Similarities between certain Voynich glyphs and alchemical notation have been noted by many researchers. But this may be a red herring - let's consider this for a minute.
First off, we need to consider dates.
A lot of this alchemical notation was invented post 16th century - it's Renaissance stuff. It wouldn't necessarily have been around in the 15th century.
Of course, that doesn't mean there isn't an overlap. The manuscript may not be 15th century - it could have been written in the early Renaissance, for if we accept the Rudolph II provenance then we have a terminus ante quem of around 1550 (or maybe later if we look up the date that the language teacher whose name I can't spell left Rudolph's staff - actually, have we ever had a proper debate about this? No, don't post here, I put a different thread on this subject).
So any alchemical notation that we find that is post-1550 must be considered derivative of the influences of this MS, and cannot be a source. We should bear this in mind when presenting such findings.
So to argue that the VM glyphs are derivatives of alchemical symbols, we must fit two givens into our arguments:
The symbols presented must be pre-1550
The symbols presented must have been in general circulation (for if they are unique to a certain author, then what we are essentially arguing is that that author must have had some influence on the scribe, for how else would he have seen them?)
But this period of time (early Renaissance) was a hotbed of intellectual fervour with plenty of independent chains of thought. It is not until after our terminus ante quem that we start to see a consolidation of intellectual rigour. In short, we have lots of people with spare time to think about things, but who haven't yet developed the sophisticated communication channels we see in the later Republic of Letters and the like. That's one of the reasons Rudolph's court was so famous, it was a pioneer in the creation of philosophy of a free intellectual interchange of ideas.
Which means what?
Well, I'm not going to go further down this path for the minute, as I want people to think about what I've just said, and consider the question: If this is an invented alphabet, what were the influences of the scribe?
IE, where did he get his shapes from?
And the reason this question is important, is because: if he got them from alchemical manuscripts, then he was probably involved in that world with all the resulting importance for the pictures. But if he got them from astronomical manuscripts, then the pictures will have a different interpretation. And if he got them from a medical background, we have a third interpretation for the pictures. Etc. And what's more, we can narrow this down a bit, because pre-1550 we have far fewer sources than post-1600.
There's a certain type of flower that occurs on five different pages of the VMS. These remind me of "propellers", but if anyone can suggest a better name for them I'll use that instead.
The usual questions:
Do similar forms occur in any herbal manuscripts or other sources of botanical imagery?
Is there a particular kind of flower in the botanical world that this kind of image could be a representation of?
As best I know, Rich Santacoloma was the first person to realise that the top of folio 77r shows a system of Elements. Without having seen his work, I came to a similar opinion two years later, but where Rich supposed the manuscript a product of Latin European culture, and so expected that the fifth element must be ether, I consider the intention had been to represent a system which considered the world to consist of 5 elements (ether is not part of the world's materials in the Greek system).
The reason for the elements emerging from unformed "wood" as anyone who reads Greek will understand, though I believe I first brought it to the notice of Voynicheros - is that "hyle" or "wood" was the Greeks' term for unformed matter.
From inner Asia, and India, to the far east, a five-element system is the norm.
For me, there was still an outstanding problem:elements are normally found listed, or depicted, in a rote sequence - sometimes by reference to the directions, or some perceived place in a hierarchy of powers, or by position in a sequence between formation and dissolution etc.etc.
The order of elements in f.77r was not in keeping with any such rote order that I could find (and believe me, I hunted it).. but a couple of days ago I found one one text which offers an exact match for their order.(details of that text in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.).
From right to left the five run: Smoke, Fire, Wind, Water, Darkness.The same text refers to "the two Ascendants ", assigning those to "fire and lust, which are dryness and moisture" and calling them "the father and mother of all these things." In folio 77r, the female is associated with the drying heat, and the male with fertile moisture, but in that case, the Coptic text would naturally set the male before the female, regardless of left-to-right considerations. That order doesn't imply "respectively" as an English text would do.
I still have no way to explain why there should be six 'labels' needed for five elements, since the 'ascenders' seem to have separate 'labels' above their heads.
I realise this doesn't help with the vital question of Voynich grammar, but I hope it might help in some other way.
The cluster of seven stars on f68r3 is often compared to the Pleiades.
I just noticed an illustration from a version of Speculum Humanae Salvationis, where a similar cluster is used to depict Jupiter.
I wonder why that is? Here is the illustration:
f8r, GKS 79 °2, Kongelige Bibliotek, Denmark (Germany, c. 1430)
For the past couple of months, I've been commenting on similar letter strings in Voynichese (ex. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.,You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.,You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.,You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.) and how the VMS scribe almost seemed to be choosing between different options for vord components (ex. ykchor - okchor - otchar - otchy).
Well, last night I made this 12x6 table to group vord components into different categories. The table is not perfect and I will need to modify it, but it can explain the compositions of most vords.
Using this method on a page picked at random (f32r), I can account for 58 out of 69 vords, with 5 vords not fitting. (The remaining 6 are benched gallows, whose breakdown is disputed.)
I can even account for vords that only appear once, such as dcheodain or dytchor
Just something to think about. I am not sure where to take my idea from here, but maybe it will help somebody with their hypothesis.
I was just contacted (out of band) by Wladimir D, who reported an interesting matter about f57v.
While the common idea is (as Rene puts it) that "The second ring from the outside has a four times reapeating sequence of single characters." (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.), actually the sequence is not strictly repeating.
The first two sequences (counting from the dairol reference point) contain f, while the third and the fourth ones contain p instead.
I did not notice that until Wladimir pointed that out to me.
Having a closer look at this ring, I further noted that the second-to-last symbol of the sequence also differs. It is i with a crossbar in the first sequence, and in sequences 2-4 it is rather e with a crossbar.
In my latest You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (short one) I explored some possible parallels for crowns worn by the nymphs. Some of these I've shared on the forum before, but this one is new.
I believe that this find might help us understand better the path travelled by the material that ended up in the VM.
The statuette is a bronze Aphrodite from the Roman period in Syria. It falls well within the period posited by Diane for the first enunciation of the imagery (3rd BCE- 3rd CE). Like the lion mosaic posted by Sam a while ago, it was found in a former Hellenistic area now under Roman rule.
It shares with the VM figures not only the type of crown, but also the body type (although the heads of the nymphs are enlarged).
A similar crown can be seen in this example from the first century, found in Byblos, an Ancient Phoenician city thatwas also an early Egyptian colony. This "Lady of Byblos" does have the addition of Egyptian style feathers on top of her head.
Apart from the similar crown, I believe the item she holds might explain the giant "ring" held by the nymph (inset). No description is provided, but I believe this object to be a hinged mirror, like this (left Greek, right Roman):
This made me realize that this nymph might actually be holding some type of mirror as well (see here: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). Note how the inside of the "ring" is not painted green and how she does appear to be admiring her beauty.
Likely dozens of parallels are possible for these crowns, but these are the only ones found on full bodied naked ladies, which has got to count for something.
I am sure it has been discussed by others through the years too. It is a page from the Book of Holy Trinity - the copy in the Rylands Univ Library. Hope the link works.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
![[Image: sunclock.png?w=840]](https://voynichnumerology.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/sunclock.png?w=840)
![[Image: detail-fol-77r-top-elements1.jpg]](https://voynichimagery.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/detail-fol-77r-top-elements1.jpg)
![[Image: gks790015v.jpg]](http://img.kb.dk/ha/manus/gks79/gks790015v.jpg)
![[Image: steppedcrown.jpg?w=616]](https://herculeaf.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/steppedcrown.jpg?w=616)
![[Image: byblos.jpg?w=616]](https://herculeaf.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/byblos.jpg?w=616)
![[Image: mirrors.jpg?w=616]](https://herculeaf.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/mirrors.jpg?w=616)