The Voynich Ninja

Just to be clear, neither the BNF Fr. 565 / Harley 334 comparison nor the Shirakatsi wheel were my discoveries. That was over ten years ago, and they didn't manage to combine at the time. That is my fault. There is no historical cosmic illustration prior to 1450 that matches the very simplified cosmic structure with 43 undulations like 565 more closely than the structure <not the appearance> of the VMs f68v3 interior.

It revives the old question: What determines identity? Is it structure? Or is it appearance? The VMs image matches the structure part for part. At the same time 565 has a pictorial Earth, while the VMs has chosen to use words. There is no greater visual differentiation than this. Yet, based on the structure, sequence and number of the parts, this is the same cosmos dressed in an alternative fashion. With some implication that this was intentional as part of the VMs puzzle. Appearance creates the visual façade, and structure is the reality behind it. When the structure is not recognized according to the historical examples, then the disguised reality is lost.

No, I did not count the undulations - not at first. That was independently done at least twice. Somewhere here on the ninja, there is a posting with the VMs and 565 pictured side by side with the undulations clearly enumerated.

Count them again. The VMs is playing hide and seek. Ambiguity is part of the puzzle. But it's not a puzzle till there is something to solve, some historical connection. BNF Fr. 565 has the same structure as the VMs inner cosmos. 565 also has good provenance, a specific city and an early 15th century date. If identity is based on structure, the similarity is remarkable.

(01-07-2026, 02:10 PM)DG97EEB Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I counted 40

(not mine-repost.)

Thanks Linda... Turns out I can't count...

(01-07-2026, 10:30 PM)DG97EEB Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Thanks Linda... Turns out I can't count...

But one must keep in mind that the Oresme manuscript above must have existed in many copies. It would be a huge coincidence if the copy that the VMS Scribe used as "inspiration" for f68v3 was the same that is reproduced in the right-hand image. 

And there is no reason to assume that all the copies had the same number of "scallops" on that diagram.  Or that the Scribe even thought of preserving that number when he drew  f68v3.

In fact, if the copy that the Scribe "inspirated" belonged to the Author, it is slightly more likely that it was a cheap copy -- like what a student or scholar would acquire for his own use, not for display.  Like in my time students and even profs would get a xerox of a book rather than buy a printed copy. 

All the best, --stolfi

The Oresme manuscript, as I understand it, was made in Paris, c. 1410, for the Valois Duke, Jean de Berry, an avid bibliophile. The proposed mythos that there were multiple replications is unfounded. With more than a decade of opportunity, no better comparison has been found. The second-best example is the later copy of de Metz, Harley 334. However, it is unlike any of his other "works". And it differs from the Oresme illustration primarily by having a cosmic boundary that only consists of plain lines - no ornate wolkenbands. The appearance and structure of these cosmic representations reflect a specific, simplified model provided by the Parisian artists, not something that originated with the historical authors.

In the VMs cosmos, the artist has maintained the structure and decisively altered the appearance as much as possible. Disguise is part of the VMs puzzle. Disguise is not the result of incompetent bungling; it is the product of intentional deception.

It turns out that there is some sort of 43-year lunar cycle. AI confirms my hallucinations. So, perhaps the number 43 didn't (or did) fall out of thin air after all. Every good medieval astrologer would have known about it.

Did you guys know there is something that looks like an unfinished "terra incognita" in the f86v. It has some marginalia too but it does not seems to be french.
[attachment=16284]
I think i saw another case somewhere else, but i do not remember, maybe i imagined it.

(01-07-2026, 07:17 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Is this the correct link?  I remember the illustration with the cloud-band and inverted T-O map that was posted a while ago, but cannot find it in that book.  (It is by Oresme allright, but a translation of a political treaty by Aristotle.)

All the best, --stolfi

I think its this image on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., right? I just linked the wrong page, sorry   

[attachment=16287]

(02-07-2026, 03:18 AM)R. Sale Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The Oresme manuscript, as I understand it, was made in Paris, c. 1410, for the Valois Duke, Jean de Berry, an avid bibliophile. The proposed mythos that there were multiple replications is unfounded.

Why "mythos" and "unfounded"?  People routinely copied books that belonged to others.  I saw an estimate that only 10% of the manuscripts of that time have survived to this day.  The fraction must have been smaller for paper copies.  By Bayes's formula, if a copy of a book survived, the expected number that existed at the time is around 10 or more.

Quote:The second-best example is the later copy of de Metz, Harley 334.

Indeed I see three images on that book (f11r, f27r, f40v) with the same "inverted T-O map" as in the Oresme/Berry book (BNF Fr. 565) with a blue surround, but no cloud-band and no stars.

This seems to be You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. of Metz's Image du Monde  (BNF 2479?) It is a much mode modest copy, with fewer and simpler illustrations.  I can't see any T-O map or cloud-band; there are several diagrams that show the Earth, but as just a plain circle. That site says it is dated 1200-1300.  There is You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. copy, BNF Fr. 574. 

Based on these five minutes of palæographic research, I would say that the T-O map in BNF Fr. 565 and BNF Fr. 574 are not meant to describe the geography of the world, like the most common T-O maps in other books, but are an old French artistic convention  to illustrate the Biblical creation of the world per Genesis I 9-11:

Quote:9. And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so.

Which is the theme of Metz's poem.  Furthermore, I would guess deduce that, in both BNF Fr. 565 and BNF Fr. 574 the diagram with the inverted T-O map with the surrounding elements were not defined by the authors (Metz, Oresme, Aristotle), but were just gratuitous decoration provided by the artists (possibly added one or twice by some early artist and then copied by others).

Quote:In the VMs cosmos, the artist has maintained the structure and decisively altered the appearance as much as possible. Disguise is part of the VMs puzzle. Disguise is not the result of incompetent bungling; it is the product of intentional deception.

Considering the VMS Scribe's work on other pages, I would say that "incompetence" is a much more plausible explanation than "cunning deception".

All the best, --stolfi

I agree with several of your points. The complete neglect of the planets certainly implies a lack of interest in astronomical information and science in general. And also, that this particular type of cosmic structure came from the Parisian studios of the relevant artists.

Looking at the VMs cosmic drawing, was the artist incompetent or deceptive? The VMs artist drew the same three-part structure as in BNF Fr. 565. 1) A central Earth with *inverted* T-O divisions, 2) a surrounding field of stars, and 3) an all-enclosing wolkenband cosmic boundary with 43 undulations. Where does "incompetence" come into play?

This cosmic diagram does not have the same internal structure.

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

Does the VMs look different than the 565 cosmos? It absolutely does. Does that make it 'something' different? Does it change the cosmic structure? I guess that's your call.

Even for something as simple as water, variations in appearance are all over the place.

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

But the VMs artist is not a crapy copier. The VMs cosmic artist is not a copier at all. Clearly, as the central Earth of 565 is a pictorial representation, then the copy of a pictorial representation is another pictorial representation. The VMs Earth is shown with written Voynichese words. It is clearly an alteration of appearance and if the disguise was intentional, that implies deception. Or maybe this scribe can't draw water.

Once is accidental, twice is coincidental, three times and you're stuck with it. Cosmos, Melusine, Agnus Dei, Fieschi popes, the Muses in the half-arcaded tub. The VMs artist is just full of valid historical incompetence, errr - trickery.

Check out these little cuties. Sirens with headbands. Another Parisian source.

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

Provenance seems to indicate Charles V - so, by extension - Charles VI (d. 1422) which coincides with the VMs. Probably in the French Royal library possibly along with the Book of the Queen at some point.