Reading Rene Zandbergen's blog, a few things jumped to my mind. In You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., he retraces the most probable evolution of the manuscript in these terms :
Quote:The points that have been presented in relation to the order of production of the MS may now be summarised.
The MS was produced in a bifolio-per-bifolio manner, with the drawing outlines inked first, followed by the inking of the text;
The quire numbers were added before the folio numbers;
The page order has been disturbed, and this happened before both sets of numbers were added;
The painting was done before the present binding;
The quire and folio numbers were added before the present binding;
Some of the painting appears to have been done after the folio numbers were added;
Twelve of the fourteen missing folios were lost after the folio numbers were added, but before the present binding.
This leads to the following tentative reconstruction:
All bifolios of the MS were prepared: the drawing outlines and the text were added in ink;
Sometime after this, the planned order of the bifolios was disturbed. The bifolios were stacked anew in an incorrect order (implying that the person who did this was not the original author) but the set was still complete. (The interesting task of identifying the original page order has not been completed, and has mainly been driven by Nick Pelling);
The quires were numbered first, the MS may have been bound, and the folios were numbered after that. (This initial binding is not necessary but would explain the inconsistency of the quire and folio numbers of quire 9);
At this point, the book had all folios including the now missing ones, and was not painted, or only partially painted. Folio 42 would not have been painted yet;
The MS was disassembled and painted (or the partial painting completed). Six bifolios were lost or removed at this point;
Shortly after the painting, the MS was rebound in the same order, but with the six bifolios missing. Folios 12 and 74 would have still been there. Especially the blue paint transferred on opposite pages;
Folios 12 and 74 were cut out sometime later
We know that the quire numbers were added before the folio numbers, and that this indicates the presence of a first binding, or at least that the manuscript was prepared for binding (the same page mentions earlier that the marks on q9 only show a preparation for binding but no trace of finishing it at this point).
Is there ANY reason that this first preparation for binding might prepare quires consisting of only one bifolio, and that it woud put those single-bifolio quires at any other point than the edges of the finished product ? If there is not, it indicates that q16 and q18 were composed of 4 bifoliae each, like most of the others, but that 3 of those had disappeared by the time the folio numbers were added (Looking further, I suppose it is likely that those pages were foldouts, like q14 through q19 have in abundance, but this doesn't prevent the existence of more missing unnumbered bifoliae)
Then, for which reason would the first preparator prepare uneven quires (I can see two of them, but none can apply to q8 : either a clear semantic/stylistic link, which explains q20 but q8's remaining bifoliae aren't clearly semantically tied, or the physical unwieldyness of long quires with foldouts, which explains q14 through 19 but can't explain LONGER than usual quires) ? q8 is longer than all other quires (except q20, with its very different text layout than the rest), and as long as q13, which is stylistically coherent, but f57, 58, 65 and 66 are quite different to each other, and they aren't even consistent recto to verso (f57r and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. can be in the same section, but they are clearly different from the pair f57v-f66r). Currier finds both Language A and Language B in this quire, and the images look to belong in different sections, which indicates one of the following :
There is a hidden semantic connection justifying to join together bifoliae like that, and the quirer understood the language (very unlikely, as Lisa Fagin Davis' work tends to suggest that quiring itself was a misunderstanding of the book, which should have stayed as a collection of loose leaves, or should have been quired as a thick pile of singulions)
The missing bifoliae contain drawings and text bridging the gap (possible, but unhelpful)
Q8 was from the start a patchwork quire, gathering everything that doesn't fit (this indicates that q16 and q18 were bigger than a sigular bifolio without foldouts each, as else they could have been joined into q8 and the resulting quire would still not have been thicker than q20, which by its existence, shows that quires this big are practical ; it doesn't explain, though, why it would have been numbered this low, rather than being put at the end)
All quires were initially this big and we shouldn't read into 8's length (not really realistic, as it means 7 bifoliae are missing, one in each of the first 7 quires; the most probable outcome would have been to have unequal quires at the start)
The most probable outcome, for me and for now, is the proposition 3 : q16 and q18 were longer than one standard bifolio each, but all the unnumbered ones were lost between quiring and foliating. I still don't have a good idea of why the quirer would create distinct-length quires in the middle of the book rather than counting the extra leaves at the end of the quiring process, but that might be tied to the process itself, in which case I'd love an idea
Rather than the usual type of steganography, based on the placement of words on a page, the VMs has been equipped with a system based on the placement of extended text segments. Rather than 'hiding" words on a page, the VMs "hides" text segments in circular diagrams. Rather than a grille to find the hidden words, the VMs used patterned markers to designate selected text segments. A grille is too obvious and potentially lost. Patterned markers are more subtle, they might be irrelevant, and they stay in place. A functional structure was created, but was it activated?
Examples of marked text segments occur in the cosmos, zodiac, rosettes, etc. Markers occur in a number of variations. While some are elaborate and obvious, do single lines or blank spaces also constitute 'markers'?
The problem is that designated text is still Voynichese writing that cannot be read. However, the advantage is that this provides specific segments of text to compare and contrast with statistical investigations.
As to whether the artist actually recognized this steganographic technique and chose to provide verification in the VMs illustrations, the answer is provided in VMs White Aries where the text marker joins the blue-striped tub.
2 minutes of hard work writing the prompt mentioning morphemes and the scuola medica salernitana.
Then I clicked the "generate essay" button.
The LLM cites references, not bad:
Quote:Timm (2014, 2016) demonstrates that the majority of Voynichese word to‑
kens can be organized into multidimensional grids, each centered on a core
morpheme. For example, the “daiin” series contains variations such as
“daiin,” “aiin,” “dain,” “ain,” and so forth, with substitutions and
deletions governed by a set of morphophonemic rules:
・ “in,” “iin,” and “iiin” are interchangeable (e.g., “daiin” ↔
“dain”).
・ “ch” and “sh” substitute for each other (“chedy” ↔ “shedy”).
・ “o,” “a,” and “y” interchange in certain positions (“ol” ↔
“al” ↔ “yl”).
・ “k,” “t,” “p,” and “f” are variant forms, often substituting in
medial or terminal positions.
A little bit vague about the decryption of the recipes, but nice try:
Quote:For instance, a typical recipe paragraph in the VMS may be parsed into a
sequence: [verb morpheme] + [plant name morpheme] + [preparation mor‑
pheme] + [application morpheme], with variations reflecting standard me‑
dieval medical formulae. The frequent recurrence of such patterns, com‑
bined with the alignment of morphemes to known medical vocabulary, sup‑
ports the claim of successful decryption.
After more than two years of systematic work I’m sharing a morphemic decryption of the Voynich Manuscript (MS 408) that achieves 85 % coverage (806 of 948 unique word types) with 88 % average confidence across the entire corpus.
Core idea: each Voynichese “word” functions as a single semantic unit (nomenklator-style) mapping to one Latin concept, typical of XV-century technical/pharmaceutical manuals.
Key breakthrough
The most frequent procedural token ytedy (6,421 occurrences) reliably maps to Latin DEINDE / ITERUM (“then / next”).
This mapping is independently validated in XV-century Venetian liturgical and technical manuscripts held at Biblioteca Marciana.
Practical result
Folio 108r translates into a complete 17-step recipe for oleum aureum (golden varnish used in manuscript illumination), fully consistent with Cennino Cennini’s treatise and Venetian pharmacy records (La Testa d’Oro, Baccanelli resin triad).
Cipher and hoax hypotheses have been systematically falsified (frequency analysis, Vigenère, Kasiski examination, genetic algorithm attacks – all negative).
Everything is fully public and reproducible:
• GitHub repository – complete Python code + dataset
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
• DOI (concept)
10.5281/zenodo.17617392
• Full dataset (41,912 words, 119,278 morphemes)
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
• Academic paper (7 pages)
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Attached:
1. Executive Summary with all statistics
2. Title page + abstract
3. Heat-map of morpheme co-occurrence
4. Example translation of folio 108r
I’m very open to scrutiny and independent verification – just clone the repo and run the scripts.
Looking forward to your thoughts, especially from anyone familiar with Northern-Italian pharmaceutical or liturgical texts from the early 15th century.
(I will use EVA translitteration in there)
Hello Voynich ninja,
I am a new enthusiast of the VMS, and I noticed something odd on my first parse through of the manuscript (what isn't odd in this piece, you'll say, butthis looks odder than the rest), that I haven't seen discussed yet : on both sides of f8 (and later in the MS, which seems to me to show a pattern from which something could be extracted by someone with knowledge), there is what looks like a ligature, using a character [t] to join two distinct [ch] segments. Each leg of the [t] starts between the [c] and [h], and there are other characters in between.
The first occurrence is on f8r, at the start of the third paragraph, enclosing an [o] and a space, and the second [ch] group is at the start of its word [chay] (unsure on the exact symbols). Then we have the one at the top of f8v, enclosing [oj soo] and the second [ch] is word-final.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. shows it enclosing an [s] ; You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. uses it to enclose two long words [oo rcholyCTHy] (the capital [CTH] represents the end of the "ligature")
An even fancier version appears at the top of f42r, enclosing [CTHo ofdaiin (cth)achCTHy] (CTH represents the boundaries of the symbol) and having two more loops on its inside
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. has the same [t] symbol spreading its legs around [o!chal chchs!y] (using the exclamation point as one leg if this [t]).
the CTH reappears on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (right below the "stream"), without any other character between its legs. It seems to be the first occurrence of this symbol alone, and the first I could find that is not with 100% certainty paragraph-initial (it's the leftmost character on its line and the stream looks like a nice divider, but the line right before is pretty full, so I could hear the argument those blocks are the same paragraph ; but let's say 95%)
I also want to exhibit f85r, where several seemingly-diacrited [ch] pairs appear ; maybe that mysterious CTH is a ligature of those, in contexts where there is space above the line.
The CTH itself (or something mighty close to it) reappears on the second paragraph of f86v, with the "c-loops" closed by the bars of the [t]. This occurrence is part of the word [CTHolCTHa]
A CPH glyph, with the P similarly extended over other characters and an extra loop and leg coming down between a second [ch] group, appears in f90r. Maybe this is proof that it's only an aesthetic enhancement and all this enumeration has been a waste of time (but that's research, a lot of wastes of time, until one pays off), maybe the component "second loop" is a meaningful symbol in itself which would lead to a rework of the symbols [t], [f], [p], [k].
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is very interesting, regarding this symbol : we have only the right half of it, the first [ch] group is either erased or never existed. The ink on this page doesn't seem that faded, so I don't quite believe in the possibility it could have been erased. A multispectral pic would be hugely helpful.
And another asymmetric one appears on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (bottom paragraph) ; there, the left letter is a simple [o], with [OTiol soCTHey] the words below the bar.
On the next folio (f100r) is the first CTH I have seen to not be paragraph-initial, we find [OTHdaTOto] in the middle of the first line. The verso has another CTH, a much more classical one than the variants we saw earlier, with [CTHdeiCTHa] (uncertain of the transcription between D and the end of the CTH). Only peculiarity is that its left-part is closed (as the one on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is). We also find another one on the folded page f101r, which looks like a CT without the terminal H on the left part. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. also has a CTH, with the top bar being composed of continuous loops, enclosing [CTHol dCTHoda].
Now I think I have them all, and I can proceed to real questions and spitballing.
First, have those been examined anywhere else ? What is the expert opinion on these ?
My own (near-layman) opinion, is that it looks like scribal flourish, some kind of illumination like we have on f1r, and may be used to distinguish writers or chronology but doesn't impart meaning. This idea jumped to my mind when I found that Q19 was littered with those (5 in 4 folii), while Q20, while being a wall of thext, doesn't have any.
I have been working intensively on the Voynich Manuscript for a long time, and I believe and I’m totally sure that I have finally reached a clear and consistent decipherment of the text — including identifying the author and clarifying several related aspects. Now I can read any word in the Manuscript with full understanding of the meaning.
I fully understand that many similar claims have been made over the years, and I am not asking anyone to accept my conclusions at face value. Instead, I am looking for guidance from members who have more experience than I do in preparing and presenting scholarly work.
My main difficulty is that I have no prior experience publishing academic papers or formal research. Therefore, I am searching for advice — or collaboration — to help me transform my findings into a properly structured academic work that can be submitted to recognized platforms, journals, or preprint servers.
A very important point for me is ensuring that my intellectual contribution is protected and properly attributed. I want to share my work openly, but I also want to make sure that it cannot be claimed by anyone else.
If anyone here can provide a clear and transparent roadmap for:
how to prepare my research for academic presentation,
where to publish it safely,
and how to document priority or authorship,
then I would be very grateful.
I am open to serious contact and collaboration with anyone willing to guide me through this process in a constructive and ethical way.
Thank you all for your time, and I welcome any suggestions or messages from those who can help.
I am sharing a new structural analysis of the Voynich Manuscript developed using a systems-engineering framework. The work presents a complete Cross-Sectional Operator Concordance (CSOC) that models symbolic operator behavior across all major sections of the manuscript (Herbal, Pharma, Zodiac, Baths, Cosmology, and Small Plants).
The study treats the text as a symbolic procedural system rather than a linguistic or cryptographic one, and demonstrates cross-sectional consistency under a unified operator model.
DOI (Version 5):
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
The publication includes:
• The full CSOC Master Edition
• Operator families and system architecture
• Convergence laws across manuscript domains
• Representative folio concordance examples
• Consolidated monograph volumes and structural atlases
Posting here for reference. I may not be active in ongoing discussion, but feedback is welcome.
There's a lot of uncertainty about the paint in the manuscript.
Some people (like me) believe that it is most likely original and informed.
Some people (probably most notably Nick Pelling?) believe that some paint is added later and that not all painters knew equally well what they were doing.
Some people (like Stolfi) believe none of the paint is original/reliable.
Regardless of one's view though, there are things we can say about which paints were applied in the same session, because apparently the painter did not always clean their brush properly. I first noticed this in the Zodiac section, but Stolfi mentioned seeing the phenomenon elsewhere as well.
This is most obvious on the Libra page. The central emblem is first painted in blue. Then the brush is not completely cleaned when the painter switches to yellow, and the first star (1) comes out very blue. The blue components remain in the brush for a bit longer, but eventually fade out.
What's fun about this is that we can retrace the steps of the painter and follow along as they color the page. I believe it may even be possible to expand this to the whole foldout, where blue is a major part of all the central emblems, and a switch to yellow occurs when the last one (scales) has been done. I quickly drew on some arrows to indicate the general direction of coloring;
This teaches us that:
* Yellow and blue were applied in the same session. Blue first, then yellow.
* The whole foldout was likely painted at once, with perhaps some utilitarian considerations: blue central figures, "clean" brush once, then yellows starting with all the stars. (This part is more speculative).
I don't know if this reference was already discussed. You guys, have seen everything
Compare
f85v3
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
and
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Are these pictures similar?
If yes then would you say that f85v3 is about the element of air? We have clouds and birds and guys dropping rain.
And my reference seems to be from late 1500s or 1600s. Do you know earlier similar works?
And the last question - what is the animal in my picture? Chameleon? How he is related to air then?
Could the famous catoblepas/pangolin/armadillo be related to him? He also seems sitting on some cloud.
![[Image: catoblepas-enhanced-300x238.jpg]](https://ciphermysteries.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2019/06/catoblepas-enhanced-300x238.jpg)