08-10-2019, 10:17 PM
Recently rereading the Oresme investigations posted by Nick Pelling from Oct 2017, I see that it has been two years gone by. Has there been any further indication as to whether any of the three remaining, unexamined copies of Nicole Oresme’s Du ceil et du monde might contain a cosmic diagram or not?
There also seems to be a problem with P. Arnaud’s interpretation of BNF Fr. 565 fol. 23 in his article on mappae mundi. He would be correct, if BNF 565 fol. 23 was a mappa mundi, but it is not. A mappa mundi is intended to be geographic. BNF 565 fofl. 23 is not geographic. It has no real geographic features; it has no cities. What medieval map of the world shows the lower half of the earth as all water? BNF 565 fol. 23 is an inverted T-O and it is pictorial. It is not a perverted mappa mundi. It is something else.
What is it? Well, first of all, BNF 565 fol. 23 is a cosmographical diagram, not just a map of the earth. But with the focus on how the earth is represented, the best match for BNF Fr 565 fol. 23 still appears to be Harley 334 fol. 29, as originally presented in 2014 by E. Velinska. This is another inverted T-O, pictorial representation of earth in the center of a cosmic diagram. And beyond the earth images, there is an interesting comparison in the similarity of the stars and the great differences in the representations of the two cosmic boundaries.
There is another illustration in the Harley 334 manuscript, which is fol. 34v, that shows a pictorial earth with water on the lower portion as the central part of a cosmos where the Earth is being measured by ‘God the Geometer.’ This then is similar to BNF Fr. 1082, which is the other “Oresme” illustration, showing another version of God and a pictorial cosmos, but where are the stars? And here is where it would be helpful know about potential illustrations in the other three ‘Oresme’ manuscripts. In addition to this, there are various illustrations depicting God and the cosmos, in which the sphere is represented as an inverted T-O, but where the actual depiction of the object may be blank or colored, rather than pictorial.
In contrast to the ‘Oresme’ situation, where there are only two manuscripts currently known to have cosmic illustrations, there are multiple versions of the ‘de Metz’ text, prior to the version in Harley 334. And all of them present the many-layered system of concentric circles showing the celestial spheres. One is a simple line diagram of labeled, planetary spheres within the ‘firmament’ [Harley 4333 fol. 57]. Another is a complex line diagram inserting the four classic elements in the central spheres [Arsenal 3516 fol. 179r]. There is a simple representation where the planetary spheres are painted and labeled [BNF Fr. 24428 fol. 30]. And there are more complex [BNF Fr. 12469 fol. 71v] and more complex images, some with the introduction of Hell’s Maw in the very center. And there was also an apparent introduction of religious figures [BNF Fr. 14964 fol. 117; BNF Fr. 574 fol. 136v; Royal 19 A IX fol.149]. And all these illustrative depictions of the cosmos in the different versions of the de Metz text, Imago mundi, conform to the poly-concentric structure, obviously along with various other medieval authors, in their representations of this more scientific and ‘modern’ cosmic structure. And though it may be tempting to call this structure ‘Ptolemaic’, technically it requires epicycles to differ from the Aristotelian version. Only Harley 334, of all the ‘de Metz’ manuscripts, depicts a cosmos with no planetary and elementary spheres.
All of this seems to imply that the inverted T-O, pictorial representations of BNF Fr 565 and Harley 334 are part of the traditional, religious interpretation of Earth, its creation, sometimes its creator, and a very basic structure for the cosmos as a whole, rather than being a guide to the celestial spheres or a geographic map of the known world. These images would seem to be examples of what might be called a ‘Biblical’ depiction of the cosmos, visually representative of a traditional, religious interpretation.
Despite their authorial sources, Nicole Oresme (d. 1382) and Gossuin (or Gautier) de Metz (fl. 13th C) even earlier, there is a more immediate common factor connecting these two manuscripts. Both BNF Fr. 565 and Harley 334 were versions of the original authors’ texts apparently copied and produced in Paris within or at least mostly within the averaged C-14 dates for the VMs parchment. [The Oresme ms. (BNF 565) Is dated c. 1410; the de Metz ms (Harley 334). from 1425-1449; the Voynich ms. (Beineke 408) between 1404-1438.]
Adding these two relevant illustrations (Harley 334 fol. 34v and BNF Fr. 1082) to the original cosmic comparison helps to better understand the nature of the BNF Fr. 565 fol. 23 illustration and leaves the mappa mundi interpretation in the dust. At the same time, there is now the complication of additional cosmic comparisons in this newly expanded group of four illustrations. And given the complexities of these comparisons, it seems helpful to examine the depictions in relation to their three component parts. These are the central Earth, the surrounding starry sky and the outer cosmic boundary. The four illustrations show that there are a variety of ways to represent those elements.
In all four cases, the central Earth has painted depictions of wavy lines to represent water on the lower half or lower portion (Harley 334 fol. 34v). The two original examples clearly show an inverted T-O, while BNF Fr. 1082 has an off-center space between two buildings, and Harley 334 fol. 34v is like sailing up to a mangrove forest on a moonlit night, where you can’t see past the thicket (a primordial world like God created). And there is also some variation in what has been depicted in the upper portion: a forest, a city, the countryside, or possibly clouds. The depiction of Earth in Harley 334 fol. 29 is still the one most similar to BNF Fr. 565 fol. 23.
In the second part of the comparison, there is the starry sky. At least in the original examples (BNF 565 fol. 23 and Harley 334 fol. 29 et al.), the sky is starry. These are the golden asterisk stars in a bright blue sky, very similar to the depictions found in the works of Christine de Pisan (Harley 4431) also located to Paris in the early 1400s. And continuing in a 1447 copy from Paris of De proprietatibus rerum originally by Bartholomaeus Anglicus, which shows golden asterisk stars on blue or red backgrounds. [Amiens, Bibliothèque municipale, Ms. 399, fol. 241] The use of the golden asterisk as an artistic technique may not be exclusive to Paris in the first half of the 1400s, but it seems to be well represented in several examples in Harley 334 alone. Meanwhile, comparing the four cosmic diagrams, Harley 334 fol. 34v has a sky, but no apparent stars in a cosmos potentially still under construction. And BNF Fr. 1082, the other ‘Oresme’ illustration, omits sky and stars altogether and goes straight to the cosmic boundary.
And for the third part of the comparison, looking at the cosmic boundaries in Harley 334, it is no surprise to see they are the same; narrow, plain, circular bands of off white (inner) and red (outer), thin as an eggshell. In contrast, the two Oresme illustrations have elaborate, blue and white cloud bands, which are clearly very different from each other in their visual appearance. The scallop-shell pattern of BNF Fr. 565 fol.23 shows a strong similarity to certain illustrations from the same de Pisan manuscript [Harley 4331]. While the cloud-band in BNF Fr.1082 has an entirely different painting technique with no apparent internal line pattern.
Having established a slightly broader basis of comparison than the original 2014 discussion, perhaps it is possible to look a littler deeper into the comparison of specific parts of these cosmic diagrams, with the illustration of the VMS cosmos (f68v) included. Is there some sort of connection to be found beyond the direct comparison of the VMs cosmos with BNF Fr 565 fol. 23? The representation of the mermaid and fish on fol. 57 of Harley 334 would seem to suggest that there is.
So, with this background, let’s now go further and examine the component parts of the Voynich cosmos. Is the VMs illustration a strangely stripped-down copy of some other cosmic depiction, such as BNF Fr. 565 fol. 23, or is it something else? Starting with the Earth at the center, the VMs appears to present an inverted T-O version, although it is a bit faint. Unlike all four other representations however, the VMs version of the Earth is not pictorial; it is linguistic. So right off, the VMs is not a visual copy of any of the pictorial representations, because the copy of a pictorial representation is still a pictorial representation. And to claim the VMs is a stripped-down simplification would imply that linguistic description is simpler than pictorial depiction, but this does not seem entirely correct and would be difficult to substantiate. This is not a mistake or an example of sloppy artistry. What this is, instead, is a change from one method of communication to another. This is a code shift. It is an intentional change of methodology. And this results in a totally different visual appearance for the VMs representation of Earth.
In the second area of comparison, the starry sky, the VMs cosmos does display a pattern of stars surrounding the Earth. However, the presence of blue paint in the VMs sky is much darkened with the use of black ink and the stars have short acutely angular arms, rather that the crossed lines of the asterisk pattern seen in the two examples from the original comparison. In addition, rather than being scattered in the surrounding space, the VMs stars are laid out in a line much like beads on a string. The effect is that the VMs stars appear to encircle the Earth, while the scattered stars in the other images appear to surround the Earth. Interestingly, Latin has two verbs,’cingere’ and ‘circumdare’ either of which can mean ‘to surround’ or ‘to encircle’. In French one word has either meaning. On the other hand, the VMs artist has clearly demonstrated in this play on words that there is a distinct visual difference between surrounded and encircled.
The third part of the VMs comparison is the cosmic boundary. The meandering line of the VMs is somewhat more complex than the plain bands of the Harley 334 diagrams, and yet it pales in comparison to the elaborate cloud-band (Wolkenband) patterns of the two Oresme examples. The recovery of traditional terminology, from the example of the medieval heraldic lines of division, shows that this line pattern, in which the individual crests and troughs are bulbous, was called a nebuly line. The term ‘nebuly’ derives from the Latin ‘nebula’ meaning ‘a mist’ or ‘a cloud’. Similarly, in German, the nominal term ‘gewolkt’ derives from the word ‘Wolke’ also denoting ‘a cloud’. This confirms the potential cloud-based interpretation for this line pattern and is a basis for comparison with other cloud-based cosmic boundaries, as seen in BNF Fr. 565 fol. 23, BNF Fr. 1082, and some of Christine de Pisan’s work (e.g. Harley 4431). In addition, both the BNF Fr. 565 illustration and a fair number of the de Pisan illustrations make use of the elegant, scallop-shell pattern of cloud band construction, which follows the basic form of the nebuly line, with the addition of a short series of rounded arches protruding from the top of the crests and the bottom of the troughs, as if short sections of the heraldic engrailed line pattern were added in those places. And while BNF Fr. 1082 clearly shows a cloud band, it is one built on a very different artistic technique and has no line pattern. The thing that further connects the nebuly line of the VMs cosmos with the scallop-shell patterned cloud band of BNF Fr. 565 fol 23 is that both examples present 43 undulations. Both present the same ideological structure once again, despite significant visual differences. And it is not as if the VMs illustrations can’t provide better examples of similar artistic cloud-bands. The VMs Central Rosette has cloud-band pattern based on a scallop-shell design. There is even blue paint. The difference in the VMs representation is that the running arches of engrailed / invected line pattern run the entire length of the nebuly line structure – not just on the extremities, but in the interior parts as well.
So far, in the comparison of each of the three parts of the cosmic diagrams, there are hidden structural similarities between the VMs cosmos and BNF Fr. 565 fol. 23, which seem to be masked by clever options intentionally chosen for their visual diversity. Now we come to the fourth part of the VMS cosmos. None of these other cosmic diagrams has a fourth part. And, in fact, there may be some reason to question how and why an additional part might exist outside the cosmic boundary, but there it is regardless. This structure, unique to the VMs, consists of an apparent wheel-like circular band connected to the inner part, as previously described, by eight curved spokes. Both wheel and spokes contain a single line of written text. This structure seems to be a primary reason why Wilfrid Voynich’s associate, William Newbold, identified VMs You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. as an illustration of the Andromeda galaxy in an anachronistic attribution to Roger Bacon.
To understand these bands of text better, let us reexamine them from the medieval perspective. Bands of text are frequently found in medieval illustrations, where these text banners serve to provide information about the contents of the illustration. They serve a function very similar to conversation balloons in cartoons, comic strips, and graphic novels. And in the same way, medieval text banners do not represent physical objects in the context of the illustration. Text banners are not ‘real’; they are not intended to be interpreted as being substantive; they are ephemeral. This was Newbold’s folly; mistaking the ephemeral for the real. Yet there they are as bold as brass. Their purpose, beyond the possibility of providing some explanation, is solely to create a clear and significant difference in visual appearance from any other ‘Biblical’ cosmos. And the reason for creating that difference is to prevent and to thwart any comparison based on visual appearance and to disguise the correspondence based on structural similarities specifically regarding the comparison of BNF Fr. 565 fol. 23 with the Voynich cosmos.
In the first three parts of the cosmic comparison, the VMs cosmos presents a structure that matches BNF Fr. 565 fol. 23, but it does so in a manner that has a significant visual difference in each part. And in the fourth part, visual difference is the primary objective. And visual difference is intentional in all parts of this Voynich cosmos. The VMs cosmos is a clever parody. Each part is a trick, an alternative depiction. The first trick is a code shift, then words with dual meanings, then visual simplification combined with etymology, and finally, pure bluff – something created entirely for distraction. This last part goes beyond alternative depiction. This is intentional deception. The VMs will not display its secrets in overt visual similarities. It is necessary instead to know the structure and the rules set in place at the time, in order to discover that there are alternative visual representations for similar concepts. Perhaps this may open a way to those who can recognize the hidden structure and recover the traditional images and terminology, all of which were known to (and manipulated by) the creator of the VMs. The appearance of the VMs cosmos may seem striped-down, but more significantly it is the same structure given an alternative presentation. It is the same cosmic structure in disguise.
This may seem far fetched to some on the basis of a “single’ cosmic example, but then there are the dual interpretations for the orientation of the blue-striped heraldic insignia on VMs White Aries, along with the associated elements and various examples of trickery: the use of an optical illusion, the use and misuse of the definitions and rules of heraldry, the use of heraldic canting based on another example of obscure terminology and intentional construction. That is the investigation of the Genoese popes.
There also seems to be a problem with P. Arnaud’s interpretation of BNF Fr. 565 fol. 23 in his article on mappae mundi. He would be correct, if BNF 565 fol. 23 was a mappa mundi, but it is not. A mappa mundi is intended to be geographic. BNF 565 fofl. 23 is not geographic. It has no real geographic features; it has no cities. What medieval map of the world shows the lower half of the earth as all water? BNF 565 fol. 23 is an inverted T-O and it is pictorial. It is not a perverted mappa mundi. It is something else.
What is it? Well, first of all, BNF 565 fol. 23 is a cosmographical diagram, not just a map of the earth. But with the focus on how the earth is represented, the best match for BNF Fr 565 fol. 23 still appears to be Harley 334 fol. 29, as originally presented in 2014 by E. Velinska. This is another inverted T-O, pictorial representation of earth in the center of a cosmic diagram. And beyond the earth images, there is an interesting comparison in the similarity of the stars and the great differences in the representations of the two cosmic boundaries.
There is another illustration in the Harley 334 manuscript, which is fol. 34v, that shows a pictorial earth with water on the lower portion as the central part of a cosmos where the Earth is being measured by ‘God the Geometer.’ This then is similar to BNF Fr. 1082, which is the other “Oresme” illustration, showing another version of God and a pictorial cosmos, but where are the stars? And here is where it would be helpful know about potential illustrations in the other three ‘Oresme’ manuscripts. In addition to this, there are various illustrations depicting God and the cosmos, in which the sphere is represented as an inverted T-O, but where the actual depiction of the object may be blank or colored, rather than pictorial.
In contrast to the ‘Oresme’ situation, where there are only two manuscripts currently known to have cosmic illustrations, there are multiple versions of the ‘de Metz’ text, prior to the version in Harley 334. And all of them present the many-layered system of concentric circles showing the celestial spheres. One is a simple line diagram of labeled, planetary spheres within the ‘firmament’ [Harley 4333 fol. 57]. Another is a complex line diagram inserting the four classic elements in the central spheres [Arsenal 3516 fol. 179r]. There is a simple representation where the planetary spheres are painted and labeled [BNF Fr. 24428 fol. 30]. And there are more complex [BNF Fr. 12469 fol. 71v] and more complex images, some with the introduction of Hell’s Maw in the very center. And there was also an apparent introduction of religious figures [BNF Fr. 14964 fol. 117; BNF Fr. 574 fol. 136v; Royal 19 A IX fol.149]. And all these illustrative depictions of the cosmos in the different versions of the de Metz text, Imago mundi, conform to the poly-concentric structure, obviously along with various other medieval authors, in their representations of this more scientific and ‘modern’ cosmic structure. And though it may be tempting to call this structure ‘Ptolemaic’, technically it requires epicycles to differ from the Aristotelian version. Only Harley 334, of all the ‘de Metz’ manuscripts, depicts a cosmos with no planetary and elementary spheres.
All of this seems to imply that the inverted T-O, pictorial representations of BNF Fr 565 and Harley 334 are part of the traditional, religious interpretation of Earth, its creation, sometimes its creator, and a very basic structure for the cosmos as a whole, rather than being a guide to the celestial spheres or a geographic map of the known world. These images would seem to be examples of what might be called a ‘Biblical’ depiction of the cosmos, visually representative of a traditional, religious interpretation.
Despite their authorial sources, Nicole Oresme (d. 1382) and Gossuin (or Gautier) de Metz (fl. 13th C) even earlier, there is a more immediate common factor connecting these two manuscripts. Both BNF Fr. 565 and Harley 334 were versions of the original authors’ texts apparently copied and produced in Paris within or at least mostly within the averaged C-14 dates for the VMs parchment. [The Oresme ms. (BNF 565) Is dated c. 1410; the de Metz ms (Harley 334). from 1425-1449; the Voynich ms. (Beineke 408) between 1404-1438.]
Adding these two relevant illustrations (Harley 334 fol. 34v and BNF Fr. 1082) to the original cosmic comparison helps to better understand the nature of the BNF Fr. 565 fol. 23 illustration and leaves the mappa mundi interpretation in the dust. At the same time, there is now the complication of additional cosmic comparisons in this newly expanded group of four illustrations. And given the complexities of these comparisons, it seems helpful to examine the depictions in relation to their three component parts. These are the central Earth, the surrounding starry sky and the outer cosmic boundary. The four illustrations show that there are a variety of ways to represent those elements.
In all four cases, the central Earth has painted depictions of wavy lines to represent water on the lower half or lower portion (Harley 334 fol. 34v). The two original examples clearly show an inverted T-O, while BNF Fr. 1082 has an off-center space between two buildings, and Harley 334 fol. 34v is like sailing up to a mangrove forest on a moonlit night, where you can’t see past the thicket (a primordial world like God created). And there is also some variation in what has been depicted in the upper portion: a forest, a city, the countryside, or possibly clouds. The depiction of Earth in Harley 334 fol. 29 is still the one most similar to BNF Fr. 565 fol. 23.
In the second part of the comparison, there is the starry sky. At least in the original examples (BNF 565 fol. 23 and Harley 334 fol. 29 et al.), the sky is starry. These are the golden asterisk stars in a bright blue sky, very similar to the depictions found in the works of Christine de Pisan (Harley 4431) also located to Paris in the early 1400s. And continuing in a 1447 copy from Paris of De proprietatibus rerum originally by Bartholomaeus Anglicus, which shows golden asterisk stars on blue or red backgrounds. [Amiens, Bibliothèque municipale, Ms. 399, fol. 241] The use of the golden asterisk as an artistic technique may not be exclusive to Paris in the first half of the 1400s, but it seems to be well represented in several examples in Harley 334 alone. Meanwhile, comparing the four cosmic diagrams, Harley 334 fol. 34v has a sky, but no apparent stars in a cosmos potentially still under construction. And BNF Fr. 1082, the other ‘Oresme’ illustration, omits sky and stars altogether and goes straight to the cosmic boundary.
And for the third part of the comparison, looking at the cosmic boundaries in Harley 334, it is no surprise to see they are the same; narrow, plain, circular bands of off white (inner) and red (outer), thin as an eggshell. In contrast, the two Oresme illustrations have elaborate, blue and white cloud bands, which are clearly very different from each other in their visual appearance. The scallop-shell pattern of BNF Fr. 565 fol.23 shows a strong similarity to certain illustrations from the same de Pisan manuscript [Harley 4331]. While the cloud-band in BNF Fr.1082 has an entirely different painting technique with no apparent internal line pattern.
Having established a slightly broader basis of comparison than the original 2014 discussion, perhaps it is possible to look a littler deeper into the comparison of specific parts of these cosmic diagrams, with the illustration of the VMS cosmos (f68v) included. Is there some sort of connection to be found beyond the direct comparison of the VMs cosmos with BNF Fr 565 fol. 23? The representation of the mermaid and fish on fol. 57 of Harley 334 would seem to suggest that there is.
So, with this background, let’s now go further and examine the component parts of the Voynich cosmos. Is the VMs illustration a strangely stripped-down copy of some other cosmic depiction, such as BNF Fr. 565 fol. 23, or is it something else? Starting with the Earth at the center, the VMs appears to present an inverted T-O version, although it is a bit faint. Unlike all four other representations however, the VMs version of the Earth is not pictorial; it is linguistic. So right off, the VMs is not a visual copy of any of the pictorial representations, because the copy of a pictorial representation is still a pictorial representation. And to claim the VMs is a stripped-down simplification would imply that linguistic description is simpler than pictorial depiction, but this does not seem entirely correct and would be difficult to substantiate. This is not a mistake or an example of sloppy artistry. What this is, instead, is a change from one method of communication to another. This is a code shift. It is an intentional change of methodology. And this results in a totally different visual appearance for the VMs representation of Earth.
In the second area of comparison, the starry sky, the VMs cosmos does display a pattern of stars surrounding the Earth. However, the presence of blue paint in the VMs sky is much darkened with the use of black ink and the stars have short acutely angular arms, rather that the crossed lines of the asterisk pattern seen in the two examples from the original comparison. In addition, rather than being scattered in the surrounding space, the VMs stars are laid out in a line much like beads on a string. The effect is that the VMs stars appear to encircle the Earth, while the scattered stars in the other images appear to surround the Earth. Interestingly, Latin has two verbs,’cingere’ and ‘circumdare’ either of which can mean ‘to surround’ or ‘to encircle’. In French one word has either meaning. On the other hand, the VMs artist has clearly demonstrated in this play on words that there is a distinct visual difference between surrounded and encircled.
The third part of the VMs comparison is the cosmic boundary. The meandering line of the VMs is somewhat more complex than the plain bands of the Harley 334 diagrams, and yet it pales in comparison to the elaborate cloud-band (Wolkenband) patterns of the two Oresme examples. The recovery of traditional terminology, from the example of the medieval heraldic lines of division, shows that this line pattern, in which the individual crests and troughs are bulbous, was called a nebuly line. The term ‘nebuly’ derives from the Latin ‘nebula’ meaning ‘a mist’ or ‘a cloud’. Similarly, in German, the nominal term ‘gewolkt’ derives from the word ‘Wolke’ also denoting ‘a cloud’. This confirms the potential cloud-based interpretation for this line pattern and is a basis for comparison with other cloud-based cosmic boundaries, as seen in BNF Fr. 565 fol. 23, BNF Fr. 1082, and some of Christine de Pisan’s work (e.g. Harley 4431). In addition, both the BNF Fr. 565 illustration and a fair number of the de Pisan illustrations make use of the elegant, scallop-shell pattern of cloud band construction, which follows the basic form of the nebuly line, with the addition of a short series of rounded arches protruding from the top of the crests and the bottom of the troughs, as if short sections of the heraldic engrailed line pattern were added in those places. And while BNF Fr. 1082 clearly shows a cloud band, it is one built on a very different artistic technique and has no line pattern. The thing that further connects the nebuly line of the VMs cosmos with the scallop-shell patterned cloud band of BNF Fr. 565 fol 23 is that both examples present 43 undulations. Both present the same ideological structure once again, despite significant visual differences. And it is not as if the VMs illustrations can’t provide better examples of similar artistic cloud-bands. The VMs Central Rosette has cloud-band pattern based on a scallop-shell design. There is even blue paint. The difference in the VMs representation is that the running arches of engrailed / invected line pattern run the entire length of the nebuly line structure – not just on the extremities, but in the interior parts as well.
So far, in the comparison of each of the three parts of the cosmic diagrams, there are hidden structural similarities between the VMs cosmos and BNF Fr. 565 fol. 23, which seem to be masked by clever options intentionally chosen for their visual diversity. Now we come to the fourth part of the VMS cosmos. None of these other cosmic diagrams has a fourth part. And, in fact, there may be some reason to question how and why an additional part might exist outside the cosmic boundary, but there it is regardless. This structure, unique to the VMs, consists of an apparent wheel-like circular band connected to the inner part, as previously described, by eight curved spokes. Both wheel and spokes contain a single line of written text. This structure seems to be a primary reason why Wilfrid Voynich’s associate, William Newbold, identified VMs You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. as an illustration of the Andromeda galaxy in an anachronistic attribution to Roger Bacon.
To understand these bands of text better, let us reexamine them from the medieval perspective. Bands of text are frequently found in medieval illustrations, where these text banners serve to provide information about the contents of the illustration. They serve a function very similar to conversation balloons in cartoons, comic strips, and graphic novels. And in the same way, medieval text banners do not represent physical objects in the context of the illustration. Text banners are not ‘real’; they are not intended to be interpreted as being substantive; they are ephemeral. This was Newbold’s folly; mistaking the ephemeral for the real. Yet there they are as bold as brass. Their purpose, beyond the possibility of providing some explanation, is solely to create a clear and significant difference in visual appearance from any other ‘Biblical’ cosmos. And the reason for creating that difference is to prevent and to thwart any comparison based on visual appearance and to disguise the correspondence based on structural similarities specifically regarding the comparison of BNF Fr. 565 fol. 23 with the Voynich cosmos.
In the first three parts of the cosmic comparison, the VMs cosmos presents a structure that matches BNF Fr. 565 fol. 23, but it does so in a manner that has a significant visual difference in each part. And in the fourth part, visual difference is the primary objective. And visual difference is intentional in all parts of this Voynich cosmos. The VMs cosmos is a clever parody. Each part is a trick, an alternative depiction. The first trick is a code shift, then words with dual meanings, then visual simplification combined with etymology, and finally, pure bluff – something created entirely for distraction. This last part goes beyond alternative depiction. This is intentional deception. The VMs will not display its secrets in overt visual similarities. It is necessary instead to know the structure and the rules set in place at the time, in order to discover that there are alternative visual representations for similar concepts. Perhaps this may open a way to those who can recognize the hidden structure and recover the traditional images and terminology, all of which were known to (and manipulated by) the creator of the VMs. The appearance of the VMs cosmos may seem striped-down, but more significantly it is the same structure given an alternative presentation. It is the same cosmic structure in disguise.
This may seem far fetched to some on the basis of a “single’ cosmic example, but then there are the dual interpretations for the orientation of the blue-striped heraldic insignia on VMs White Aries, along with the associated elements and various examples of trickery: the use of an optical illusion, the use and misuse of the definitions and rules of heraldry, the use of heraldic canting based on another example of obscure terminology and intentional construction. That is the investigation of the Genoese popes.