impressive – but what kind of person can be recognised by such a hat?”
It’s a priest and a king.
The text begins with the words “One reads of a priest”. “Man liest von einem Pfaffen”.
Here he is giving the king something of a moral sermon.
It is large and drawn accurately enough to be easily recognisable.
The one example I have shown by chance is a stove tile from 1380, which was so fashionable. But it was ridiculous.
The fact that Koen’s example of the VM twins is so similar to Lauber’s twins is certainly no coincidence.
Lauber was a copy workshop. He mainly copied the books. Perhaps compiled and rewritten, but not written. (first author)
There must be more that is similar.
The examples Nick has listed. (4 books) are a prime example of copying, so to speak.
Then there is the headgear of the surgeons of the time. Not exactly a ball, but the one that looks like it has a thread.
But you can’t see it in the VM.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jacobus_Berengarius_Anatomia_carpi_Titelholzschnitt_1535_(Isny).jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jacobus_Berengarius_Anatomia_carpi_Titelholzschnitt_1535_(Isny).jpg
Better to see here. Gown of medicine.
“Mondino dei Luzzi”
https://wellcomecollection.org/works/xwqcpd4w
And the last one is probably a Jewish cap.
Here you can see both at the same time. Hat and cap.
https://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/de/zbz/C0005/34r
Are you going to comment on:
https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=63603
Once again the Voynich manuscript
and
The Voynich Manuscript, Dr Johannes Hartlieb and the Encipherment of Women’s Secrets, by Keagan Brewer and Michelle L Lewis, Social History of Medicine, hkad099 (22 March 2024)
and
https://theconversation.com/for-600-years-the-voynich-manuscript-has-remained-a-mystery-now-we-think-its-partly-about-sex-227157
?
Nick,
That the styles of headwear change between one and another of those diagrams seems to me a significant new observation.
Peter M.,
In Koen’s blogpost of Sept. 2nd., 2018 where he treated the twins, he cited an image that I found most interesting. It comes from a fifteenth-century manuscript which copies the oldest available sources – including some credited to Eratosthenes.
3)22v (l. 15)-23r: Eratosthenes, ( c. 276 BC – c. 195/194 BC), the work composed c. 284-194BC ‘ De circa exornatione stellarum et ethymologia de quibus videntur’.
About the hats, though – you might know that in western medieval art, when everyone isn’t dressed Latin-style no matter where they’re supposed to be from, hats are used to indicate status, culture and character. For an easy example look at that now well-known frontispiece to Oresme’s work – a contribution to the study made by Ellie Velinska, reviewed here by Nick. Ellie’s blog is now closed from the public.
Band plus (k)nobby bits
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/fd/2c/07/fd2c07a271838ea4e3fcc04a9a2b83e8.jpg
@Diane
I understand you.
So a picture of Nick shows a helmet rather than a cap or hat.
Maybe it’s because he’s wearing something like a spear on his shoulder. Things like that influence the view. That’s why it’s always good to have several examples.
Looking at it this way, a cap can mean more.
Swiss shepherd’s cap.
https://www.toesstaldesign.ch/Swissness/Sennenkaeppi-Cap/
The Pope somehow has the same.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pileolus
That’s not surprising. Somehow he too is just a shepherd looking after his sheep.
Or why is the crozier actually a shepherd’s tool? Shepherd’s crook.
Peter M.
There’s a huge range of possibilities for the skull-cap. Our difficulty is to check that our ideas aren’t anachronistic, and to attempt to describe what was in the original draughtsman’s mind, rather than our own. Not easy, is it?
Sometimes it is really difficult to authenticate something.
In this link, the person on the right. What is she holding in her hand?
https://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/de/zbz/C0005/185r/0/
Without reading the text, I would guess a fish.
But it’s not. The text says exactly what it is.
@Peter
Without reading the text I’d say it is a mandible. There are teeth on it.
@Stefano
That is correct. It’s the lower jaw of a donkey.
He writes ‘ Here Samson of Judea is arguing with a donkey’s lower jaw’… ‘chin + cheeks’.
“Hier streitet Samson von Judea mit einem Esel’s Unterkiefer” “Kinn + Backen”
Judges 15: 15-16.
The figure is Samson in pre-Delilah days.
@Peter
Now, after you told me that, I can literally read:
“Hie strit Sambson von Judea mit eins esels Kinbacken.S”
So, I suppose:
Hie = Hier
strit = ???
Sambson=Samson
eins = eines
Kinbacken = Kinnbacken
“Here Samson from Judea [does something] with the mandibles of one donkey.”
Anyway, I get that your theory here is that those hats are some kind of Canterbury caps or medieval “biretta”.
Looking for “medieval birettum” on Google, I literally found this:
https://textilverkstad.se/pdf/biretta_eng.pdf
@Stefano
“strit”alemann / dt. “Streit” comes from ‘dispute’.
As for the cap, there are plenty of representations. Even the Scots have one. But I don’t know from which century it was worn.
The original I have shown is a museum piece.
@ Stephen Goranson — re your comment of April 22, 2024.
You may be wondering why there’s so little reaction to your reference to the item by Keagan Brewer and Michelle L Lewis.
I expect it’s partly because some of the speculations are so old and partly because some of the speculations are so pleasing to persons determined to promote a ‘post-1440 Germanist’ storyline.
The old speculations have been adopted uncritically from William Romaine Newbold’s subjective impressions in the 1920s, just as they passed without investigation for the following century. They weren’t only not rejected for the most part, but never so much as cross-examined. The only one which was immediately rejected was the ‘biological-anatomical’ notion. Not that anyone listened, and when Sergio Toresella picked up again on the ‘women-sex-medicine’ speculations, no-one was so impolite to behave as the editor of Scientific American had been in the 1920s.
Why these authors should have decide to combine those old notions – without bothering to test them – with an inherently anachronistic ‘ Johannes Hartlieb’ theory I can’t imagine.
The very best you could say was that, IF all the content now in the manuscript had been first given form when our present manuscript was made and IF you completely ignore the fact that 1440 is, by all normal criteria, the latest date for the present artefact and pretend that at the age of 18 Hartleib could have been a specialist in women’s medicine and (despite being educated in the extremely conservative region of Bavaria) could have filled the pages of his notebook with unclothed female figures drawn in a style entirely unlike that of early fifteenth century Bavarian work, then there might be something to be said in favour of a genuine link … that is a genuine historical link, rather than a wholly imaginative one… between Hartleib and Yale, Beinecke MS 408.
By 1440 the only work which Hartleib can be connected with is a compendium of herbs. His translation of the Sicilian Trotula and ‘women’s secrets’ was not produced until the later 1450s, and the copy now is a copy made late in the sixteenth century – c.1570. (Heidelberg, Cod. Pal. germ. 480).
The publishing editors know whom they chose as peer reviewers for the manuscript. What led them to choose the reviewers they did I won’t try to speculate. Of course I’ll read it through – but the reviews you’ve linked to don’t inspire confidence in much except a dreary certainty that the ‘Toresellla-Germanist’ camp will start citing the authors as ‘academic authorities’ and the book as ‘scientific’.
I’d like to see them try to persuade the Louvre or the British Museum that the manuscript is a mid-fifteenth century Bavarian product.
Red lips, with or without red / pink cheeks etc. are part of the medieval technique of adding color to human faces. It’s not a promotion for cosmetics. French manuscript examples go back at least to the early 13th century.
A couple of 15th century examples show the variety and a certain proximity.
UB Freiburg Hs.334 [1410, Alsace. A picture Bible]
UBH Cod. Pal. germ. 359 [1418, Strasbourg. “Rosengarten zu Worms”]
@o.o.t.b.
..and it is an established convention of Spanish-Christian examples for centuries before that. I looked into the question a fair while ago, when investigating the elongated ascenders and again when tracking the history of ‘Arcitenens’ as distinct from ‘Saggitarius’ as image for that constellation. If it will be of use to you, I’ll go back and find some of the examples I cited from.. what.. the 11th and 12th centuries?
Sorry to sound as if I’ve been there and done that, but it’s possible to cover a lot of ground researching one, and then another question for more than a decade.
It is an artistic technique, and it can easily become embedded in culture. I like to stay between 1400-1450 as much as possible. I don’t see how historical Spanish art had a real influence of the production of the Alsace and Strasbourg mss.
The investigation of red lips is just another of the details to be found in the VMs. It is inclusive of the C-14 dating, but it is not particularly definitive. The VMs artist is rather minimalist and quite consistent in the application of this technique. In the Lauber productions, some texts are more consistent than others.
It all goes together – eventually – to show that the VMs artist had a surprising familiarity with historical realities based in the first half of the 15th century. From cosmic diagrams, to Melusine, to sleeves and hats, etc. the artist plays off of this knowledge to combine with Shirakatsi’s wheel or the FIeschi popes and heraldic canting. The use of dualistic representation is an indicator of intentional artistic trickery.
Without the history to back up the interpretation, there is no understanding what the VMs artist actually knew. With the historical focus on the C-14 era, this knowledge is being recognized in several VMs illustrations [e.g.: f46v costmary.]
ootb
I should like to see the codicological and palaeographic argument for the manuscript’s being attributed to Alsace Lorraine. Can you point me to an essay of that kind?
I am bewildered by assertions, or presumptions that the Voynich manuscript’s drawings are the creation of a single fifteenth-century ‘artist’, and all the more if that imagined ‘artist’ is imagined a medieval Latin in western Europe. There is no figure of Melusine in the Voynich manuscript; there are no stave-built barrels, either. Nor is there any figure wearing the tall headdress in which she is usually shown. The ‘Melusine’ idea is yet another of those which results from back-to-front research. Instead of asking – and exerting oneself to discover – what those who first created the drawing intended it to mean, the old way is to make a guess that the person was this or that, then to proceed by saying, in effect ‘Assuming my guess is right, then what’s the nearest fit within the limits of my speculation’ and the ‘nearest’ found to this figure within the old speculations is Melusine. Yet when you actually consider fifteenth-century Latin manuscript images of Melusine, none remotely resembles the style and presentation of any ‘Melusine image’. Then that obvious disparity is glossed over by attributing to some imagined fifteenth century ‘artist’ not only an appallingly poor ability as an ‘artist’ but the freedom to draw in any way that s/he felt like drawing – a massive anachronism. The notion of using drawings as a means of self-expression, let alone abandoning all the conventions which applies, is a fantasy – an imposition of post-19th century ideas about the ‘artist’ and the role of ‘art’ upon a time and region which had no concept of such things. I understand few have the time or interest to learn much about the history of art, or about how we distinguish iconography from one region and period from another, but I do wish it were possible to encourage more interest in such things, particularly when almost all the speculative and quasi-historical Voynich stories rely so very heavily on making assertions about the drawings. Yet when you actually consider fifteenth-century Latin manuscript images of Melusine, none remotely resembles the style and presentation of any image in the Vms.
@Diane
I completely agree with you. No Melusine in the VM. While the Melusine has grown a snake or fish tail, the VM seems to have someone in a fish mouth. Even if it is female, it seems closer to Jonas and the whale.
As for the figure itself, there are quite a few examples. They have been documented as wall decorations since the 12th century (around 1100).
Originally Celtic. Melusine, goddess or protector of fountains and springs.
Examples:
https://logbuch-schweiz.net/sgrafitti-im-engadin/
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/715720565760142711/
https://josin-sgraffito.ch/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Kunsthandwerk_Sgraffito_Symbole_und_Bedeutung.pdf
https://www.google.ch/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fpictures.abebooks.com%2Finventory%2F31171866055.jpg&tbnid=-3f_zEtuY-ktPM&vet=10CGUQMyiUAWoXChMIuKbv3LjuhQMVAAAAAB0AAAAAEBU..i&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.abebooks.com%2FSgraffito-Engadin-Bergell-K%25C3%25B6nz-Iachen-Ulrich%2F31171866055%2Fbd&docid=Ld_Bm1x7uakIlM&w=540&h=640&itg=1&q=Engadiner%20H%C3%A4user&hl=de&ved=0CGUQMyiUAWoXChMIuKbv3LjuhQMVAAAAAB0AAAAAEBU
https://www.google.ch/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fimg.ricardostatic.ch%2Fimages%2Fb9c9914e-482e-4eeb-9d84-a5d58592a846%2Ft_1000x750%2Fsgraffito-engadin-bergell&tbnid=goMOXhn0odY1_M&vet=10CHEQMyiXAWoXChMIuKbv3LjuhQMVAAAAAB0AAAAAEBU..i&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ricardo.ch%2Fde%2Fa%2Fsgraffito-engadin-bergell-1147846236%2F&docid=r-pZd7AbBPBDdM&w=1000&h=750&q=Engadiner%20H%C3%A4user&hl=de&ved=0CHEQMyiXAWoXChMIuKbv3LjuhQMVAAAAAB0AAAAAEBU
In the comparison of the two ms. examples, they are only eight years apart and within C-14 dates. They are drastically different in artistic styles. And yet they share the technique of painting the faces with red lips and cheeks. It is certainly not a universal practice, even within a single ms., but it shows up in various situations. It’s not like artists would start using blue or green instead.
I’m curious what you have to say about the VMs “Mermaid” f79v illustration.
Based on the comparison of the VMs cosmos with BNF Fr. 565 and Harley 334, there is a similar mermaid type of illustration in Harley 334. Perhaps Harley could ‘explain’ something about the VMs, but Harley doesn’t have much to say. The mermaid is just a mermaid; not Minnie the Mermaid; not any specific mermaid; just a generic mermaid. That generic identity for mermaids is reinforced in the two Lauber illustrations in the “Book of Nature,” where a mermaid is found among the fish *and* among the sea monsters.
So, the question is whether the VMs mermaid is also a *generic* mermaid? And the answer is, No. Mermaids do not have thighs. Mermaids are fish-like from the waist down, and that is clearly not what the VMs artist has drawn, specifically regarding the central figure, although the rest of the illustration retains certain similarities. Who else might it be, if not a mermaid?
Melusine is interesting for several reasons. There are a number of historical connections, particularly to Jean, Duke of Berry (d. 1416). In addition, there are two different versions of Melusine, relevant to this situation. The more prominent version of the story is the Melusine of Lusignan, who is dragon-like, has wings, and in the end, she flies off. The alternative version is Melusine of Luxembourg. She is described as more like a mermaid, ichthyologically blue with silver beads of water, and she doesn’t fly away, but seeps into the Earth, instead.
Jean de Berry, who owned the BNF Fr. 565 cosmic illustration, also captured the Lusignan castle. He commissioned Jean d’Arras to write the book on the Lusignan Mélusine, and he is depicted in “Tres Riches Heures” along with Lusignan castle and a teeny, tiny, flying dragon. In addition to which, his mother was Bonne of Luxembourg. This purported ancestral connection to the Melusine of Luxembourg was common to all of the Valois lines. Melusine is specifically mentioned again in regard to the third generation of the Dukes of Burgundy, in a description of the Feast of the Pheasant. Melusine clearly had some significance, and it is significance at the highest level of social status. So, it would have been widely known, and therefore it’s not the knowledge per se.
What the VMs artist has done is to create a unique paired image. Melusine has been substituted for the generic mermaid of the other interpretations. It is an example of the same artistic trickery that created the VMs cosmos from two disparate parts. It is the novel pairing of “unknowns” that thwarts VMs investigation. Half the answer doesn’t work. It’s like the VMs costmary illustration, both parts are required to work together to produce the intended interpretation.