Indeed. I think the charlatan's book is a very good candidate for explaining the VMS.
This charlatan's theory only demonstrates a lack of understanding of medieval thought.
Quote:This charlatan's theory only demonstrates a lack of understanding of medieval thought.
Could you elaborate, Antonio?
There were certainly many quack doctors in the Middle Ages, but to think that the Voynich manuscript is the work of a charlatan seems absurd to me. If that were the case, what we would surely see is an image of the supposed doctor with a container of urine in his hand, or taking the pulse of a sick person in bed. And the image of the zodiac man would certainly be present. We see none of that in the Voynich.
I have a clear idea of the Voynich iconography and to me it looks more like a work made in a medieval university for the teaching of natural philosophy, which included natural magic.
Quote:If that were the case, what we would surely see is an image of the supposed doctor with a container of urine in his hand, or taking the pulse of a sick person in bed. And the image of the zodiac man would certainly be present. We see none of that in the Voynich.
Well, it is a point. But...
First, we have the doctor with urine bottle at the page f85r2
But the biggest problem with Voynich imagery is that it is very unconventional and hard to interpret. We can look at the plants but we cannot recognize them. We can look at astronomical diagrams but we are not sure what they exactly represent. And bathing ladies are a total mystery.
My feeling is that it was made so on purpose. The author wanted to make something bizarre, looking like a medical manual but a strange medical manual, unique and different from the others.
Zodiac Man is just too common, unoriginal and boring to find its place in Voynich Manuscript.
It doesn't offer any secret, rare knowledge. People who come to charlatans are often disappointed with professional doctors who cannot help them in their cases. So a charlatan has to offer something different.
(02-04-2026, 09:52 AM)Antonio García Jiménez Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....to me it looks more like a work made in a medieval university for the teaching of natural philosophy, which included natural magic.
Looking like this, however, is evidence that it could have functioned as an effective fraud, at least against people who agreed with you.
I had not previously considered this dimension of the "looks like" problem, but any "looks like" assertion can be interpreted prima facia as evidence of fraud. It isn't
necessarily fraudulent because it looks like something, but it is an immediate possibility.
I see things more simply. There's no need to invent strange plots.
One of the biggest problems with the Voynich is that people don't understand the iconography. I do understand it, and I'm sorry if that sounds arrogant.
Rafal says that bathing ladies are a total mystery. For me, they are not. They are neither women nor are they bathing. I've been explaining what they are in my thread for years. It seems some people don't believe me. There's nothing I can do except hope that some people with expertise in medieval iconography will be willing to participate in the forum.
My point, without getting into territory that will require us to switch to the thread dedicated to your theory, is that such a visual code is not at all incompatible with the visual code being meant to deceive. The fact that it is (allegedly) recognizable to someone with a medieval mindset means it could have been a good charlatan's prop. Not necessarily that it was, but that the pattern finding you are doing could conceivably be the point of the manuscript
(02-04-2026, 09:52 AM)Antonio García Jiménez Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If that were the case, what we would surely see is an image of the supposed doctor with a container of urine in his hand, or taking the pulse of a sick person in bed.
But the Alchemists Herbal has no suchpicture.
All the best, --stolfi
Don't forget the missing pages.
Missing folios <from voynich.nu>
The following 14 folios are missing from the MS:
f12, apparently cut out, stub still visible;
folios 59-64, three bifolios that should have been in the centre of quire nr. 8 (13);
fol. 74, cut out, stub still visible. Cut marks are clearly visible on f75r;
Quire 16, which appears to have consisted of one bifolio composed of f91 and f92;
Quire 18, which appears to have consisted of one bifolio composed of f97 and f98;
folios 109 and 110, that should have been in the centre of quire nr. 20.
The following 14 folios are missing from the MS: