This 'theory' is based on the investigations of Ms. E. Velinska regarding the VMs cosmic illustration of an inverted 'T-O', geocentric Earth, in comparison with cosmic illustrations found in BNF Fr. 565 and Harley 334, over a decade ago. It has also been a number of years since she chose to delete her web page. Last I looked, Rene's site still referenced those expired links.
So rather than leading to nowhere, something should be said to those interested in promoting their new theories, in regard to the information derived from this comparison. All three sources show a very simplified cosmos with a similar structure. It's a long story but it reveals a lot about the VMs artist. The two historical sources have provenance located to Paris in the first half of the 1400s. This is coincident with the C-14 dates of the VMs parchment.
The structural similarities of the VMs show an ideological connection. There are 43 undulations. There is a 'mermaid' with four companions. Yet there is also a clear attempt at visual dissimilarity. There is a lot more to be considered relating to cosmic boundaries, Shirakatsi's "Eight phases of the Moon" and other things that would have been more familiar to the educated elite of the early 15th century than they are today.
(21-07-2025, 12:47 AM)R. Sale Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Last I looked, Rene's site still referenced those expired links.
Recently, I spent quite a bit of time cleaning up numerous open ends, but undoubtedly there are still more. I would be happy to hear about them.
I should probably add more about this cosmic comparison, but even higher on my list would be her herb comparisons, as part of a larger effort to combine the various herb comparisons. And there are still many other things.
I did decide to add the comparison of the winds diagram with f69r, because I had completely forgotten about it, and can only suspect so would others.
The choice is yours, obviously, and her plant IDs are interesting, but others have done the same and sometimes they even agree. The problem is that even when an identification seems to be clear, the botanical investigations rarely go any further. A waterlily is a waterlily and then what?
The cosmic comparison is clear enough; there are no alternative interpretations. It has strong historical connections matching VMs C-14, and it is an example of how the VMs artist treats visual information. The cosmic comparison has a lot to say. All of which make it more significant (IMHO), than any of the proposed botanical IDs. In addition, the problems of accessibility have made it difficult for new investigators to discover.
I may very well be part of a minority here, but I am not all that much into 'image comparisons' or perhaps rather: 'image analysis'.
Certainly, the illustrations in the Voynich MS are extremely interesting, mainly because they are unusual or even unique. It is also possible and interesting to see similarities between some Voynich MS illustrations and illustrations in other manuscripts. Here, good hits are quite rare.
But I am not a fan of too much speculation.
While the winds diagram comparison of You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. and the Oxford MS is striking, I would never argue that this means there is a connection between these two specific books. The same holds true for me between the cosmos illustration and the Oresme copy of "De Caelo".
Also, for me there is an enormous difference between "looks similar" and "is meant to represent".
It would be different if we had some analysis from people with a real background and experience in this area, but those cases are extremely rare.
(22-07-2025, 05:32 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I may very well be part of a minority here, but I am not all that much into 'image comparisons' or perhaps rather: 'image analysis'.
It may well be the case that this was true at one time, but it's not how I see things now. The majority of people willing to do proper research focus on textual properties, while study of the images remains in a deep crisis.
I do agree that people's background, training and specialization matters a lot here. People with a STEM background are used to working with different kinds of research and evidence than those with a background in humanities and arts. You can't mathematically prove the symbolism of a flute lying under the bed of a lady in a painting. But there are ways to provide context and evidence for a plausible interpretation.
It may be that the Voynich images are
so obscure though, that even experienced art historians may not be able to say much about it. And that's the crisis: we may never solve the text, but this book also has
a lot of images. And images carry meaning, and meta-information about their origins. We shouldn't ignore them, but don't know how to approach them.
In the past, the method often used (and I include my past self and Velinska in this) was to keep throwing large amounts of spaghetti at the wall to see if something sticks, and then try to forcefully connect the sticky strands. This method of desperately looking for parallels and trying to build a narrative around them has become rarer these days. But no better paradigm has taken its place.
Some of our best parallels are from Naples, or Alsace, or England, or Germany, or Venice... How do they all fit together, where do these traditions meet, how do we decide what matters and what doesn't?
I think Koen puts it well with that metaphor: To keep throwing large amonunts of spaghetti at the wall to see if something sticks. I don't think there is any other method than looking for parallel images. And I think that if the Voynich ever has a solution, it will be by interpreting its strange iconography.
These general statements are fine and possibly true in large part. I'm not going to argue against them. I would say, however, that the VMs cosmos is an exception, where investigation and comparison reveal a lot more than many other parts of the ms. The devils are in the details, so the details need to be examined.
The typical cosmic illustration of the VMs era has a poly-concentric structure. Everything has its own sphere. The Earth is in the center, labeled 'terra' surrounded by 'aqua', then 'aer', then 'ignis', the four classical elements. Then there are rings for the planets, from Luna to Saturn, then the fixed stars, perhaps a Zodiac and whatever heavens were deemed appropriate. This is not what is found in the VMs.
Ms. Velinska's comparison was with the cosmic illustrations found in BNF Fr. 565 and Harley 334. In these examples, the cosmic diagrams have a very different structure. The cosmic ring structure has been eliminated. The planets, the planetary spheres and the heavenly spheres are all gone. The structure of these cosmic diagrams is altered and greatly simplified. The central Earth is a single sphere with an inverted T-O division showing pictorial representations of the elements. Water is the bottom half, land and air have the upper quarters, fire is omitted. The earth is surrounded by a field of stars, and the stars are surrounded by a cosmic boundary. In the BNF, this boundary is an elaborate scallop-shell version of a nebuly line. In Harley the boundary is a plain line set off by color. The simplified structure of these cosmic diagrams consists of three major parts: an inverted T-O Earth, a field of stars, and a cosmic boundary.
*Now* look at the VMs cosmos. From the center out there are the same three structural parts as the BNF and Harley diagrams. At the same time, the VMs looks a lot different. The VMs Earth is not pictorial; it is linguistic. The VMs stars are polygonal, not the crisp golden asterisks of BNF and Harley. And the VMs cosmic boundary, such as it is, is a ragged representation of a plain nebuly line. The BNF cloud band has 43 undulations, and the VMs shows 43 undulations as well - if you hunt for them and also assume that none are entirely hidden behind the spokes that cross the nebuly band. This is a subtle hint at VMs humor.
Provenance indicates both BNF and Harley were made in Paris - BNF c. 1410 and Harley in the second quarter of the 15th C. Both fit in with the C-14 dates for VMs parchment. BNF was owned by Jean de Berry (d. 1416), then by his daughter Marie (d. 1434).
What the cosmic comparison shows, with the clear structural similarity between VMs and BNF in particular, is a shared ideology that has specific historical connections. Is there another alternative? [Harley shares the mermaid illustration.]
Of course, there is more to it. Outside the VMs cosmic boundary there is a large circular wheel with eight curved spokes. This structure defines the VMs cosmos as a cosmic oxymoron, a colossal joke. This is a structure borrowed from Shirakatsi's 'Eight Phases of the Moon'. There is no historical alternative to this structure.
Interpretation is the investigator's prerogative. Either identify the parts and see how the trickery was constructed or to be 'taken in' by the deception.
Of course the illustrations are highly interesting and have already said quite a lot about the possible provenance of the MS. However, this type of analysis, intertwined with speculation, is not my thing and I am happy to leave it to others.
A good example is the overall zodiac cycle. This provides information both about the dating and the larger area of origin of the MS. However, this larger area is quite wide. Both of these were confirmed by reputable experts.
When looking at details, as interesting as they may be, we're quickly on thin ice.
Many things which appear completely sensible to our modern minds may be or may not at all be valid for the times.
Of course there is always the risk of speculation and letting your imagination run wild, but there is no other method than to interpret what we see in the VM and compare it with what we see in contemporary images. For example, I am convinced that the Rosettes page is a medieval representation of the universe. I know there are other interpretations. Some see a map, volcanoes, mountains, or other natural elements. Since there is no similar contemporary image, it seems logical that there are several competing interpretations. The most convincing interpretation will be the one that provides the most evidence.
That it has to do with the sky is already apparent simply by seeing that the entire page is filled with stars and the predominant color is blue. There are elements, like the image of a canopy roof, that also hint at the limits of the universe. And there's that nebuly line in the central sphere that's decisive. It's a representation familiar to anyone who's seen medieval manuscripts. It's the boundary of the universe. Beyond it is the kingdom of God. That boundary is filled with stars; it's like a ball, completely enclosed.
One of the most striking elements of the Rosettes page are those kind of pipes or cannons. But it is nothing more than a way of directing, channeling, the influences of the stars. There are also those containers in the central sphere, some almost identical to those we see in the pharmaceutical section alongside plant roots and leaves. Here we see the full force of medieval allegory. What else could these containers represent but the essence or virtues of the plants produced by the stars?
In my previous interpretation of the Rosettes page, I forgot to mention an important element: the castle or walled city, which can lead to the misconception that all the images we see are terrestrial. I've seen a medieval manuscript depicting a castle in an astronomical representation to indicate the location from which measurements were made. In the Rosettes, the castle is next to a representation of the Earth in the form of a T-O map, and we see how it receives celestial influences.
In the Rosettes we see spheres and we see them displayed on the page, but it is a way of alluding to the concentric spheres of the medieval universe and their interconnections.