The Voynich Ninja

(29-08-2026, 11:28 AM)ololololo Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.So there’s no need to remind me that it could be something completely different — I’m well aware of that

I'm sorry, it's really not specifically about you, and you're certainly not alone. Generations of researchers have seen fit to call this section "biological", after all. But I'm fairly certain that this is guided by anachronism rather than evidence.

(29-08-2026, 11:46 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I'm sorry, it's really not specifically about you, and you're certainly not alone.

I don’t understand what you’re talking about.
I call this section balneological outside of this theory. I hope I’ve satisfied you.
If you don’t like the anatomical interpretations, explain why. Yes, it could be anything, INCLUDING anatomy. And if Quire 13 describes anatomy, then a good picture emerges — medicinal herbs, astrology, anatomy, and recipes.
Also as @JoJo_Jost said, such knowledge is worth encrypting.
I don’t know how else to explain it to you, I’m sorry...

(29-08-2026, 12:28 PM)ololololo Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(29-08-2026, 11:46 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I'm sorry, it's really not specifically about you, and you're certainly not alone.

I don’t understand what you’re talking about.
I call this section balneological outside of this theory. I hope I’ve satisfied you.
If you don’t like the anatomical interpretations, explain why. Yes, it could be anything, INCLUDING anatomy. And if Quire 13 describes anatomy, then a good picture emerges — medicinal herbs, astrology, anatomy, and recipes.
Also as @JoJo_Jost said, such knowledge is worth encrypting.
I don’t know how else to explain it to you, I’m sorry...

I think anachronism does come into it. 

To me the most convincing anatomy is the intestines, and the ovaries. 

But the closest match to the intestines I can find is from 1390s in Iran. Maybe not anachronistic but removed a bit by geography and language. It is said he copied earlier Latin anatomy but I have not seen this style earlier, in fact all I find is more realistic anatomy that I would have expected to see in my own anachronistic views.



The ovaries one is more because it resembles a cutaway version that I recall that would not likely have been the style at the time, and upon closer inspection it resembles it only in that way, really.



I think the other problem is that the vms artist has used iconography rules that seem to be of their own concoction, so is not coming out looking like the things that are represented anywhere else. The use of tubes and semicircles in the intestines could be tissue and fat, or is it something else? Is the fluidity of it all calling to mind jiggly innards where there are none? What about the similar iconography on f77r? It has even more semicircles. Fattier anatomy of some sort that has been disconnected from its blood vessels? What would it be? It has several connections. Why would they be holding up pieces of anatomy at the shore of a water body on the bottom of f82v? Why would they be standing and laying in various unidentifiable pieces while they all flow into each other and finally into another water body fully of various creatures on f79v? Unless the water bodies are pools of blood it doesn't jive for me to be depicting anatomy.

@Linda, I assume there’s nothing surprising about the fact that the organs look realistic or unconventional. The author saw and studied them, but didn’t want others to know about it. The author copied real examples, not images from other books.

It bothers me because everyone seems to have decided that we will accept this one old interpretation of the quire without any need for contextualization. Makes me wonder which PowerPoint presentation I missed.

(29-08-2026, 05:48 PM)Linda Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But the closest match to the intestines I can find is from 1390s in Iran.

That drawing is actually a surprisingly good match to the VMS "intestines", in that it makes the same gross anatomical mistakes:

• the intesines are depicted as a single tube of uniform thickness that zigzags on a plane like a You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.;
  
• there are some incomprehensible frills around the tube, which could have been hatched "3D" shading in the original.
  

That could be a trail worth following...

Quote:The ovaries one is more because it resembles a cutaway version that I recall that would not likely have been the style at the time, and upon closer inspection it resembles it only in that way, really.

I don't think that picture was meant to represent ovaries.  Did people at the time know enough about human reproduction to know that the tromps were important?  Why do the tubes at the top have multiple openings? And more... In fact I think that a good part of that figure (like many details of the nymphs) is later additions.

All the best, --stolfi

(29-08-2026, 11:46 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Generations of researchers have seen fit to call this section "biological", after all. But I'm fairly certain that this is guided by anachronism rather than evidence.

The images clearly show naked women cavorting in water pools and tubs, water flowing through pipes and channels, water splashing, etc.  Some images even recall the Balneis Puteolanum. Whether the images have a second meaning or not, that is clearly what the Artist wanted us to see.

However, some figures are hard to "parse" as nymphs in a spa.  Some of the tubs are ridiculously small and have bizarre shapes, and the Artist seems to care more about the connecting pipes than about the nymph or even the tub itself.  Yet he does not seem to be giving a blueprint for the plumbing of a spa.  Also the section as a whole does not look like a description of a set of spas.  

On the other hand, some of those bizarre tubs and other incomprehensible details could well be crude attempts to draw organs of the body.  

Thus there are two interpretations that seem plausible.  Either the section is about spas, vaguely like the Balneis, and the "anatomical" drawings are meant to show the particular organs of the body that each spring is good for (which the Balneis specifically noted).  Or the section is actually about anatomy, and the bathing ladies are just a cover; maybe because plain anatomical drawings would be shocking to some people who may see the book.  

These interpretations are indeed quite old, but AFAIK they have never been ruled out.

Other interpretations are possible, but AFAIK they are just guesses not supported by any evidence.

The anatomical interpretation is not anachronistic.  AFAIK books on human anatomy existed at the time, but were mainly confined to medical schools (where autopsies were performed) and thus would not be treasured and preserved like more "mainstream" books -- like, say, the works of Aristotle, or the commentaries of Bishop Oudesakekoen on the treatise of the venerable Saint Inaniscientiolus -- which were very popular all over the place.  That may explain why they have not been posted here...

All the best, --stolfi

I would like to add that, whilst, as stolfi said, the dissection of corpses did take place at universities, these corpses had to be ‘released’ under very specific conditions. Exhuming corpses without authorisation was a criminal offence and was also strongly frowned upon by society.

A researcher not affiliated with a university could therefore have got into serious trouble. (That would also explain the poor quality of the vellum.)

This directly explains three aspects of the VMS

1. Why is a pharmaceutical medical book encrypted in the first place? To prevent anyone from realising that someone had been dissecting corpses without authorisation.

2. Why are these bathing scenes so strange – and why do they bear at least some resemblance to certain organs? If they are organs, then they were deliberately drawn so indistinctly so that they would not be recognised as such, and people would think they were bathing nymphs

3. These bathing nymphs would then have been merely part of the cipher, because they distract from what it really is.

I’m not saying they are anatomical drawings; I don’t know that – but this theory has a certain plausibility that explains at least a few of the aspects. That’s all there is to it, but no less either...

(29-08-2026, 09:36 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It bothers me because everyone seems to have decided that we will accept this one old interpretation of the quire without any need for contextualization.

Do you mean an anatomical interpretation or something else?
The anatomical interpretation is still the most logical and reliable, along with the balneological and alchemical interpretations. I don’t think that any “anachronisms” (but what’s anachronistic about this? For example, the author could have had organ samples lying on a table or somewhere else, and he simply copied them) will be present.

(29-08-2026, 05:48 PM)Linda Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Why would they be standing and laying in various unidentifiable pieces while they all flow into each other and finally into another water body fully of various creatures on f79v? 

I think the author might have had a principle of depicting everything without any external hint of organs. That is, if this body of water at the bottom has any significance, it was deliberately embellished with fish and small animals. If it doesn’t matter (so that a foolish decoder would think they’re looking not at the genitourinary system, but at some kind of fountain flowing into a lake), then it could be depicted in any way at all.
That is, the author could depict everything else however he wanted in order to embellish the rest of the picture. In any case, animals don’t matter to me.