The Voynich Ninja

I continue to study magical incantations and texts from that period intensively. And the more I see and read, the less I like what I see. I discover signs of magic that I recognise from my studies of the circle on f57 (and other sites). I discover structures in texts that strongly remind me of Voynich, but make no sense in a semantic sense – because they are incantations that cannot be translated. Such texts are interpreted, for example, as ‘light language’, as occult structures that function from within a structure, not through language. I am less and less sure whether I am the right person to pursue this theory. But since no one else seems to be doing it, and I am finding more and more evidence that they could indeed be incantations, I will continue – with dangerous half-knowledge, I must admit. 

What I found particularly exciting was a statement that reciting, for example, the name of an angel or a god while systematically swapping letters would induce a state of trance. (This probably dates back to Abraham ben Shmuel Abulafia in the 13th century).That would be one possible explanation, for example, for the letter shift in Voynich.

Here is a funny, beautiful and difficult example: This is a Kabbalistic angel text from Germany, in Hebrew and Latin. 

[attachment=13194]
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

We see structures that we recognise from the Voynich. Repetitions, functional words that look remotely like  i i n, strokes and letter fragments. But we also see something written in Latin underneath, such as: Soroh ors loros (later: ) seror ors (this is one possible transcription of many) which is very reminiscent of the "oror" strings in the Voynich.

Since I don't speak a word of Hebrew, I gave the text to both Chat GPT and Gemini. Chat GPT said it couldn't translate it. Gemini's response (in a completely new chat) was interesting: it assigned it to the VMS, among other things, on the grounds that:

‘The lines in the lower section (e.g. “loror on loror”) are pure Voynich script.’   

I am not (!) saying that Voynich is Hebrew, i dont belive that. But many magical incantations in the Middle Ages seem to refer to Hebrew formulas and, above all, angel names, among other things.

However, that all would mean that the texts are probably untranslatable, or/and that this thesis would ultimately be unprovable. Not nice...

I realise that you don't want to hear about such a theory, but I feel the same way in principle. Unfortunately, it would explain a lot – which in itself is of course no proof.

I asked myself which recurring word groups in the VMS would even be structurally suitable for something like angels/demons (or, more neutrally, voces magicae). Side 151/152 of the Clavicula Salomonis pushed me to try the aiin family — which is admittedly a bold target, because it is one of the strongest families in Voynichese.

The resemblance was purely visual and arbitrary: ain reminded me of the abbreviation for Raysiel, aiin of Simyel, aiiin of Ramchas, and if one wanted a “demon” counterpart then Demoriel could be mapped to daiin. Again: this is not a claim about meaning. It is more a kind of "stress test" of the Textform.

So the question was: what happens to the text shape if I mechanically replace all words of the aiin family with angel/demon names (or “names” in the broad sense, like voces magicae)? Does the text collapse into nonsense? Does it become visually implausible? Or does it remain internally coherent?

I did the replacement mechanically with ChatGPT: I fixed a handful of mappings (ain/aiin/aiiin/daiin), and for all other aiin-family variants I assigned additional names; if the list ran out, new names were invented . The rest of the EVA transcription was left untouched.

<f25r 1> fcholdy soshy daiin cky shody daiin ocholdy cpholdy sy
<f25r 2> otor chor chsky chotchy shair qod sh[a:o]chy kchy chkain
<f25r 3> qotchy qotshy cheesees sheear s chain daiin chain dan
<f25r 4> dchckhy shocthy ytchey cthor s chan chaiin qotchain
<f25r 5> qotcheaiin dchain cthain daiin daiin cthain qotaiin
<f25r 6> okal chotaiin

<f25r 1> fcholdy soshy Demoriel cky shody Demoriel ocholdy cpholdy sy
<f25r 2> otor chor chsky chotchy shair qod sh[a:o]chy kchy Capiel
<f25r 3> qotchy qotshy cheesees sheear s Cameniel Demoriel Cameniel dan
<f25r 4> dchckhy shocthy ytchey cthor s chan Labaniel Lirichiel
<f25r 5> Emoriel Buniel Zeadiel Demoriel Demoriel Zeadiel Hydriel
<f25r 6> okal Amenadiel
-----------------------------------------------------

<f55r 1> podaiin shekchy qofair okar yk [oh:ch]epaiin qokchdy os arod
<f55r 2> okair or aiin chody ykair y qokar okar ol ykar ar al
<f55r 3> ykaiir chol chky okar chky chdy qokar okaiin chckhy s aiin
<f55r 4> daiin or orol char ar kaiin okchd ykar odaiin chdolaiin
<f55r 5> y or aiin okal chol kchoy pchtchdy o[ck:ek]aiin oka[s:r]or olkam
<f55r 7> tchedar che[o:a]l kedy chody kshdy qotchdy qokchdy olkardam
<f55r 8> dchykey char chek xar odas xaloeees cpheody qokeeody
<f55r 9> dain cheky dar chckhy dal qoko lkeedy dar kaiin dy ka[g:m]
<f55r 10> dair okal qokar or [o:a]r@193; o ar odaiin okeey darchd ol
<f55r 11> l[oh:ch]or chey keedy dy qokal oka[m:j] dal shdy otal otaldiin
<f55r 12> oain ckhy dl oiiin daiin okaiin chelal qokaiin okain r

<f55r 1> Emoriel shekchy qofair okar yk Labaniel qokchdy os arod
<f55r 2> okair or Simyel chody ykair y qokar okar ol ykar ar al
<f55r 3> ykaiir chol chky okar chky chdy qokar Hydriel chckhy s Simyel
<f55r 4> Demoriel or orol char ar Capiel okchd ykar Buniel Amadiel
<f55r 5> y or Simyel okal chol kchoy pchtchdy Amenadiel oka[s:r]or olkam
<f55r 7> tchedar che[o:a]l kedy chody kshdy qotchdy qokchdy olkardam
<f55r 8> dchykey char chek xar odas xaloeees cpheody qokeeody
<f55r 9> Cameniel cheky dar chckhy dal qoko lkeedy dar Capiel dy ka[g:m]
<f55r 10> dair okal qokar or [o:a]r@193; o ar Buniel okeey darchd ol
<f55r 11> l[oh:ch]or chey keedy dy qokal oka[m:j] dal shdy otal otaldiin
<f55r 12> Zeadiel ckhy dl Simyel Demoriel Hydriel chelal Icciel Lirichiel r

It is exciting that the text does not break down despite the dominance of the aiin family. One could even imagine it is something like that. It is also interesting that in the two examples here (which were not chosen entirely at random), the last lines actually look like invocations of angels whose names are simply listed one after the other. And this is also the case in incantations or Voce Magicae

The difficult thing would then be to actually decipher such a text, sure. But perhaps this Tests would allow us to recognise more of the actual structure in connection with incantations / charms / voce magicae.

------
But what would that mean for the text? Let's assume that the text was ‘encrypted’ so that it would not be obvious that it was about demon conjurations. Because that could have been dangerous even in the early 15th century. Would the plants then be just a cover, so to speak? That would make sense. 

But I even have the theory that these plants are, on the one hand, a cover and, on the other hand, an encrypted message about what these incantations are about. Because they represent the disease, so to speak. And then it could even be that parts of different plants are depicted, because that would show the knowledgeable person what disease it is.

(21-12-2025, 07:30 PM)Rafal Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Yes, I've thought about that too – neither a hoax nor a text, but someone who thinks he has received divine wisdom and writes pages of magic spells that are quasi ‘inspired’ to him. Perhaps he even unconsciously uses some of the usual names from common texts. There are striking similarities to some ‘real’ incantations (which, from today's perspective, were probably also just the product of imagination). The problem is that the structure of the VMS texts is almost nearly always the same. If that were the case, we would never find a translation, nor be able to prove that it is fantasy / hoax.

Example text:

ysaac bapsiul afilo anaba floch bilo ylo sandoch az
achel topharie fan habet hyy barachaist
ochebal trach flamaul moloch adach frach
aiam ustram bucema adonay eley elenist
gorabraxio machatan hemon segein ge
mas iesu

aiam: three vowels, one consonant, slightly variable: (aiam / ayam / ayan / aion)
This is reminiscent of aiin, also three vowels and variations: aiin daiin otaiin okaiin

eley
Reminiscent of Voynich
Cheey, sheey, keey yteol, sheol

and hyy
barely a language, just a breath sound and vowel (hii or hueue)
reminiscent of y, dy, shy oty – typical Voynich endings.

(of course, this is not proof, nor is it intended to be, it is merely to show that there are certain similarities.)

But at the moment, I still hope that with such a basic idea, one might still find meaning in VMS.

Newbie here, so I'm prepared to be shot down in flames, but aren't you falling into the trap of assuming EVA transliterations represent the actual sound of the Voynichese "words"? For example, in reality we have no idea which of the glyphs in EVA <aiin> are vowels or consonants, do we?

(31-12-2025, 11:27 AM)PeteClifford Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Newbie here, so I'm prepared to be shot down in flames, but aren't you falling into the trap of assuming EVA transliterations represent the actual sound of the Voynichese "words"? For example, in reality we have no idea which of the glyphs in EVA <aiin> are vowels or consonants, do we?

I think the argument goes something like this:
1) Voynichese shows repetition with variations because it's based on spells or chants
2) If so, it still can be a simple substitution cipher/custom script, and all the weird statistics belong to the underlying text itself
3) If it was simple substitution, then for most languages o/a/e would be natural candidates for vowels, it doesn't really matter which vowel is which

I'm not really buying this, because even in the example with the love charm above the chant part is only a small piece of a meaningful text, I don't think a whole book of illustrated chants/spells and no explanations makes any sense. What would you do with spells/chants if you don't even know which one is which? But who really knows these medieval folks.

I was referring specifically to this bit:

Quote:aiam: three vowels, one consonant, slightly variable: (aiam / ayam / ayan / aion)

This is reminiscent of aiin, also three vowels and variations: aiin daiin otaiin okaiin

Just because <aiin> is transliterated in EVA using what, in English and other human languages, are 3 vowels and 1 consonant, we can't assume that's what the glyphs actually represent, phonologically.

In relation to the general proposition that the contents of the manuscript comprise, to some extent or another, a set of incantations, I can actually see a lot of merit in this idea, especially in the context of the excellent work Koen has done on understanding the mixed plain text/Voynichese on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). Some kind of mystical, incantatory mumbo jumbo using repetition and alliteration might help explain some - but not all - of the linguistic and statistical idiosyncrasies of Voynichese. I think further study of the customary structure of charms and incantations is well worth pursuing to see if any other parallels can be discerned.

I would be especially interested to know, for example, if there is anything special about the preamble to this kind of text, anything for example that might explain the preponderance of gallows glyphs (especially <p> and <f>) in the first lines of paragraphs (as explained in Tavi's talk here You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). If these were restricted to word-initial position, I might be inclined to speculate that they were some kind of instruction to the person performing the charm. For example, if, perhaps, the cross symbols seen in f116v indicate that the sign of the cross should be made at that point during the speaking of the words of the charm, then could <p> in the top lines mark something similar? But the appearance of <p> and <f> in medial position in top-line words makes me doubt that idea.

(31-12-2025, 02:11 PM)PeteClifford Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Just because <aiin> is transliterated in EVA using what, in English and other human languages, are 3 vowels and 1 consonant, we can't assume that's what the glyphs actually represent, phonologically.

In some cases I see no harm in this, if people don't claim specific reading as the right one, but are just looking at patterns and assuming a chant. After all, many Voynichese characters are similar to Latin characters and if the manuscript is European in origin, you can assume the original scribe(s) might refer to individual Voynichese glyphs phonetically in the same way. I'm not sure about n, but air would read air for most and qodey would probably read as qoscus, qoseus or qobcus or something like this. It's not impossible that 30% of the present EVA mappings were already used in the XV century to describe the appearance of the script.

(31-12-2025, 02:11 PM)PeteClifford Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In relation to the general proposition that the contents of the manuscript comprise, to some extent or another, a set of incantations, I can actually see a lot of merit in this idea, especially in the context of the excellent work Koen has done on understanding the mixed plain text/Voynichese on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). Some kind of mystical, incantatory mumbo jumbo using repetition and alliteration might help explain some - but not all - of the linguistic and statistical idiosyncrasies of Voynichese. I think further study of the customary structure of charms and incantations is well worth pursuing to see if any other parallels can be discerned.

I don't think You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is a proper charm, to me it looks like something that is made to resemble a charm. My favourite interpretation of the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. inscription is that this is the key or a mnemonic to the cipher of the manuscript. Overall, I don't think the manuscript necessarily has anything to do with charms or spells.

@ oshfdk
@ PeteClifford

Yes, something like that. I didn't want to say that's how it is, but that similarities could be found.

You have to be a little careful. The aiin and other thing wasn't meant to be: That's the solution / that's the correct translation – but more like: Something like that could work well in the context that they are all incantations. It was more to show the structure of the text in a specific context.

The aiin family alone has over a hundred variants; there aren't that many angels (at least I don't think so). And it won't be that simple, but it could be that this ain family has something to do with angels, because the places where they appear could fit – but not translated 1 to 1.

To avoid the feeling of ‘what is the point of the incantations if it doesn't say what they are about’, I added the plants (and the other images).

Example: cough: thyme + marshmallow + liquorice root:
The plant shown depicts the three parts of the plant, and someone knowledgeable immediately knows that this is about coughs. But that was just a little side theory to illustrate how something like this could work. (didelideli i ve a theory   )

-------------------

Of course, I have since investigated this further. It becomes really interesting when you connect it to medieval Bavarian.

Did you know, for example, that scribes in the Bavarian region often worked with a greatly reduced graphemic system? Many handwritten manuscripts use a, o, e as collective vowels that could cover several sound values. i and u disappear conspicuously often or are replaced by o/e, especially in unstressed syllables. This is not a linguistic phenomenon, but a writing phenomenon.

The reduction in graphemes is based on the fact that unstressed vowels are already greatly weakened in Bavarian; writing practices then further abstract this diversity and level out differences.

This also fits with Voynich...

The theory that these are Bavarian incantations is, at least for now, still becoming more plausible.

But here are some nice examples from modern times:

Bavarian: Do taat a dar aa stinka
German: Da tut es da auch stinken.
English: There does it there stinks. (Word-for-word translation)

Des ko a tayra gspass wem, hob y gsag
Das kann ein teurer Spaß gewesen sein, habe ich ja gesagt
That could an expensive joke have been, I said. (Word-for-word translation)

If you look at how much it is shortened, how strongly Bavarian is monosyllabic (today) and was already moving in that direction back then, and how much it is pushed into the a / o corner, the vowels in Voynich may even make sense.


A beautiful New Year's Eve celebration

(31-12-2025, 03:35 PM)JoJo_Jost Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.how strongly Bavarian is monosyllabic (today) and was already moving in that direction back then

Let me insist that one cannot assume that the pronunciation of Bavarian at the time matched the way it was written.  Consider English spelling: it often uses letters that have never been pronounced in English, just because medieval scribes adopted the spelling from Greek,Latin, Norman, whatever. 

Bavarian had German as the "high status" language, so it would be natural that Bavarian scribes used a spelling closer to the German than a strictly phonetic one.

So spoken Bavarian may well have been "mostly monosyllabic", as you say, already by the 1400s.  In fact, considering what is happening to Italian "dialects", I bet that in recent times the pronunciation of Bavarian became closer to that of German...

All the best, --stolfi

(31-12-2025, 06:14 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[quote='JoJo_Jost' pid='76589' dateline='1767191703'].
So spoken Bavarian may well have been "mostly monosyllabic", as you say, already by the 1400s.  In fact, considering what is happening to Italian "dialects", I bet that in recent times the pronunciation of Bavarian became closer to that of German...

Sorry, Jorge, I wanted to reply, but then I lost track again.

No, actually it's the other way around. Today, modern Bavarian is even more monosyllabic phonetically than it was in the 15th century. Bavarian is a dialect that differs significantly from High German, with its own sounds, grammar and many of its own words.

Bavarian is much older than High German! While the German written language originated in the 15th/16th century, the oldest Old Bavarian texts date back to the 8th century.

Here is an original text about ivy:

Der Eabam isch a Pflånz, wås af die Pam, af die Mauern unt af die Knotn aufi kråbblt, zun Toal iber 10 Meter hoach, aa in Wålt afn Pódn manånt. Er pliaht ersch in Hérbst; in Winter pleip er grean. Die Pluah entwicklen sich zu schwårze Kugelen. Der Eabam isch a scheane Ziarpflanz; pa die åltn Griachn unt Rémer håt er kultische Pedeitung ghåp. Er wåchst mehr oder weaniger in gånz Europa.

When spoken, it sounds even more monosyllabic...

Source: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.