I just published a new video, this time about some key developments in the history of Voynich research. Ever wondered what the Beinecke lists their most famous early 15th century manuscript as a 16th century one? It's all here:
I think the arrangement of the blossom at an angle to the upper end of the plant is so characteristic of a sunflower that no other representation is conceivable. That alone rules out f93r.
[
attachment=10330]
Rembert Dodoens
Florum, et coronarianum odoratarumque nonnullarum herbarum historia
Chrysanthemum perunianum (1568)
1:12 in video
Description of the plant in ( page 304, lower block ):
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
“But it is the Peruvian Chrysanthemum, a new but very tall plant: a beautiful flower of unusual size. It is said to have been found in Peru, as well as in certain American provinces. It was seen in Madrid in the royal garden of the Spanish, growing up to 24 feet high; it produces a stem, straight, of the thickness of an arm; the leaves very broad: somewhat similar in shape to the flower of the chrysanthemum, but much more beautiful. The middle of its disk or circle measures nearly two to three inches in breadth, and the separate [parts] surrounding the circle somewhat resemble the leaves of the larger purple lily, but are larger, of a golden yellow color. The sun of India ...”
I forgot to add - special thanks to Rene and Marco for their input, which always improves the finished result. The video seems to be off to a good start.
(15-04-2025, 07:21 PM)bi3mw Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I think the arrangement of the blossom at an angle to the upper end of the plant is so characteristic of a sunflower that no other representation is conceivable. That alone rules out f93r.
Yeah, exactly. And literally all metrics on the leaf being off should have been noticed by botanists, of all people.
The initial attribution seems to have been made almost casually. But, as you show in the video, it was made with great certainty, and after that few people wanted to think hard about it. (Of course, people in general don't want to think hard about much of anything . . .)
It is possible that the vellum being stored and used some 100 years later, especially in a monastery or the like.
So Sunflower could be it.
And who is the man standing above the X-flower, looking at you with great worries of being misunderstood?
Refer the picture:
What is that? A new disease, the inkblot paranoia
(16-04-2025, 09:24 AM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.What is that? A new disease, the inkblot paranoia
The X-flower man, standing on the top You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. flower
My current opinion is that Voynich Manuscript may be a "forgery" done around the year 1600 on 150 years old vellum and mimicking the older manuscripts. It sounds a bit crazy but almost everything about VM is more or less crazy.
If it was a forgery then all plants could be a product of imagination. They may be "hybrids" of existing plants. It would explain big problems with assigning the pictures to well known plants.
I am unable to prove it but I hope I am allowed to say it
Of course I am happy to see the research taking different initial assumptions.