I’m writing this in reaction to an interesting recent post by VViews, where he explores the possibility that the images in Quire 13 might be drolleries, marginal illuminations meant to liven up the page or amuse the viewer. This subject is complex – as VViews explains, drolleries exist in various types and may or may not have some relation to the text. I started by replying to his posts, but one point I wanted to make can only be done through showing images, which is why I took to my blog.
Now VViews does not say that the Q13 images must belong to the “drolleries” genre, but he offers some arguments in favor of the idea. The part of his argument I want to focus on is this one:
What we can see is that in the overwhelming majority of cases, the marginal nymphs are not labeled. The labels in Q13M are almost always present near nymphs who are in the haut-de-page or bas-de-page illustrations. Voynich f80r is a particularly good example of this: there is a profusion of labels in the upper margin scene, but none near any of the side margin figures.
He then goes on to explain that he found drolleries where, similarly, labels were more common in top and bottom scenes, compared to lateral illuminations. Such labelled images tend to have some more content than unlabeled lateral ones, which are merely for decoration and amusement.
The observation that labels are applied more to the top images in Q13 is a valuable one, but I do not believe that the explanation is to be found in the domain of drolleries. Rather, I think the lateral images simply don’t need labels, because they flow along with the text. This is at once one of the main arguments in favor of a strong connection between text and image. Allow me to demonstrate.
Labels in Q13M
VViews calls this subsection of Q13 “M” because of the prevalence of marginal illustrations, compared to the central pools in the other ones. I still haven’t decided on how I want to name these subsections, so I’ll go with M for this post. VViews made the following inventory:
- Pages with systematic labels: 77r.
- Pages where only some of the figures have labels: 77v, 80r, 82r&v, 83r&v.
- Pages without labels: 76v, 79r&v, 80v.
Fully labelled
First, let’s have a look at 77r, which appears to be the only fully labelled page.
It features a large labelled arch on top, held by two figures. Importantly, the left figure’s base runs along the length of the first paragraph, which is relatively large. Below this is another labelled figure with a complicated “tube structure” and a second paragraph (green). Finally, a third labelled figure with various patterned shapes and a third paragraph.
So my point is: if the paragraphs mirror the structure of the drawing, then can we really assume the nymphs on the left are merely there for decoration?
But this page shows a second, more important argument against mere marginal illumination. Let’s zoom in on the middle section. See that margin?
Above and below our nymph, it is clear that the scribe prefers to keep his text outlined to the left (vertical red lines). But the nymph with her tubes takes up a lot of space and pushes the text into an irregular margin. Is this an image made as an afterthought, to illuminate, beautify the otherwise boring margin? I’d rather say that here, like in most of the manuscript, the text bows to the image’s commands.
One might argue that the text was spaced so unevenly with the addition of this image in mind. But even if this were the case, it would in my opinion be against the spirit of drolleries to plan ahead for them to venture well outside of the margin in an irregular way.
Partially labelled
The first partially labelled folio is f77v, and here, too, it is not hard to imagine how text and image progress at the same pace. There are three distinct paragraphs which appear to belong to three image groups – the top bow and two nymph pairs. For some reason, only the first nymph pair is labelled (green). The bottom pair does not bear labels, but with a layout like this, one can see how labels are not strictly necessary.
And again, note how the primacy of the images forces the text out of its preferred alignment, both at the left and right margin.
I’ll also add an example of a folio (f80r) where the paragraphs don’t neatly match the images. Still, the way they are matched suggests to me that these paragraphs belong with the adjacent images. And the erratic outlining again suggests that the images were put on the page first.
At the very least, these images should clarify why there may be more demand for labels on the top row. Presumably, one large paragraph treats 10 labelled figures. In contrast, the bottom half of the page has four paragraphs for four “scenes”. A reader who masters Voynichese might be able to understand unambiguously which figure illustrates which part of the text.
Conclusion
I have attempted to illustrate why labels are not always necessary in marginal images: they are redundant if the image is discusses in the paragraph that accompanies it. Top scenes might be labelled more often because they feature lots of elements, followed by a relatively large block of text.
A second, and perhaps more important argument is the way the text adapts to the irregular space left by the image. Why would one draw “drolleries” or any kind of mostly decorative illuminations first, only to have the text squeeze its way around them?
All of this suggests to me that the images were of primordial importance to the makers of the manuscript, and that at least some effort was made to let the reader match the correct image with the text – through the layout or with labels when necessary.
That observation by VViews was acute, and I’ve not see it before -viz “.. found drolleries where, similarly, labels were more common in top and bottom scenes, compared to lateral illuminations.”
The big question, in this case, is the nature of the ‘drolleries’ (so-called). The assumption that they are just bits of flippant ornament is understandable but the fact is that very little analysis of the modern type has been expended on them, and it may turn out that they are in fact punning connections to the text, either as an amusing version of a school-room exercise in forming “imagines” (cf Sozomeno’s notebook), or as a version of socio-political satire, commenting on the text adjacent to them. Both possibilities have been discussed informally by scholars in my field but no-one has yet (I think) has written a monograph setting out any systematic argument.
Which means that we are still left with the possibility of ‘drolleries’ – but since we don’t really know what such drawings were meant to do, or how they were originally understood, it doesn’t allow us to dismiss the Vms’ figures, yet doesn’t tell us more about them.
Such a frustrating manuscript, isn’t it?
LikeLike
Yeah, I feel the same way about it, as I wrote in my last comment on VViews’ blog. There seems to be a comtinuum between the purely ‘droll’ for illumination, and what would essentially be a series of mnemonics constructed in a consistent way. I think the Q13 images are the latter, and there seems to be some overlap with the drollery here.
That said, I believe that the apparent “primacy of the image” we witness in the VM takes us too far from even the most liberal definition of “drolleries”. But like I said in the introduction to this post, it’s a complex problem and I approach it with care.
LikeLike
I don’t believe they are drawings meant to be trivial or humorous. It is not in keeping with the information which is offered by the imagery overall about its historical and cultural origins, nor does it agree with all the other indications of a consistent, practical and coherent purpose. There is no sense of the work’s embodying the bigotries which inform so much of the ‘drollery’ genre. Mnemonics I not only accept but – if I’m not mistaken – first explained as this imagery’s raison d’etre.
LikeLike
Diane, as you know I respect you as a researcher and I am always ready to acknowledge when you have influenced my thoughts in any way. This is certainly the case for the fact that the core meaning of Q13 is astronomical in nature. But where you say each nymph represents a star, I see references to constellations.
And the idea that the nymph pages have been purposefully and coherently constructed to serve a mnemonic-didactic purpose is entirely my own. More precisely, I believe they have been placed in a loose narrative framework to aid memory retention. The main possible overlap with drolleries I see is that this somewhat artificial combination of astronomical imagery and story results in sometimes humorous or at least unusual images, which again helps the learner – it’s a classic memory technique still used today.
I don’t remember having read when you explained how the nymphs are all mnemonic. Though you’ve written a lot, and I’ve been surprised before 🙂
LikeLike
Basically, I explained first that the ‘nymphs’ were provided with the Tyche-type battlemented head-dresses which identified each with a town or city… call it a ‘site’. Then, I explained a couple of examples in some detail – mainly to demonstrate that it wasn’t just the geographic-, but the parallel astronomical grid being referenced, and finally I described in more detail the sequence which showed that one series begins from the head of the Red Sea and covers its length, with the next marking the Bab el Mandeb and opening to the Great Sea (which the older sources also called the ‘Red Sea’. Summarising the content, I concluded that the purpose of these ‘nymphs’ whether in the calendar or the ‘bathy-‘ section was mnemonic, and that in all cases the matter memorised was based on the astronomical and temporal grid BUT that the ‘bathy-‘ section and possibly also the calendar intended to speak not just of time, or stars, or movement, but all three simultaneously. This isn’t as remarkable as it might sound – and in proof I cited and referred people to Ibn Majid’s works. This of course also ties in well with the interests of the time when the various sources were compiled which now form most of our manuscript (i.e. late thirteenth century to c.1340), and with the reflections found of Voynich-type motifs in cartes marine developed in the west from the early fourteenth century – and again the diagram for calculating times of tide-rise and the history of the Genoese and of the Serai-Cairo-Constantinople axis indicated by the vignette which now fills the map’s north roundel.
Anyway, the point is that the ‘nymphs’ were not pictures of women bathing, and the diagrams were aids to memory of very practical (if non-herbal) information.
In the end, I stopped sharing the results of analysis for the ‘bathy-‘ section. It was a bit too far for most Voynicheros at that time (2010-2012). Back then, you couldn’t even mention the medieval trade between Europe and Cairo without being suspected of Egyptomania. And since you weren’t involved in the study until later, it’s no wonder this is news to you now. 🙂
LikeLike
PS – just as a matter of Voynich history, see what you get if you hunt for references to mnemonic devices in the Vms within works written between 1978 and 2010. For the record, when I started talking about mnemonic elements in the Vms in 2009, it was treated as (another) sign of derangement. I had to explain the meaning of the word to the second mailing list, and my own posts made clear that the system used was nothing like that described by Yates, and I introduced to Voynicheros the name ‘Mary Carruthers’ …. over and over again.
Only after several years’ posting analyses of the botanical and other sections in which I spoke of elements as mnemonic did anyone begin to use the word or the idea in an informed way (Don Hoffmann may have been the first to do so, and he actually acknowledged his source).
Thereafter, we saw those rather peculiar souls who feel a need to subsume one’s own work yet cannot bear to name any opponent of their own pet theory turn back to d’Imperio and Yates, while suggesting that the work I’d done was ‘not original’ and therefore needed no mention. Had they bothered to study medieval systems of memory, they might have got results of a sort, but apparently none did. And, as I’d said all along, Yates’ study was of the later Renaissance ‘theatre of memory’ and it has nothing to do what is found in the Vms.
To your readers, may I say again, as I’ve been urging since 2010 – to get an idea of how memory images and devices work, first *read Mary Carruthers’ books* and then for the medieval scene, study the iconographic conventions for imagery of saints etc., and the formal disposition of devices in heraldry. In all cases, the idea is that when you see these devices you READ them: a device was intended to embody a hundred words, at least.
Koen – thank you for your patience in letting me hold forth like this.
LikeLike
Thanks, Diane, I understand. There’s no doubt that you were the first to describe the importance for mnemonic techniques for the manuscript’s various sections.
As for me, I’m just stressing the importance of seeing the nymphs as artificial constructs. That is, you will recognize cultural elements in them (Tyche crowns, Aphrodite-types…) but you’ll never find these complete images in standard culture. For example, Tyches are clothed and they have more stately poses than our nymphs. They don’t wrestle each other in pools of water 🙂
But this “droll” combination of elements is precisely what mnemonic images are all about.
LikeLike