I've finally found the time to read all the way from the start of this intriguing thread. I include anatomy in the very long list of things I'm not an expert in, but I'll share a handful of thoughts that came to my mind along the way...
Firstly, any male who thinks the image at the top-left of You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. (or the other suggestion in post #91) is a phallus... should maybe consider getting a medical check-up?
Is the illustrator deliberately drawing things inaccurately to disguise the meaning? Or is the illustrator perhaps just not very good? One of those options strikes me as the more parsimonious, and is consistent with observations of the rest of the VMS. Either way, it surely makes erroneous matches more likely.
Finally, seeing a number of different possibilities for different illustrations counts
against, rather than
for, any anatomical theory for me. If everyone saw the same thing, that would make me see it as more plausible.
"Methinks it is like a weasel",
Alan
@Oscroft, yes, in these illustrations you can see anything you want. Pure Cure of Voynich, or pareidolia against the backdrop of apophenia...
I think that, overall, it’s not that important where each organ is depicted. We have, in addition to the phallus, more or less convincing similarities.
The anatomical explanation (in general) appears more logical against the backdrop of alchemy and balneology, because:
1). Gives a reason to encrypt the manuscript
2). Provides consistent results within the section (in the case of alchemy, the process and instruments are unclear; in the case of balneology, the principle of cartography is unclear. The anatomy is clearer — the author sought to depict the organs realistically, but at the same time, he sought to camouflage them.
Although, perhaps, this is an assumption).
In any case, I’m not forcing anyone to believe in this
(30-08-2026, 10:47 AM)Oscroft Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Is the illustrator deliberately drawing things inaccurately to disguise the meaning? Or is the illustrator perhaps just not very good?
To expand on those questions... Maybe the illustrator is good and is accurately depicting something that isn't anatomy, or is simply depicting something that's allegorical and not literal (and therefore also not anatomy)?
"Seek and ye shall find",
Alan
(30-08-2026, 10:54 AM)ololololo Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The anatomy is clearer — the author sought to depict the organs realistically, but at the same time, he sought to camouflage them. Although, perhaps, this is an assumption
In the absence of a contemporary explanation of the author's intent or anything conclusive regarding anatomy, surely an assumption is the only thing it can be, isn't it?
(30-08-2026, 10:54 AM)ololololo Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In any case, I’m not forcing anyone to believe in this
PS: I'd strongly encourage anyone to resist the temptation to *believe* anything!
There are strong parallels for balneological imagery (the Balneis tradition, which was quite popular). I'm not saying that Q13 is all (or at all) about bathing, but at least there are some strong visual parallels in other medieval works for some of the pages. Also, medicinal bathing is obviously not anachronistic.
The organ interpretations are anachronistic, apart from the idea that an undulating tube can be intestines. But mostly, we have a series of open pipes and nymphs standing on more or less elaborate architectural features. The idea of the fallopian tubes is based on our vague idea of what modern diagrams of the reproductive system look like. This is completely speculative.
The Balneis angle is also speculative, and I'm not sure to what extent it is relevant, but at least it's based on medieval practices and iconographical parallels rather than fantasy.
(30-08-2026, 11:42 AM)ololololo Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.@Oscroft, all right...
There's something I should have made clear but didn't... Clearly I'm sceptical about anatomical matches with the illustrations (most of them at least). But I don't mean to be completely dismissive. And I do think your thoughts and ideas have been well worth pursuing... with a document as stubborn as VMS, even the most speculative ideas might prove fruitful!
(30-08-2026, 11:47 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The organ interpretations are anachronistic. The idea of the fallopian tubes is based on our vague idea of what modern diagrams of the reproductive system look like
I agree that this particular identification is anachronistic and probably bogus. In fact I suspect that You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. (and of several others) are late additions. This is what I think the original
may have looked like:
[
attachment=17492]
Maybe some of the other details were original too, but those that made some people see Fallopian tubes are probably spurious.
But what other proposed "organ" identifications would be anachronistic? They surely would be known to any doctors who had seen autopsies in medical school.
All the best, --stolfi
(30-08-2026, 11:47 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The organ interpretations are anachronistic, apart from the idea that an undulating tube can be intestines.
For me, an anachronism is something that doesn’t fit the time. Are the depictions of the organs not fitting the time? Or am I missing something?
(30-08-2026, 11:47 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The Balneis angle is also speculative, and I'm not sure to what extent it is relevant, but at least it's based on medieval practices and iconographical parallels rather than fantasy.
The balneological interpretation also requires imagination—to imagine something as a coastline, something as rivers, and so on.
Fantasy is not an argument.
(30-08-2026, 12:23 PM)ololololo Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.For me, an anachronism is something that doesn’t fit the time. Are the depictions of the organs not fitting the time?
I think what Koen means is that the VMS illustrations are anachronistic compared to contemporaneous knowledge/illustrations. The earliest accurate description I can find is from Falloppi himself in 1561, but without illustrations. Leonardo did some reproductive system drawings earlier - but no fallopian tubes one in that form, and his uterus drawing was inaccurate (and possibly more like that of a cow).
The following is an LLM response, so it would need further investigation which I don't have time for now...
"William Hunter’s 1774 publication
Anatomia Uteri Humani Gravidi (The Anatomy of the Human Gravid Uterus Exhibited in Figures) is widely considered the earliest truly accurate and scientifically precise published illustration of the human female reproductive system."
Maybe someone at the time of VMS had access (directly via dissection, for example), and VMS actually provides the first good illustration from more than 300 years before Hunter - but it really sounds like that anatomy was not well known at the time.
Compare it with the appearance that the VMS illustrator couldn't even draw a penis accurately (when almost everyone knew what they looked like), and the idea that VMS is a pioneering anatomical work seems very remote.