23-03-2026, 02:52 AM
(22-03-2026, 11:26 AM)eggyk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(22-03-2026, 07:53 AM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.A concave mirror projection system (or a camera lucida for that matter) could be indicated by a smoothly varying distortion across the page (or disjointed pattern of such distortions). It could also account for the combination of strong agreement in overall structure—such as in the drawing and general layout of the script—alongside the inaccuracies in finer details like individual glyphs or leaf edges. These projection systems do not produce perfectly sharp images. Even a skilled user might accurately capture the main elements of a page while struggling to resolve finer details clearly. So if they simply "did their best" and filled in glyphs and details that they couldn't make out clearly, it could easily result in the kind of mixed precision observed here.
(It could also explain the gross departure of the root system from the VMS original -- that lower section may have been entirely "off-screen". Or the person just got tired and decided to abandon the tedious equipment and free-hand his own root system.)
It is also possible that the text and the illustration were copied seperately, which may cause a different relative position across the page. The workflow would have been something like "copy text -> reposition image -> copy plant in better position" (or the reverse, with plant first and text after, or simply multiple times across the entire copying). If that is the case, extrapolating distortion between the text and the plant may not work, even if a camera lucida was used.
Actually, some slight evidence that this is indeed the case are the words directly above the plant. They appear to me to have been squished and shortened in order to fit in the existing gaps and in order to not touch the plant.
Note the y in both, one has been made smaller in order to be seperate from the plant, and the other has its tail move off to the left. dchcKhy has been shortened to something like dchthy. The word dam is also incredibly close to the leaf in the copy, surely closer than any distortion would cause? I'm open to being wrong on that though.
The copier has clearly made mistakes (or choices) to put certain text or features in a different place, like the dy in the first word and different spelling across the entire text, so we will have to be as careful as possible to take that into account too.
(22-03-2026, 07:53 AM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.So far, it seems you’ve been comparing the VMS folio and the copy by looking at selected heights and widths. If you’re willing to take it further, here’s an approach that might yield more insight:
The goal of this process would be to determine whether the distortion between the two documents forms a continuous pattern. And more specifically, a pattern that could suggest the use of an optical aid—perhaps one that was slightly tilted or periodically repositioned during the copying process.
- First, select several dozen anchor points from identical locations on both folios—the more points, the better. These should be clearly identifiable features that correspond between the two documents, such as specific points in the script or details in the plant drawings. Ideally, the points should be distributed across the entire page.
- Next, analyze the distances between pairs of these points, recording the corresponding measurements from each document. Instead of comparing just a few heights and widths, this gives you a large set of distances taken at different angles and from many locations across the page.
- From there, create a visual map showing the distortion vectors (both magnitude and direction) across the entire page.
This is a great idea if we can do it well. I can try, but that may be beyond my abilities given the inconsistencies between the two
Well, at this point I feel it's right to intervene in this section concerning the creation of the parchment. This is a topic I addressed in 2019. I asked myself the same question: how did the person who created the parchment design proceed? So I contacted some drawing experts at the Brera Academy in Milan. Personally, I don't know much about drawing and writing; my collecting is mainly based on ancient prints on paper and parchment (etchings, woodcuts, silkscreens, copperplates, and so on). Here I can state (forgive me if I seem presumptuous) that I do know a thing or two, having been a collector for over thirty years and owning pieces of world-class interest, some of decidedly high value (I also collect modern and contemporary art). That said, I know the world of prints (also through professional training) and how they were and are made, even if today some engraving techniques have been almost abandoned (see the "black manner"), I can affirm that whoever created the matrices on copper, wood, steel, and various metals had the preparatory drawing on one side and the plate on which to engrave on the other. I don't believe that Mantegna, Raimondi, Dente, De Musi, Reni, Durer, Rembrandt, Van Leiden (just to name at random the 3% of the world-class old masters who worked partly or exclusively on engraving) used any sort of "machine" to copy the preparatory drawing. Their skill and talent simply allowed them to engrave "freehand," looking at the drawing from the right or left side (depending on whether they were right- or left-handed). They couldn't even use grids because all the preparatory drawings would be gridded. They simply copied, and the engraving on the plates coincides (not the final print for various reasons related to the drying of the paper), even if improved or modified, in many cases in the exact dimensions of the preparatory drawing. Let's return to the parchment with the considerations of drawing experts: if we assume it was made before the manuscript was purchased by W.M. Voynich, whoever copied it had access to the original, the Voynich manuscript. The parchment has three obvious pinholes, plus one less visible but present one, at the four corners, which served to hold the sheet in place on a support (wood or cork). Procedure 1 - left-handed: manuscript on the right, tablet on the left, fingers of the right hand holding the manuscript and the tablet; 2 - right-handed: tablet above page 15 of the manuscript (beyond the manuscript, everything becomes more difficult), fingers of the left hand holding the manuscript and the tablet; 3 - right/left: tablet below the manuscript (above it would make no sense). 1 and 2 are more likely because the tablet can be aligned with the manuscript, and then skill (though not much, according to the experts) in drawing. Second question: why is the text less precise than the plant drawing? Everyone continues to think it's a document intended for translation, but that's never been the case! If we assume that it could be the booklet created or commissioned by G. Baresch, this was intended solely to interest A. Kircher in the translation. HE DID NOT HAVE TO TRANSLATE THE PAGES OF THE BOOKLET, he simply had to be intrigued by it, recognize its language (this could also be considered an improvement of the plant more in keeping with the herbal literature of the Baroque era). I will once again quote a passage from the translation of the letter: - "...I hope it will awaken your memory of a certain document I sent you through the Reverend Father Moretus, a priest of the Society of Jesus in Prague...
... informing him of your unheard-of ability to solve the riddles of some very obscure texts.
Now, since there is a book in my library that takes up unnecessary space, a sort of "riddle of the Sphinx," a book written in unknown characters, I thought it would not be out of place to send the mystery to Oedipus of Egypt to be solved.
So I ordered this old book to be partially transcribed, imitating the writing as faithfully as possible with no small amount of difficulty (the bearer of this letter will tell you he saw it with his own eyes).
About a year and six months ago, I sent you that document, Reverend Father. I hope that, if Your Excellency deems it appropriate to devote time and effort to its investigation and the deciphering of the unknown letters, such effort, to the extent that the things hidden in the book prove worthy of such work, may be of benefit to you, Oedipus, to myself, and to the common good.
It did not seem appropriate to entrust the book itself to such a long and dangerous journey... From the images of herbs, of which there are many in the codex, and from other images, stars, and other elements that appear to have a chemical symbolism, I hypothesize that everything is of a medical nature, the branch of knowledge most useful to the human race, apart from the salvation of souls...." From the letter found by Renè Zandbergen in the Jesuit Library in Rome - Kirkerian archive. I would like to point out, because Baresch himself does so, that in Latin “scriptura imitata simili” means in Italian: similar imitated writing NOT identical writing “ea(n)dem scriptura” and the term “libellum” means: small book, booklet, pamphlet NOT letter “litterae” (Latin is not a simplistic ancient language, but rather complicated and above all precise). Does this mean that this sheet is the last of Baresch's booklet? Absolutely NOT, it is just my hypothesis that takes inspiration from that letter I learned about after studying the parchment and delving into the history of the manuscript; it coincides in several points, but nothing more. Is it part of the dark period of the manuscript? Let's assume it was in the hands of Kircher until the end of 1680, then in the hands of W.M. Voynich from 1912 (+/-), 230 years of which we know nothing. Someone created it for fun, to have a partial copy (?), as a joke (?), to send it to someone for translation or interest, why copy it differently, improving it? Why close it like a letter, a package, and seal it with a double seal? Just for fun. So is this hypothesis more credible, not supported by any evidence but only by the desire not to believe in an ancient document that attests to the existence of a booklet created in the first half of the 17th century? Is it someone who created it based on the Baresch letter to: 1 – deceive the scientists/researchers of the Voynich; 2 – defraud a potential buyer. Analysis: point 1: the researchers rely on research (obviously theirs, not mine) and at most they can say, as everyone told me, "I won't express an opinion, I only present the research but I can't draw conclusions", point 2 – defraud for 110 Euros? (I asked the expert restorers at the Academy, out of curiosity: if today I wanted to have a parchment made identical to this one, in every way: materials, pigments, workmanship, production, seal, traces, etc. exactly identical, a clone, how much would it cost me? Would 100 euros be enough? They replied smiling: "1,000 euros wouldn't be enough and it would be a job done by several hands of experts.).
... informing him of your unheard-of ability to solve the riddles of some very obscure texts.
Now, since there is a book in my library that takes up unnecessary space, a sort of "riddle of the Sphinx," a book written in unknown characters, I thought it would not be out of place to send the mystery to Oedipus of Egypt to be solved.
So I ordered this old book to be partially transcribed, imitating the writing as faithfully as possible with no small amount of difficulty (the bearer of this letter will tell you he saw it with his own eyes).
About a year and six months ago, I sent you that document, Reverend Father. I hope that, if Your Excellency deems it appropriate to devote time and effort to its investigation and the deciphering of the unknown letters, such effort, to the extent that the things hidden in the book prove worthy of such work, may be of benefit to you, Oedipus, to myself, and to the common good.
It did not seem appropriate to entrust the book itself to such a long and dangerous journey... From the images of herbs, of which there are many in the codex, and from other images, stars, and other elements that appear to have a chemical symbolism, I hypothesize that everything is of a medical nature, the branch of knowledge most useful to the human race, apart from the salvation of souls...." From the letter found by Renè Zandbergen in the Jesuit Library in Rome - Kirkerian archive. I would like to point out, because Baresch himself does so, that in Latin “scriptura imitata simili” means in Italian: similar imitated writing NOT identical writing “ea(n)dem scriptura” and the term “libellum” means: small book, booklet, pamphlet NOT letter “litterae” (Latin is not a simplistic ancient language, but rather complicated and above all precise). Does this mean that this sheet is the last of Baresch's booklet? Absolutely NOT, it is just my hypothesis that takes inspiration from that letter I learned about after studying the parchment and delving into the history of the manuscript; it coincides in several points, but nothing more. Is it part of the dark period of the manuscript? Let's assume it was in the hands of Kircher until the end of 1680, then in the hands of W.M. Voynich from 1912 (+/-), 230 years of which we know nothing. Someone created it for fun, to have a partial copy (?), as a joke (?), to send it to someone for translation or interest, why copy it differently, improving it? Why close it like a letter, a package, and seal it with a double seal? Just for fun. So is this hypothesis more credible, not supported by any evidence but only by the desire not to believe in an ancient document that attests to the existence of a booklet created in the first half of the 17th century? Is it someone who created it based on the Baresch letter to: 1 – deceive the scientists/researchers of the Voynich; 2 – defraud a potential buyer. Analysis: point 1: the researchers rely on research (obviously theirs, not mine) and at most they can say, as everyone told me, "I won't express an opinion, I only present the research but I can't draw conclusions", point 2 – defraud for 110 Euros? (I asked the expert restorers at the Academy, out of curiosity: if today I wanted to have a parchment made identical to this one, in every way: materials, pigments, workmanship, production, seal, traces, etc. exactly identical, a clone, how much would it cost me? Would 100 euros be enough? They replied smiling: "1,000 euros wouldn't be enough and it would be a job done by several hands of experts.).
