| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 473 online users.
» 2 Member(s) | 467 Guest(s)
Applebot, Baidu, Bing, Google, crypticiae
|
| Latest Threads |
No text, but a visual cod...
Forum: Theories & Solutions
Last Post: Jorge_Stolfi
1 hour ago
» Replies: 1,743
» Views: 1,167,056
|
Voynich is encrypted ENOC...
Forum: Theories & Solutions
Last Post: Jorge_Stolfi
1 hour ago
» Replies: 131
» Views: 15,192
|
My Solution – Abbreviated...
Forum: Theories & Solutions
Last Post: JoJo_Jost
5 hours ago
» Replies: 18
» Views: 639
|
A One-Page Ledger Method ...
Forum: Analysis of the text
Last Post: Dunsel
9 hours ago
» Replies: 143
» Views: 5,783
|
Rosettes castle and Rocca...
Forum: Imagery
Last Post: DG97EEB
Yesterday, 03:22 PM
» Replies: 8
» Views: 316
|
Who is even still working...
Forum: Theories & Solutions
Last Post: anyasophira
Yesterday, 05:53 AM
» Replies: 20
» Views: 773
|
What is special about Voy...
Forum: Imagery
Last Post: Bernd
26-05-2026, 10:56 PM
» Replies: 25
» Views: 24,260
|
Why and how the text coul...
Forum: Theories & Solutions
Last Post: JoJo_Jost
26-05-2026, 07:01 PM
» Replies: 228
» Views: 26,309
|
9 Radial Fully Mapped to ...
Forum: Astrology & Astronomy
Last Post: rikforto
26-05-2026, 04:29 PM
» Replies: 4
» Views: 647
|
The Voynich as a rhythmic...
Forum: Analysis of the text
Last Post: nintus
25-05-2026, 10:32 AM
» Replies: 11
» Views: 1,154
|
|
|
| Why is promoting a specific theory on every single thread of the forum permitted? |
|
Posted by: Yavernoxia - 21-11-2025, 10:19 AM - Forum: Voynich Talk
- Replies (6)
|
 |
Dear all,
I'm opening this thread to discuss why a specific user is promoting his theory in every single thread, post and section of the forum, and why this behaviour seems to be tolerated.
I'm talking obviously about the scribe + author + retracing theory. Honestly, it's becoming unbearable. For example, when reading a thread about marginalia, you'll see comments from that user like 'But this wasn't in the original text by the author! No, this was retraced!'. Then you open another post about analysis of the text, you'll see the same comments again: 'But the scribe isn't the author, and this was retraced!'. Literally in every post, even when it has nothing to do with it, the same (highly improbable, in my opinion) theory is always brought up and the thread starts to go off topic from there.
Specific theories like this one should be kept within You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.; as far as I'm concerned, don't ruin the reading experience of the entire forum.
|
|
|
| The Cliffs of Moher |
|
Posted by: Doireannjane - 20-11-2025, 11:39 PM - Forum: Theories & Solutions
- Replies (62)
|
 |
I propose that the manuscript is at least partially based in The Burren of County Clare and the cliffs of Moher in Ireland.
I'll provide comparison of the botany drawn in the manuscript and that of the biodiverse region of The Burren and other coinciding climatic, historical and mythological elements.
I will also provide some textual evidence from the manuscript (the textual element will presuppose that my Irish translation has already been evaluated and deemed accurate. The textual element will be considered anecdotal evidence for the time being. I ask that this be entertained and that your overarching linguistic analysis take a backseat for this thread).
This thread will also look at the manuscript choices, the chemistry in pigment and the need for gall ink with climate, as well as the use/sharing and passing of the manuscript as an object of purpose both as it was made and in the following years.
In my research now, I'm trying to narrow down some things geographically now that I know there are some places referenced by name. I have reason to believe the woods near a Monastery in County Clare may be referenced. This thread will also discuss the history of Irish Monks and Nuns spending time in and around Italy and the movement of the manuscript leading up to and after Italy.
|
|
|
|
| f115r / Hand @ or Hand 3 ? |
|
Posted by: dashstofsk - 20-11-2025, 12:38 PM - Forum: Physical material
- Replies (11)
|
 |
Could anyone say why it is that You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. needs to have '$H=@' in the transliteration page header?
This seems to me to be wrong.
Pages 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. are on the same side of the parchment sheet. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is on the left side, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is on the right side. Now, if you look closely at You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. you will see that the writing is in a colour that is darker than normal for quire 20. Also the top lines in f115r are similarly dark. Moreover because there is good evidence that the manuscript was written sheet-by-sheet and not in book page order it is likely that You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and the top lines in f115r were written in one sitting by the same person.
Would this not be sufficient reason for making hand 3 the writer of f115r?
Some of you will notice that You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. which faces You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. also has its top lines dark. However I still believe sheet-by-sheet to be the most likely conjecture.
|
|
|
|
| A Hydro-Phytotherapeutic Interpretation of the Voynich Manuscript |
|
Posted by: Gabriel Gottig - 20-11-2025, 06:04 AM - Forum: Theories & Solutions
- Replies (4)
|
|
Note: I will not be studying this topic further; I’m simply sharing this idea in case it is useful to someone who works on Voynich research.
I would like to share a personal hypothesis about the Voynich Manuscript that may offer a different perspective on its content.
After examining the botanical section and the so-called balneological section, I propose that both may be connected through a single conceptual framework: a hydro-phytotherapeutic system—an attempt to understand and replicate the healing properties of medicinal plant roots through networks of flowing water.
This idea comes from two main observations:
- Unusually detailed and prominent root illustrations.
In the Voynich Manuscript, roots are depicted with exceptional detail and visual emphasis compared to the typical medieval herbal tradition. This suggests that medicinal properties may have been attributed primarily to the roots rather than to the full plant.
- The balneological section shows networks of pipes, channels, vessels, and flowing water.
These structures do not resemble anatomical diagrams or realistic bath installations. Instead, they appear to represent idealized hydraulic systems. Some of them connect symbolically to human figures, as if illustrating therapeutic baths or processes involving water circulation.
Based on this, I hypothesize that the author might have been attempting to conceptualize a water-circulation system whose structure imitates the functional properties of plant roots. The idea would be that, just as roots absorb, transform, filter, and distribute substances, a designed hydraulic network could produce “healing water” either without using the herbs directly or in combination with them, using the water system as an enlarged artificial “stem.”
In modern terms, it resembles a pre-scientific, proto-hydrotherapy or proto-spagyric concept, where the geometry and flow of water play a therapeutic role inspired by botany.
I’m not claiming that this hypothesis is correct or verifiable. I simply haven’t found prior research exploring this exact connection between root morphology and hydraulic systems as a unifying conceptual model. If anyone working in Voynich studies—historians, botanists, linguists, cryptographers, or independent researchers—finds this idea interesting, I would be honored if they explored it with more academic rigor.
|
|
|
|
| New Podcast (German) |
|
Posted by: Torsten - 19-11-2025, 09:21 PM - Forum: News
- No Replies
|
 |
A podcast in German: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Quote:In diesem Zeitzeichen erzählt Martin Herzog: welche Spekulationen es über das Voynich-Manuskript gibt, wo das Original-Dokument heute aufbewahrt wird, welche Auffälligkeiten die 200 Pergament-Seiten aufweisen, was außer Pflanzen und nackten Menschen sonst noch darin abgebildet ist, was Kaiser Rudolf II. mit dem Manuskript zu tun hat.
|
|
|
|
| New podcast |
|
Posted by: LisaFaginDavis - 19-11-2025, 02:25 PM - Forum: News
- No Replies
|
 |
Here are both parts of my Voynich podcast on "Archaeology Tea Break" with Matilda Siebrecht:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
- Lisa
|
|
|
|
| The voynich manuscript as a diabolic tool to lure people into mental health issues? |
|
Posted by: Kaybo - 18-11-2025, 01:22 AM - Forum: Voynich Talk
- Replies (9)
|
|
I have the feeling that some people can get very obsessed with the manuscript and that it can have a negative impact on their lives. I can see that it tries to lure me into it and it is very difficult to not loose myself. If I read about some theories, then I think some people are too much into it and that this has a bad effect on them.
I just want that out to be a warning. Take a break, if it is overwhelming you.
|
|
|
|
| A conceptual internal plant match? |
|
Posted by: Koen G - 17-11-2025, 12:33 PM - Forum: Imagery
- Replies (28)
|
 |
With the renewed interest in internal plant matching, I was reminded of a specific case that would be different from all the rest. It's basically the opposite of Stolfi's "complete plant" requirement - more of a conceptual match. I suspect that this is meaningful in some way, though I have no idea how. However, I understand it will appear as a stretch to many people.
I mentioned it briefly You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. but didn't really focus on it. I will try to explain the situation as best as I can. We are comparing two parts of the drawings on f55v and f 99v : one "literal" visual similarity and one conceptual. It appears that the literal comparison was included in our spreadsheet at some point, referring to an old post by Wladimir D, number 12 here: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
I liked to think of the thing as a fancy moustache, but Wladimir called it a brush, so let's go with that since he clearly has the precedent. Let's look at the "brush" elements side by side:
So far, we are still talking about a match in shape. I know that they are not exactly the same, but look a bit closer and similarities pile up. Both structures have a horizontal line on top, which leaves an opening for connecting to a vertical stick in the middle. Both are structured symmetrically, with longer parts hanging down towards the outsides. Both have ca. 5 parts on each side, though it's hard to count. The similarity between both structures seems to increase when the far right part on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is considered "extra", which could be defended on the basis of the linework.
Even their absolute size looks somewhat similar, though this is difficult to compare.
Anyway, that's all pretty standard, we have a bunch of comparisons like these. What makes it weird though, is what happens when you zoom out on their respective pages and look to the bottom right of each "brush".
I will argue that these are two elephants, each expressed differently due to their presence in a root and a leaf respectively. I know this is a claim that will elicit booing from the audience, but there is some supporting evidence:
- Voynich plants are commonly accepted to contain zoomorphic and other non-botanical elements. The concept of shaping plant parts like something else is not unique to the VM (see the "plants of the Alchemists" tradition or plants like Palma Christi...) but some of the concrete utterances are not attested elsewhere. The VM plants are unusually prolific in zoomorphic inclusions, even by conservative assessments.
- f99v is on the same side of the same sheet as f102r. This means that originally, the "elephant leaf" (partially hidden in the fold) sat right next to the "mandrake". It's on the same folio that's infamous for having the best small-plant matches with large plants. One of those is You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , generally thought of as zoomorphic. Another, corresponding to You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , has been given a feline tail on the right, showing evidence for partial zoomorphology.
- What requires more squinting? Seeing the big green leaf as an elephant's head with a curled-up trunk, or seeing it as a reliable rendition of an existing plant species? I'd love to see what the "literal plant pictures" crew makes of this one.
Might one be the being as it can be expressed with the luscious properties of a leaf, and the other with the sharp and wiry properties of a root? You can even overlay them and draw a decent elephant, although this is just for fun as it cannot have been the intention of the MS.
This begs the question: isn't the shape of the leaf actually too good? Did 15th century Europeans have access to images that capture the qualities of elephants to this extent? We're all familiar with the ridiculously bad examples from bestiaries, they get posted a lot (if you haven't seen them before, google "medieval elephant", you're in for a treat). But those tend to be from early centuries, when depictions of animals in general weren't particularly reliable. To test whether the elements of the leaf were known as elephant properties by the early 15th century, we must find at least: - the trunk is able to curl upwards
- the trunk has a "ribbed" texture, or something like that
- the ears are large
- if the root also refers to the elephant, we must see some tusks that are much longer than those of a boar and point forward instead of straight up, with an upwards curve
At first glance, it appears that there are many elephant images, but certainly no standard. All of the properties I mentioned are toggled at will in every possible combination. But it's not hard to find them combined. For example, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. from an early 14th century bestiary basically has them all, including the profile of the head, position of the eye, and even right facing depiction:
![[Image: minimg102376.jpg]](https://bestiary.ca/beastimage/minimg102376.jpg)
WAIT A MINUTE
I just saw something while writing this post and reading the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. page about elephants where I found the above image. When I pointed out that the elephant is right next to the mandrake on the same foldout, I did so because I wanted to show a similarity of symbolism in plants, as well as the connections between this particular small-plant foldout and the large-plant pictures of the herbal section. But apparently the bestiary entry for elephants is all about mandrakes?
Quote:Male elephants are reluctant to mate, so when the female wants children, she and the male travel to the East, near Paradise, where the mandrake grows. The female elephant eats some mandrake, and then gives some to the male; they mate and the female immediately conceives. The female remains pregnant for two years, and can only give birth once. When it is time to give birth, the female wades into a pool up to her belly and gives birth there. If she gave birth on land, the elephant's enemy the dragon would devour the baby. To make sure the dragon cannot attack, the male elephant stands guard and tramples the dragon if it approaches the pool.
So not only do we see the VM elephant leaf facing a mandrake root. It is also positioned above remarkably blue and flowy roots, which is part of the same mandrake-eating story: the elephant eats the mandrake, then gives birth in a pool. Guess I got more conceptual connections than I expected...
|
|
|
|
|
