The Voynich Ninja

Hello everyone.

After spending some time comparing the Voynich Manuscript with other forms of fifteenth-century visual and technical material, I have been wondering whether we may sometimes be approaching the Rosettes page from the wrong direction.

This is only a working hypothesis, and I am not suggesting any specific identification.

What if the Rosettes page is not primarily a geographical map at all?

What if it represents a designed system, in which the circles, pathways, channels and structures show relationships between different components rather than actual places?

One thing that led me to consider this was my recent reading of Filarete.

I am not suggesting that Filarete influenced the Voynich Manuscript, especially since his work is later.

What interests me is the broader way in which drawings could function as vehicles for organised knowledge.

In Filarete, a drawing is not necessarily just an image of something.

It can express measurements, relationships, circulation, water systems, gardens, buildings and the internal logic of a designed whole.

This made me look again at the Rosettes page.

Instead of asking “what place does this represent?”, perhaps another useful question would be “what kind of system is being represented here?”

The nine major circular areas could potentially function as modules or conceptual zones.

The connecting elements might represent circulation, transmission or relationships between them rather than roads in a literal landscape.

The repeated structures, pipes, walls, openings and radial forms might therefore be more important for their function within the composition than for what they visually resemble.

I think this idea could be tested without assuming that it is correct.

For example, we could ask whether similar graphic elements consistently perform similar functions across the page.

We could examine whether the connections between the nine areas follow a deliberate structural logic.

We could also compare the page with contemporary technical, architectural, hydraulic or cosmological diagrams, not simply in terms of visual resemblance, but in terms of how information is organised.

For me, the important distinction would be between three questions.

What do the individual forms look like?
How do they behave within the diagram?
What kind of information could the entire structure be designed to communicate?

I would be very interested to know whether this kind of interpretation has already been discussed in detail here.

I would also be interested in examples of other fifteenth-century diagrams in which apparently architectural or geographical forms are actually being used to represent a more abstract system.

At this stage, I am treating this only as a possible way of looking at the page, not as an identification.

I would be very interested to hear your thoughts.

Visual comparison only. I am not suggesting a direct connection or influence between Filarete and the Voynich Manuscript.

MS 408, fol.85v.

BNCF, MS Palatino E.B.15.7, fol. 18r.

I understand you speak of Antonio Averlino, known as Filarete:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Some years ago he was a favourite candidate of Nick Pelling for Voynich Manuscript authorship:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Unfortunately it didn't really find acceptance although Pelling's book isn't available online so it's somehow hard to discuss it now.

Thank you, yes, I am indeed referring to Antonio Averlino, known as Filarete.

I was not aware that Nick Pelling had already considered him as a possible candidate for the authorship of the manuscript, so thank you for pointing this out.

My approach here is somewhat different, however, as I am not suggesting that Filarete wrote the Voynich Manuscript or directly influenced it.

What initially interested me was the way he uses relatively simple geometric constructions to organise architectural and spatial information.

While examining several of his diagrams, I also tried a fairly simple experiment.

I used Python to overlay some of these schematic plans, adjusting their scale and alignment in order to compare their underlying geometry.

Summary and working hypothesis
This is intended as an exploratory comparison between some of Antonio Averlino's (Filarete's) architectural drawings and the overall organisation of the Voynich Manuscript's “Rosettes” foldout (f86v).
The aim is not to demonstrate a direct relationship between the two documents, but rather to test visually whether some of the geometric structures found in Filarete's diagrams can be meaningfully compared with the organisation of the Rosettes page.
The initial overlays produced several interesting visual correspondences, particularly in the division of space, the relationship between the centre and the periphery, and some of the linear structures. However, these similarities could also result from the independent use of relatively common geometric principles.

Methodology
To test this comparison without altering the original historical source images, I developed a Python script using the OpenCV and NumPy libraries.
The script extracted the principal ink contours from Filarete's diagrams while removing their blank backgrounds.
A homographic transformation was then used to map the four outer corners of Filarete's 3×3 grid onto reference points corresponding approximately to the four corner rosettes of the Voynich foldout.
For clarity and contrast, Filarete's Grid 1 was rendered as a translucent red mesh, while Grid 5 was rendered in blue, with both superimposed directly over the unmodified Voynich image.
It is important to note that a homographic transformation necessarily introduces geometric adjustment. The resulting overlay should therefore be regarded primarily as a visual exploratory tool rather than as an independent measurement of similarity.

Main observations
Several features seemed worth noting after the overlays were produced:

• Central organisation: the central circle present in both Filarete diagrams falls relatively well around the large central rosette of the Voynich foldout. The correspondence is not exact, but the relationship between a dominant central element and the surrounding modules may be worth examining further.
  
• Spatial compartmentalisation: several vertical and horizontal lines from Filarete's grids pass close to divisions between major elements of the Rosettes page. Some of the bridges, channels, or connecting structures also occupy areas comparable to the spaces between modules in Filarete's construction.
  
• Numerical annotations: some of Filarete's measurements, including repeated “B 50” and “B 25” annotations referring to braccia, happen to fall near visually significant areas of the Voynich page after transformation. I would be cautious about attaching significance to this, however, since their final positions necessarily depend on the alignment used for the homography.
  
• Relationship between Filarete's diagrams: overlaying the red and blue grids also shows that the two diagrams share certain underlying construction principles. This made me wonder whether a similar approach several geometric structures combined or superimposed might be useful when analysing the organisation of the Rosettes page itself.
  

Interpretation
I was surprised to see that several elements coincided reasonably well when superimposed, particularly the repeated square divisions, the central organisation, and the way some peripheral spaces relate to the centre.
Of course, this could simply result from the use of common geometric principles, so I do not regard the overlay as evidence of a direct connection between Filarete and the Voynich Manuscript.

A more meaningful test would probably require applying the same procedure to other fifteenth-century architectural or geometric diagrams and determining whether Filarete's drawings actually produce unusually strong correspondences by comparison.

But this experiment is precisely what made me wonder whether the Rosettes page might also deserve to be examined as a constructed system composed of several related or superimposed geometric modules, rather than solely as a geographical representation.

I can also post the overlays if anyone is interested.

I will certainly take a closer look at Pelling's argument.

Thank you again for pointing it out.

BNCF, MS Palatino EB15.7, fol. 64v.
BNCF, MS Palatino EB15.7, fol. 66v.

Like almost everything else in the VM, it is very difficult to guess what is represented. We don't even know if it is a part of a known myth, folklore, story or a totally lost one.

It is relatively easy to speculate because many interpretations are possible.

(17-09-2026, 03:18 PM)Quentin Da Silva Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I can post the overlays as well if they are of interest.

Overlays with what? Filarete's diagrams that you posted? These are too simple to match anything closely.

Yes, specifically using the Filarete diagrams I published. And I agree: their simplicity is a significant limitation.

I am not claiming that the overlay reveals a correspondence. I simply wanted to observe the result of transforming and superimposing the geometry onto the Rosettes page.

A few correspondences seemed interesting enough to present, but they could very well simply be the result of how easily simple geometric shapes can be adjusted to fit.

I think your overlay fits well with the structure, it captures the cross figure of the four sprays from the center connecting to the opposing middle rosettes, as well as the commonalities of the structure of the four corners.