| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 765 online users.
» 7 Member(s) | 755 Guest(s)
Applebot, Bing, Google, davidma, Lissu, magnesium, quimqu
|
| Latest Threads |
voynich dot net and its f...
Forum: News
Last Post: ReneZ
1 hour ago
» Replies: 13
» Views: 2,299
|
How to prove that the B-l...
Forum: Theories & Solutions
Last Post: Ruby Novacna
3 hours ago
» Replies: 76
» Views: 33,594
|
My Theory: RITE — Ritual ...
Forum: Theories & Solutions
Last Post: oaken
Yesterday, 08:47 PM
» Replies: 18
» Views: 1,118
|
Speculative fraud hypothe...
Forum: Theories & Solutions
Last Post: Torsten
Yesterday, 07:04 PM
» Replies: 86
» Views: 5,160
|
Positional Mimic Cipher (...
Forum: Analysis of the text
Last Post: quimqu
Yesterday, 06:58 PM
» Replies: 39
» Views: 1,375
|
No text, but a visual cod...
Forum: Theories & Solutions
Last Post: Antonio García Jiménez
Yesterday, 04:24 PM
» Replies: 1,560
» Views: 753,849
|
Eleven Moon Phases in Fol...
Forum: Astrology & Astronomy
Last Post: Jorge_Stolfi
Yesterday, 12:31 AM
» Replies: 119
» Views: 20,778
|
Origin of the Shield Shap...
Forum: Imagery
Last Post: Dobri
12-09-2025, 09:49 PM
» Replies: 110
» Views: 15,502
|
EVA to IPA
Forum: Analysis of the text
Last Post: Jorge_Stolfi
12-09-2025, 09:41 PM
» Replies: 13
» Views: 571
|
Formulaic text, "micro-co...
Forum: Analysis of the text
Last Post: Jorge_Stolfi
12-09-2025, 02:18 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 175
|
|
|
| Detecting Vowels in the Voynich Text |
|
Posted by: quimqu - 01-09-2025, 01:16 PM - Forum: Analysis of the text
- Replies (1)
|
 |
One of the big challenges when analyzing the Voynich manuscript is that we don’t even know what symbols are “vowels” and which are “consonants”. To explore this, I built an unsupervised pipeline that tries to infer vowel-like characters directly from the distribution of glyphs in the text, without assuming a known language.
To do this, I treat each glyph as a separate character. But in the MS, common pairs like “ch”, “sh”, “ai”, “in” might actually behave as single units. So, to detect these automatically, I compute PMI (Pointwise Mutual Information): if two symbols co-occur much more than expected by chance, I fuse them into a digraph token.This avoids false positives like treating “c” as a vowel just because it appears almost always in “ch.”
Then I train a simple HMM with two hidden states: one meant to represent “vowel-like” positions, the other “consonant-like.” The model is biased to prefer alternation (V↔C), because in most languages vowels and consonants interleave rather than forming long runs.
But the HMM alone isn’t enough. So I add metrics that capture linguistic tendencies:
- Coverage: vowels tend to appear in many different words.
- Neighbor entropy: vowels have diverse neighbors on both sides (they can be surrounded by many different consonants).
- Repetition rate: I applied a threshold based on when they appear doubled (consonants are more often repeated).
- Position: vowels often appear inside words, not only at the edges.
Each of these gets a weight, and I combine them with the HMM score into a calibrated probability of being a vowel.
Languages typically have only a handful of vowels (say 4–8). So instead of accepting every symbol above 0.5, I impose a parsimonious prior:- I target ~6 vowels in total.
- Candidates must pass a minimum probability threshold.
- I choose the set that minimizes structural loss, i.e., reduces long VV or CC runs and increases alternation.
I can configure the script to work on latin like languages, Indo-European languages, Semitic languages, Syllabic languages... setting the vowel patterns for them.
The result is a short list of the most “vowel-like” glyphs or digraphs.
I have tested:
Indo-European languages often have 5–8 vowels, noticeable V↔C alternation, and frequent diphthongs; this config favors ~6 vowels, rewards alternation and neighbor diversity, and lets strong data-driven digraphs emerge without hardwired seeds. This is the result:
Indo-European
| Voynichese | EVA | prob_vowel |
| o | o | 0.983284 |
| y | y | 0.970378 |
| a | a | 0.886179 |
| k | k | 0.865411 |
| t | t | 0.824919 |
| l | l | 0.709329 |
| ch | ch | 0.684790 |
| c | c | 0.660998 |
| f | f | 0.658652 |
| p | p | 0.640008 |
| s | s | 0.624870 |
| ai | ai | 0.602096 |
Semitic scripts often omit short vowels and allow heavy consonant clustering; this setup targets ~3 vowel-like symbols, relaxes alternation and repetition penalties, and keeps digraph selection fully data-driven. This is the result:
Semitic
| Voynichese | EVA | prob_vowel |
| o | o | 0.978236 |
| y | y | 0.904206 |
| k | k | 0.888190 |
| t | t | 0.809498 |
| d | d | 0.792952 |
| a | a | 0.763163 |
| l | l | 0.750061 |
| h | h | 0.661877 |
| s | s | 0.654497 |
| r | r | 0.632587 |
| p | p | 0.625348 |
| f | f | 0.619525 |
Syllabic scripts pack consonant+vowel into single signs, so we weaken alternation, fuse more bigrams to approximate CV units, use gentler repetition/edge penalties, and select a flexible 3–7 set of vowel-like nuclei. This is the result:
Syllabic
| Voynichese | EVA | prob_vowel |
| o | o | 0.975626 |
| y | y | 0.945105 |
| t | t | 0.796126 |
| a | a | 0.756872 |
| k | k | 0.748639 |
| r | r | 0.702806 |
| ch | ch | 0.685732 |
| l | l | 0.643413 |
| ol | ol | 0.634971 |
| s | s | 0.608752 |
| sh | sh | 0.604313 |
| d | d | 0.581746 |
Arabic is an abjad where short vowels are often omitted and consonant clusters are common, so this config targets ~3 vowel-like symbols, weakens alternation and repetition penalties, and keeps digraph discovery fully data-driven. This is the result:
Arabic
| Voynichese | EVA | prob_vowel |
| o | o | 0.960930 |
| y | y | 0.866163 |
| k | k | 0.852621 |
| t | t | 0.762965 |
| d | d | 0.744871 |
| s | s | 0.711418 |
| l | l | 0.705106 |
| a | a | 0.693979 |
| h | h | 0.689840 |
| e | e | 0.660995 |
| r | r | 0.618145 |
| ch | ch | 0.598030 |
In every configuration tested, the glyph o comes out as the clearest vowel, with y and a also very strong. What surprises me much is the appearance of k and t, the common gallows seem to act as “vowel-like,” though they might act as semi-vowels or special cases, the patterns fit well with a “vowel-like” pattern. As you can see, some languages result in having 2grams in the top “vowel-like” list, what gives us an idea that the configuration for different language types gives different outputs.
|
|
|
| A new hypothesis: The Voynich Manuscript as a Slavic-based macaronic mixed language |
|
Posted by: BadBigX - 30-08-2025, 09:40 PM - Forum: ChatGPTrash
- Replies (8)
|
|
Hello everyone,
I would like to share a new hypothesis developed with AI-assisted analysis (GPT-5). This is not presented as a final solution, but as a feasibility study suggesting that the Voynich Manuscript is neither random nor meaningless, but a systematic mixed idiom.
Core idea
The Herbal section shows consistent correlations between plant illustrations and recurring word families (morphemes). These morphemes appear to align with specific plant parts (leaves, roots, flowers). On mixed folios, the corresponding word families appear together, reflecting the illustrated combination.
Corpus examined
12 representative Herbal folios:- Leaf-dominant: f1r, f8r, f26r, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
- Root-dominant: f2r, f6r, f16r, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
- Flower-dominant: f9v, f16v, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
- Mixed: f33v, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Findings- Leaves → morphemes like
saral
,
araral
,
sharal
- Roots → morphemes like
otal
,
otol
,
otaly
- Flowers → morphemes like
okar
,
okaly
,
okal
- Mixed folios → combinations (
otal
+
okaly
)
These patterns repeat consistently across folios and correspond to the dominant botanical features in the illustrations.
Linguistic parallels- Slavic roots (14th–15th century):
- otal
↔ kořen / korzeń (root)
- okar/okaly
↔ květ / kwiat (flower)
- Romance/Latin endings:
-al, -ol, -aly
resemble Latinized case endings.
- Possible Germanic influence: e.g.
saral
↔ kraut.
Interpretation
The VM text may represent a Slavic-based macaronic language, with Slavic lexical stems, Romance flexional endings, and some Germanic influence. This aligns with the cultural context of 15th-century Bohemia/Northern Italy, where such multilingual blends were common.
Conclusion
This is a testable hypothesis: the Herbal section follows a coded recipe logic, with plant parts directly linked to recurring textual morphemes. It suggests the VM is not nonsense, but an encrypted or deliberately obscured transmission of botanical–medical knowledge.
I would be very interested in feedback, criticism, and further testing of this approach.
The next step would be a full statistical evaluation of all Herbal folios.
(Posted under pseudonym for privacy – I’m simply interested in constructive feedback.)
|
|
|
|
| Bad news: f116v was substantially mangled by Retracer |
|
Posted by: Jorge_Stolfi - 30-08-2025, 04:05 PM - Forum: Marginalia
- Replies (20)
|
 |
I just noticed now that You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. was extensively damaged by insects, and significant parts of the writing were "restored" by someone who may have grossly misinterpreted what remained of it.
The damage is clearly visible on the Beinecke 2014 scans at 2x magnification, as sharply delimited patches where the parchment has a very rough texture. Most of those patches connect to the wormholes, and many extend along creases of the parchment which would have created a space between You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and the back cover, which the insects could crawl into. They surely must be areas where the surface of the parchment -- and any writing on it -- was completely scraped away.
- One patch extends diagonally across the text, along a crease of the parchment, through the 3rd cross on line 2 and the "f" of "gafmich" on line 4.
- Another patch extends over the whole garbled glyph on line 2, below the largest of the wormholes just below the top edge.
- Another patch includes the first letter of the "portad" on line 2.
There may be many more scraped-out areas but they are not as obvious as those above. For instance, patch 3 above may also include the "r" of the "portad", if not the whole word. Maybe they are more visible in the multi-spectral images with oblique illumination (sequence numbers 032-030 and 031-039).
It is also clear that an attempt was made to restore some of the lost text. The evidence includes the fact that the ink of the garbled glyph in patch 2 is solid brown, whereas glyphs in other worm-scraped areas have the expected appearance -- pitted, or even reduced to scattered dots. Ditto for the mangled "to" in "multos".
The restoration obviously happened after the worms did their damage, and therefore many years (centuries?) after the original text was written. In fact, as in page f1r, the insects may have been attracted by glue from the cover that offsetted onto the adjacent page, and thus must have been after the book was bound.
In that case, it seems that the Restorer failed to restore some of the damaged glyphs, and made many wrong guesses about others. Which of course has a huge impact on the "decipherment" of those lines.
In fact, I suspect that the original writing was in Voynichese, and it was the Restorer who turned it into that Latin-maybe-sort-of script. Note that the word on line 2, just above the end of "maria" on line 3, starts with a bona-fide Voynichese bench Ch.
Perhaps line 2 was not "michton oladabas" but qotain CThey okad akad qoaiin kChd qoChCKh Cho ...
All the best, if possible... --jorge
|
|
|
|
| the comparison of sh and ch |
|
Posted by: Petrasti - 29-08-2025, 02:52 PM - Forum: Analysis of the text
- Replies (15)
|
|
I used You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. to compare the words.
In total, I compared 4357 words in all folios that have an “c+h” (at the beginning, in the middle, at the end, or standing alone) with the change to “ch.” There are 3815 identical words that only differ in c+h to ch. (including multiple occurrences) That corresponds to 88%. In other words, around 88% (deviations of a few percent are possible) of the words that appear in the manuscript with c+h are identical except for the change to ch.
Is the c+h to ch change the same word or two different words? I think we are dealing here with a sound change.
The following further anomalies exist:
The individual occurrences that do not show a c+h to ch change are halfway longer than we are used to in the manuscript. Often these are compound words that also exist individually in the manuscript.
Here is a brief example:
c+heolkchy = c+heol kchy
otalc+hedy = otal c+hedy
okeolc+hey = okeol c+hey
dalteoc+hy = dal teo c+hy
There are a few more peculiarities that require closer examination.
for example:
root word stem
chor
also exist as:
c+hor, cThor, cPhor, cFhor, ckhor, kchor, pchor, fchor, tchor, qotchor, qopchor, qokchor, qofchor, cheor, c+heor, dchor, ochor, ychor,
the comparison of sh and ch.pdf (Size: 1,014.85 KB / Downloads: 14)
|
|
|
|
| Finding patterns in Voynich words via a Hidden Markov Model |
|
Posted by: quimqu - 27-08-2025, 11:09 PM - Forum: Analysis of the text
- Replies (7)
|
|
Dear all,
These holidays I’ve been exploring how to analyze the Voynich manuscript’s word structure with models from data science - text analyse branch. Checking the Markov Models, I found some information about Hidden Markov Model (HMM) and explored a code that runs on EVA transliteration. The goal is not decipherment, but to quantify recurring patterns in how word pieces combine and to score how “typical” each word looks under those rules.
A Hidden Markov Model is a simple probabilistic model with hidden states (unseen “roles”), transition probabilities between states, and emission probabilities for the observable symbols. From data, an HMM learns those transitions and emissions; for a new sequence it can decode the most likely path of roles and compute a log-likelihood that tells how well the model explains the sequence. Voynich "words" show strong positional regularities (common openings and endings), and an HMM gives a compact way to (i) discover recurring roles behind word pieces, (ii) quantify which pieces go where, and (iii) measure how typical a word is under the learned rules.
What I did: - Tokenized and cleaned paragraphs.
- Discovered affix candidates (short frequent strings with high branching entropy).
- Segmented each word into prefix | stem | suffix with a simple scorer that prefers productive affixes and reasonable stem lengths.
- Built sequences of morphological tokens (such as pre:qo, st:dai, suf:n).
- Trained an HMM on those sequences (learning states, transitions, and emissions).
- Decoded each word with Viterbi to get its state path and log-likelihood.
- Exported a state-transition graph (below) and an You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. to explore words (click the link, I recommend you to check it out!)
[size=1][font='Proxima Nova Regular', 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]![[Image: GlishM5.png]](https://i.imgur.com/GlishM5.png) [/font][/size]
How to read the state graph:- Boxes are states (latent “roles”). Each label lists the state’s top pieces: P = top prefix fragments, T = top stem fragments, F = top final/suffix fragments.
- Edges are transitions and their width is proportional to probability. Styles mean different things:
- solid black = within a word (typical flows such as START → MID and MID → END)- dashed gray = from the end of one word to the beginning of the next (e.g., END → START or END → MID; also MID → START when a word has no explicit suffix)- dotted light = unusual directions
- Some states behave like START, MID, or END by how they are used after training.
- Read the solid paths left to right to see typical inside-word sequences of roles. Dashed paths show what tends to follow in the next word. For example, a dashed S5 (END) → S4 (MID) means words that end in S5 are often followed by a word that begins in an S4-like role; it does not mean “go back to MID within the same word.”
What the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. shows when you click a word:- Basics: the (prefix, stem, suffix) segmentation; the morph tokens used (e.g., pre:qo, st:dai, suf:n); the token IDs and whether any mapped to UNK; the word’s log-likelihood under the HMM.
- Decoded path: the state sequence (e.g., S3 → S2 → S5) and mapped role names; for each morph token, its emission probability in that state and its rank among that state’s emissions (how typical it is).
- State context: for each state visited by the word, the state’s top prefix/stem/suffix pieces, plus the pieces observed in the current word with their probabilities.
- Across the page, each word is colored by log-likelihood bins from red to green (least to most typical), using the 1–99% range to avoid outliers.
How this could help with the manuscript:- A compact, testable “grammar of pieces” for Voynich words.
- A way to compare sections or folios: train on one part, score another.
- A tool to spot anomalies or outliers (very low-likelihood words) and dominant regularities (roles and paths).
- Exported emissions and transitions for further statistics and plots.
|
|
|
|
I solved the Voynich manuscript by pictures! |
|
Posted by: Worldmaster777 - 27-08-2025, 08:51 PM - Forum: Theories & Solutions
- No Replies
|
|
Hello!
I’m Vladimir Aristippus Robespierre from Russia, Moscow. And I solved the Voynich manuscript by pictures.
I didn’t spend years of my life solving the manuscript, it happened by accident. It so happened that I already had all the necessary knowledge in my head, thanks to my passion for personality typologies. I accidentally saw the Voynich manuscript and decided to flip through it out of curiosity, not expecting anything special, but immediately understood the meaning of some pictures and became interested. Then, in the process of further consideration of the pictures and reflections, I understood the meaning of many more pictures from the Voynich manuscript.
So, what is this entire manuscript about? The manuscript contains information about the structure of the universe and humans, and how humans interact with the universe.
The 6-page scheme is the most important scheme in the manuscript, which sets the themes for the other sections of the manuscript. This scheme shows how a person perceives the world around them through their senses. The central circle in the scheme represents the brain, the 6 towers represent the 6 types of sensations, and the cloud above the towers represents the soul (mind).
The biological section describes in more detail the work of the body’s organs, in particular the sensory organs and reproductive organs. On the pages describing the work of the sensory organs, bathing women represent nerve impulses. And if a woman has a headgear, then the nerve impulse carries information.
The reproductive theme is presented in the manuscript in the context that when a person dies, their soul goes to eternity, and then comes back to this world through a fertilized egg. There are no recipes in the manuscript against unwanted pregnancy or anything like that.
Also, how people perceive the world around them depends on their personality types. Personality types are innate and do not change throughout life. The manuscript describes the process of the circulation of souls in the universe and their distribution by personality types. The stars in the manuscript represent souls.
Plants are not the subject of the Voynich manuscript at all. These are schemes on completely different topics, stylized as images of plants. The pages of the botanical section, in particular, contain schemes about the structure of the universe, the senses and on the reproductive topic. This is why botanists cannot identify the plants in the Voynich manuscript. It makes sense that if you are encrypting the text, you should also encrypt the schemes.
You can read about all of this in my report in English:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
I also have a video in Russian where I explain everything in more detail:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
|
|
|
|
| 116v Multiple Entries |
|
Posted by: RobGea - 27-08-2025, 04:48 PM - Forum: Marginalia
- Replies (44)
|
 |
It has been suggested that the marginalia on folio 116v is not 1 coherent unit but rather made up of multiple entries,
that may or may not be related to one another[1].
In this image the marginalia is broken down into 6 blocks(figures) with block 1 having three subunits.
The proposition is:
These 6 figures are the multiple entries, figs.1abc are all from the vms author and the rest are considered as separate entries.
These entries could be made 5 minutes apart or 50 years apart and by one person or multiple people.
~ Description ~
1a. EVA-'oror sheey' { but it is a little far from the doodles }
1b. Nymph
1c. Goat, cloven hooves, horns { but the tail is very large for a goat }
2. 'lab' = german for 'rennet' // doodle is possibly a goats stomach
3. 'pox leber' = German for 'goat liver' followed by 2 Unknown words
4. possible charm with crosses and rhyme structure; on the 2nd line the 1st four words endswith 'x'
5. Unknown text (illustrative reading: 'valsch vbren' )
6. Unknown text (illustrative reading: 'so nim gasmich')
~ Sequence and relation of Entries ~
1abc) Original author, scribe, creator; Doodles and text.
2) Unknown actor; draws goats stomach and word 'lab', in reference to Goat image fig.1c.
3) Unknown actor; extends the 'goat' theme from fig.1c and fig.2. with the 'pox leber' text.
4) Unknown actor; adds a 'charm' -- possibly to protect any readers of the vms.
5) Unknown actor; makes either a response to fig.1a, e.g an attempted translation of the 2 voynichese words.
Or a response to fig.4, -- possibly the phrase 'it is proven' sometimes added to more historically recent charms[2].
6) Unknown actor; makes a response to fig.5 -- if 'gasmich' means goats milk then this is a possible reference to the goat theme ie figs 1c,2 and 3.
~ Summary of themes ~
figs 1a, 1b --> Doodles
figs 1c, 2, 3 --> Goat theme
fig 4 --> Charm
fig 5 --> charm related
fig 6 --> Goat reference and possibly also references fig 5.
[1] The Voynich Temple - F116v: most likely readings based on glyph shapes - Reason 6: the nature of last-page scribbles in general
[2] Textual Magic: Charms and Written Amulets in Medieval England,Katherine Storm Hindley, 2023
|
|
|
|
| voynich manuscript Hypothesis |
|
Posted by: Jasonr986 - 27-08-2025, 04:43 PM - Forum: ChatGPTrash
- Replies (2)
|
|
Hi everyone,
So I'm not really an expert in language or codex deciphering, I jut love learning history and connecting dots.. However, I have come up with a hypothesis that might explain where it came from, who wrote it and why (I apologize if it comes through a bit messy, but I have included my research, references and what I know from around the supposed time it was written, as well as hints at other languages that had a similar issue in the past).
Abstract
The Voynich Manuscript (Yale, Beinecke MS 408) has resisted decipherment since its rediscovery in 1912. While theories have ranged from hoax to scientific encyclopaedia, this paper proposes an alternative cultural reading: the manuscript may function as a grimoire, a practitioner’s handbook of herbal, astrological, and ritual knowledge rather than a purely scientific or encyclopaedic work. By comparing its contents with known magical and folk traditions of the Middle Ages and considering the social pressures of the period, this paper suggests that the Voynich represents a localized system of ritual practice, encoded in a unique script for the safety of its practitioners.
1. Introduction
The Voynich Manuscript has long puzzled cryptographers, linguists, and historians. Most attempts at decipherment have focused on identifying a linguistic key to the mysterious script. An alternative approach is to examine the manuscript as a cultural artifact rather than solely a linguistic puzzle. When viewed through the lens of medieval grimoires, books of occult knowledge that blended natural philosophy, astrology, and ritual, the manuscript’s contents align with patterns of magical handbooks circulating in late medieval Europe.
2. Literacy, Secrecy, and Hidden Scripts
Roman literacy and the Latin alphabet dominated much of medieval Europe, but alternative systems existed and were often overlooked. For example, Ogham, the Irish alphabet, was dismissed as mere symbols until properly identified as writing centuries later. Similarly, the Voynich script may represent either a concealed system or a deliberately obfuscated text designed to protect its contents from outsiders.
Witch hunts began to intensify in the early fifteenth century, but the preceding centuries were already a time of social and religious tension. Healers, druids, and women practicing folk medicine in the 14th century could face suspicion or persecution. In this context, esoteric knowledge would have been carefully guarded, often shared only within trusted groups or covens. This may explain why the manuscript contains hints that multiple authors contributed to it, while the text itself remains indecipherable to anyone outside the intended circle of practitioners. Encoding knowledge in a unique script would have allowed them to transmit wisdom safely without exposing themselves to accusation.
3. Herbology and Healing Practices
The Voynich’s largest section is its botanical compendium, containing drawings of plants that appear both naturalistic and hybrid. This mirrors traditions of witchcraft and folk medicine, in which herbal knowledge was central to healing rituals, remedies, and potions. Richard Kieckhefer, in Forbidden Rites, demonstrates how magical handbooks frequently combined natural lore with ritual instruction. Similarly, Owen Davies in Grimoires: A History of Magic Books describes the widespread use of herbal recipes in magical contexts. The Voynich’s peculiar plants may encode symbolic or local identifications, designed to preserve knowledge within a closed tradition.
4. Astrology and Ritual Knowledge
The zodiac diagrams and astronomical charts in the Voynich resemble astrological treatises but can also be interpreted as ritual calendars. Astrology was a cornerstone of magical practice because it determined the timing of spells, healings, and divinations. Both witches and learned magicians consulted planetary influences to guide ritual activity. Nicholas Clulee, in John Dee’s Natural Philosophy, shows how even elite intellectuals in the sixteenth century relied on astrology to integrate science, religion, and magic. The Voynich’s astrological imagery therefore aligns with broader traditions in which celestial knowledge was inseparable from ritual practice.
5. Ritual Purification and Baths
The so-called “balneological” section, with repeated imagery of nude female figures in baths or tubes, is often interpreted as medical. However, such imagery may equally reflect ritual purification. Water played an important role in magical and folk healing traditions, used for cleansing, exorcism, and spiritual preparation. Inquisitorial records from witch trials often describe baths, anointings, or ritual washings associated with both healing and protection from evil spirits. Within this framework, the Voynich’s bathing figures could symbolize ritual purification rather than strictly medical treatment.
6. The Grimoire Hypothesis
Taken together, the Voynich’s major components of herbology, astrology, and purification rituals align closely with known features of grimoires. These books were rarely theoretical and served as practical manuals for practitioners. The timing of the manuscript, likely in the 14th or early 15th century, coincides with growing social suspicion toward witches, healers, and folk practitioners. This environment of tension may have encouraged practitioners to encode their knowledge in a script readable only by members of their group. The hints of multiple authors may reflect collaborative work within a coven or trusted circle, further protecting the knowledge from outsiders while allowing internal transmission. Unlike the better known Picatrix or Key of Solomon, which circulated in Latin and were accessible to learned readers, the Voynich may represent a localized or folk magical tradition that required secrecy for survival.
7. Conclusion
The grimoire hypothesis does not claim to have deciphered the Voynich script, but it situates the manuscript in a cultural and historical framework that explains its structure and contents. As Richard Kieckhefer and Owen Davies have shown, grimoires often blended herbal, astrological, and ritual knowledge, encoded in writing systems accessible only to insiders. The Voynich Manuscript, with its unique combination of herbal illustrations, zodiac charts, and ritual baths, fits this pattern. If correct, this hypothesis suggests the manuscript preserves a fragment of Europe’s esoteric heritage, documenting the practical knowledge of a magical or healing tradition that would otherwise have been lost.
References
- Kieckhefer, Richard. Forbidden Rites: A Necromancer’s Manual of the Fifteenth Century. Penn State University Press, 1998.
- Davies, Owen. Grimoires: A History of Magic Books. Oxford University Press, 2009.
- Clulee, Nicholas H. John Dee’s Natural Philosophy: Between Science and Religion. Routledge, 1988.
- Yale University, Beinecke Rare Book & Manuscript Library. MS 408 (Voynich Manuscript).
- Thorndike, Lynn. A History of Magic and Experimental Science. Columbia University Press, 1923–58.
I would appreciate your feedback and thoughts too. Remember this is just a hypothesis and I am more a history lover than a manuscript decipherer, but have had a fascination with the Voynich manuscript for a few years now.
|
|
|
|
| Zodiac Inversion Hypothesis – Sagittarius Crossbowman as Guide to Lunar Inverse |
|
Posted by: TmSauca - 27-08-2025, 09:04 AM - Forum: Imagery
- Replies (5)
|
|
Hi all,
Re: Folio 73v:
The human crossbowman's bolt points to the downward-star nymph (which is ~8-o'clock position). I believe this male/sun is pointing toward the female nymph telling us to invert what we are looking at. Thus, I propose the system inverts: the female/lunar counterpart across the 30 nymph ring defines the actual mapping. This would reframe the zodiac not as degree lists, but as lunisolar day mapping (29-30 days).
Some things that confirm my idea (along with some further thought on my end):
1. The inversion rule (Sun to Moon, and Male to Female) fits symbolic inversion practices of the 15th century; and the consistency of 29-30 nymphs per ring across the manuscript confirms a lunar cycle theory.
2. Sagittarius being a deliberate pointer to the downward-star nymph suggests to me intentional signaling.
3. The gender inversion also fits the broader symbolic traditions of the 15th century. The motif of the crossbowman matches Central European (Bohemian/Hussite-war era) iconography. I believe our author originated in Bohemia or was there during the religious wars, and that's why this book was created in the first place.
Some other thoughts I had:
1. Was the manuscript authored by a woman? Given the focus on cycles, or by a man with a medical/alchemical background?
2. Do the colored stars function as secondary markers (lunar/planetary, or cycle heaviness)?
3. Ultimately I suppose I'm curious if there are anomalies distributed in a way that supports the inversion model I proposed?
I would love to hear your thoughts on whether this model holds when applied across the other zodiac folios.
Happy hunting!
|
|
|
|
|