The Voynich Ninja

If these are indeed related sequences, all four objects (flower, container, cane, rosary) have been heavily redesigned, almost to the point of making them unrecognizable. Could this be intentional? I mean, the artist of VMS (assuming all drawings are by one person) certainly knew how to draw proper flowers, but drew some symbolic shape instead. Maybe this was supposed to be some visual pun?

Hi Marco,

Thank you for making this overview, it brings a lot of clarity.

Do I understand correctly that a tentative reconstruction of the Berlin MS may have had the following sequence:

Scholar pointing right -> women with flower, facing left -> bent woman with cane and rosary, facing left -> urinoscopy, facing left ?

In that case, omitting any "double" figures would explain where the Voynich sequence comes from. It's in the same order, same directions, going counter clockwise.

The hats are different, but it would be suspicious if they weren't. The alteration of fashion elements was almost an imperative.

I must say that I am impressed. Congratulations to you people.

So these 4 parts and 4 people are seasons - spring, summer, autumn and winter.
It gives a lot of further possibilities to search for words that could mean "hot", "cold", "flower", "bloom" etc.

(15-01-2025, 11:50 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Do I understand correctly that a tentative reconstruction of the Berlin MS may have had the following sequence:

Scholar pointing right -> women with flower, facing left -> bent woman with cane and rosary, facing left -> urinoscopy, facing left ?

Hi Koen,
I mostly focussed on the sequence of illustrations you pointed out. Based on that set, a quick answer could be that the missing seasons in Berlin might have been similar to the seasons in Augsburg. Validating the idea would require comparing a much larger set of illustrations from all copies, so one can evaluate more accurately how close they are to each other.

[attachment=9807]

This is very interesting and relevant. It's telling that the best manuscript isn't even the one that drew my attention. 

The only assumption that needs to be made is that for some reason, the three ladies with flowers were reduced to one. They were then supplemented by the first figure before and the first figure after the series.

In other words, take six consecutive figures from the reconstructed source, remove the duplicate ones, and you've got the four Voynich figures.

The more I see the less clear the resemblance is. None of the flower figures have the flower above their head reaching for it (I think nablator already mentioned this one, but it stays true despite of many more images added). All of the doctor figures look up, even one that has the container well below eye level (in the first MS you found), the VMS one seems to look straight. The container and the "flower" themselves in VMS look nothing like the ones from the other images. A lot of images posted in this thread have various people pointing here and there, so the top figure in VMS could be one of them, or something else entirely. 

The rosary lady's posture seems like a match, but whenever you are leaning on something that can support your weight, you can take this posture for many reasons. E.g., trying to drive a stake into the ground. Actually, could she just be setting up a maypole-like decoration? This might explain the circular objects. As noted by a few people, they are not depicted as typical beads on a string.

You do realize that there are decades between the manuscript the Voynich image would have been derived from and the witnesses we have left?

I'm not sure there is any evidence that this particular set of Voynich images was derived from an earlier work. If we start with the assumption that there is some earlier source for these images, then even small overlap in details could be sufficient for identification of this source, I suppose.

As far as I can see, there is not a single clear shape or scene that has a 1:1 correspondence between the VMS images and any other set listed in this thread. 

(edit) So, I'm not sure why should we assume that images are derived from some other work.

VMs investigation: Investigate the details until you understand the meaning (hopefully). Once you understand the meaning, forget about the details. Even the most iconic scenes, often Biblical, differ in their details.

The VMs artist in the White Aries illustration has created a structure of intentional duality. It is a dualism between façade and reality. Appearance is the visual façade, which the artist manipulates in various ways to create ambiguity and other forms of disguise. But the reality behind it is historical, rather obscure often times but historical, nevertheless.

(15-01-2025, 07:34 PM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. 
 So, I'm not sure why should we assume that images are derived from some other work.

What should be the default assumption for a medieval work? Most of the imagery comes from somewhere . It's exactly the details that change. Even a hunter's bow becoming a crossbow is considered a change in fashion rather than type.

Just compare the two doctor illustrations in the remaining manuscripts of this tradition (Berlin and Karlsruhe). Would they be placed on the same family tree by your standards?