+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: Theories & Solutions (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-58.html)
+--- Thread: Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations (/thread-5160.html)
RE: Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations - MHTamdgidi_(Behrooz) - 02-02-2026
In my next set of posts (to be posted in a few hours, as they are still being finalized), I will announce my finding about the identity of the author of the Voynich manuscript.
When I joined this forum, I had arrived at a preliminary hypothesis about who the author of the Voynich manuscript was. That itself required rethinking much of the conceptual framework prevalent in Voynich manuscript studies. As I tried to explain in my previous posts, a most important aspect of the rethinking has to do with the narrow focus on the early 1400s, one that in my view has prevented a broader “solution space” (using ReneZ’s term) for investigating the Voynich manuscript.
But I wanted to do a more careful study of the manuscript and other evidence at hand in the context of conversations going on in this forum. In the process, I learned new ideas on my own or also as learned from others that increasingly confirmed my original hypothesis.
For me a more fruitful strategy for unriddling the manuscript has been to study its images and text in search of the identity of its author primarily, rather than the author’s thoughts and imagination per se. Doing the latter will be more like finding a hay in a hay stack, if we try to first figure out what the images (and text) mean in terms of reading the author’s mind.
I think that a strategy focusing on finding its author first based on clues in the manuscript itself can offer a more effective way of understanding the meaning of the symbols employed in the book. So, I have been more interested in finding any surviving “signatures” about her identity (aside from the sections lost or removed).
Now, I am confident that I have discovered the author of the Voynich manuscript. I am sure there will still be doubters, but for me the finding is now self-evident. This will then allow us to interpret the imaginal and textual content of the manuscript more effectively.
I believe that the finding is bound to shed a new light on the European medieval history and the meaning of the author’s legacy for the kind of “modernity” that emerged and is still with us.
In that light, the Voynich manuscript also served as an oracle for what she insightfully perceived as emerging in Europe, sending an important message to her future generations about how the continent and the broader world today can be reimagined and reinvented in favor of hopefully better outcomes.
A true appreciation of the finding requires an intimate acquaintance with the details of her life’s story in the context of her times to the extent available in a transdisciplinary and transcultural sociological imagination. It shows how studying the interaction of her personal troubles with the public issues of her time can offer a window to understanding why she decided to leave the (Voynich) manuscript as her legacy for future generations.
One of the implications of the finding for interpreting the language of the Voynich manuscript will be that it will narrow down the scope of choices to the languages she was educated, proficient, and regionally conversant in.
RE: Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations - MHTamdgidi_(Behrooz) - 02-02-2026
[note: I think I can include all I planned to send in this post]
In my view, the author of the Voynich manuscript was Margaret, Countess of Tyrol (Tirol) (1318-1369), named after parts of a favorite castle Casanova Castle (among others she used) she frequented that was called Maultasch (see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.) (the castle is said to have included swallowtail battlements, but lost over time [“The large complex consists of fortresses and ring walls with swallow-tailed battlements”]. But other castles she used even now display such swallow battlement features, such as the Runklestein Castle.
The name “Maultasch” became used in subsequent centuries as a derogatory term, however, since it means “pocket (or large) mouth.” I am certain the latter was just used to slander her and her legacy. She was, unfairly, the inspiration behind the so-called “ugly duchess” of whom even more slanderous images were made, some intentionally, some by indirect association (like a piece of art by Leonardo Davinci).
My purpose here is not to go into the details of her life more than even a long post allows. You can learn more about her online, both factual and the legends associated with her, some true, others not, many slanderous. But, historians have over time came to appreciate the true story of her life.
She was born in 1318 in the province of Bolzano (South Tyrol, now in Italy, but became a part of Habsburg Empire following her abdication in 1363). She died in Vienna, in retirement in 1369. From what I have read, she had an older sister who became terminally ill and unable to succeed as heir to their parents, so Margaret became her father’s de facto heir when she was very young.
At 12 she was arrange-married to a four-years younger John Henry of Luxemburg, and she hated it (he too, it seems), and more than being a personal matter, she felt the marriage was a political ploy to usurp her inherited rights. After her father died in 1335, she defended Tyrol, and ended up even expelling her first husband from her castle after he had gone hunting, accusing him of having been made impotent through magic or witchcraft, unable to enable her to conceive a child. But, the stories of who used magic or not have been told in reverse.
At that time, accusations of magic could be used for annulling marriage legally. And whatever the beliefs we have now, or they had then, even the church believed in such factors could have actual results and for that reason they were banned. Therefore, it would not be surprising that Margaret did her best to learn about botanical and magical and astrological sciences, believing that she also had a spiritual right and legacy to cultivate and defend. In her court fights, which basically ushered one of the first instances of secular rights to terminate a marriage for women, she had even the support of William Okham, a Franciscan English frier, scholar and philosopher who had taken refuge in her region at the time. He supported her right to annul her marriage due to the charge of impotence on the part of John Henry.
She ended up, even without and before the first marriage being annulled, to expel her husband from the castle, and marry Louis of Brandenburg, who was the son of the Holy Roman Emperor Louis IV. The emperor, perhaps also for political reasons, supported her and officially annulled the first marriage, and this led to Margaret and her second husband being excommunicated by the church. Eventually, however, she forced her way and the charges were dropped by the church, but she must have been deeply offended by the church in the process, as an institution.
Due to the above, she became subjected to lots of legends, pro or con, and slandering. She was extremely bright, highly educated and intelligent woman, and adept politician, speaking Latin and German (and local dialects, must have included Bavarian, I guess) fluently, and I am sure had lots of time to study her own life and astrological sciences of her time to make sense of the sadness she had felt throughout her life amid the challenges she faced in public life.
She ended up having (I think) three children with her second husband, but two of them died in childhood (there had been a cholera epidemic afflicting her region as well, not sure if that played a role). Her last and only son, Meinhard III (b. 1344) who would have been her heir died (in 1363) at 19 soon after his own marriage and two years after her father (Margaret’s husband) had died (in 1361).
They accused her of having poisoned her husband and son, which seem slanderous, since such a plan would have implied she wanted to do so for political reasons. But, instead, from sadness, she abdicated her position to the House of Habsburg in 1363, and left for Vienna for retirement before dying in 1369. I think she must have put her final touches on the Voynich manuscript in those retirement years to leave the only legacy she hoped she was leaving behind.
The University of Vienna was established in 1365, and given her long years of legal battles, she must have had a strong legal team to leave behind her legacy and the manuscript, instructing them (with payments received in advance), to put her legacy manuscript to a durable vellum manuscript, at a time her enemies had left the scene, several decades later (early 1400s). I think the first page of the Voynich manuscript is a statement of the legal obligations that were being fulfilled on her behalf posthumously.
How her manuscript traveled around, finding its way to French readers, would be interesting to explore. But at that time there was a strong movement emerging by women holding political power, and I would not be surprised if Yolande of Aragon (1384-1442), who was a strong patron of the arts and manuscripts (and a supporter of Joan of Arc) had known about the manuscript. She was a distant cousin of Margaret Maultasch).
Regarding the post 1400s history of the book, I think for reasons that may have had to do with extremely slanderous way she was had been treated, and/or for marketing reasons, her book was “forged” in the sense of the sections identifying her were removed and suppressed to make it sellable to Rudolf II. Whether the “cutting out” of the pages was more contemporary, only others may find out, but technically, given the puzzlement over the manuscript in Rudolf II’s time, I think it was done before the book’s sale to him.
As I had noted early on, Rudolf II may have bought a book that was already in his possession in terms of castle archives or those in Vienna. In one of Koen G.’s interviews, ReneZ suggests it is possible the manuscript had travelled to its place before sale to Rudolf by way of Vienna or France (something like that, as I recall). These are topics to be explored further by those who know more about the details.
Forum member HermesRevived in this thread You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. had interestingly considered Ulrich Putsch as having something to do with the production of the VM vellum. Since he was framing his consideration in terms of the book being authored in early 1400s, not finding Putsch himself capable of doing that, HermesRevived gave up the idea (“I concluded that this biography does not fit the profile of our author. The Voynich author is more conspicuously a Humanist and Ulrich Putsch can be eliminated on those grounds, and he shows no deep interest in Ptolemaic cosmology”).
I strongly recommend reading his post on 09-06-2024, 08:54 PM, again, because I think Putsch and the scribes working for him may have had a lot to do with the VM vellum production in early 1400s. He was a Bishop at the service of Friedrich IV, who basically had inherited Margaret’s legacy, and had a team of scribes under his command. As HermesRevived states, “He was dedicated to bringing both science and religion to the common people. … He conducted translations into the common tongue, German, and his Latin was the common medieval Latin, without the classical influences of Humanism.” As Hermes777, the forum member also had interesting things to say about the significant of Sud Tyrol for a rich balneological and botanical traditions in this thread You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). I found his posts insightful.
This link in German, offers a very interesting information about Margarat of Tyrol, both factual and legend-based. I will copy below some in google translation, but you can read the original on the page You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
“At Ambras Castle in Innsbruck, the legendary "bridal cup" of Margaret can be viewed.[17] The most famous painting of Margaret Maultasch, in which she is depicted as a princess with the coats of arms of Tyrol, Carinthia, and Bavaria, is now located in the so-called "Ambras Picture Gallery." In the Spanish Hall, there is also a 16th-century mural of her in the "Gallery of Tyrolean Princes."”
“Fieberbrunn: According to legend, Margarete Maultasch fell ill with a fever in 1354 and was cured by the water of the healing spring in Fieberbrunn. In 1971, a fountain was erected on the church path in Fieberbrunn at the site where the healing spring, which gave the town its name, was previously located. A bronze statue of Margarete Maultasch, a work by the sculptor Josef Bachlechner (the Younger), stands at this fountain.”
“St. Georgen am Längsee: At Hochosterwitz Castle, there is a statue of Margaret Maultasch, in which she is depicted as a seductress, modeled after the biblical Eve. [note: I doubt that this statue goes back to the 1300s. It must be a contemporary art inspired by the legends surrounding Margaret Maultasch. But it will be interesting to find out who the artist is and why it was created; its resemblance to the Voynich nymphs is interesting but may be coincidental”].
“In other legends, however, Margaret is depicted as a wicked "femme fatale" who is punished after her death for her sexual excesses. These legends likely originated in the political propaganda that arose as a result of the conflicts between the families of her two husbands.”
I want to especially acknowledge this important page I had linked to when answering R. Sale’s question: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. Very insightful findings can be found there that played an important role in my conclusions. JB must stand for J. J. Bunn (sorry, I don’t know names still). Thanks for your work.
There is still tons of work to be done and questions to be explored regarding what Margaret of Tyrol was trying to do and say in the Voynich manuscript. This is just a beginning of my own.
There is a lot to be learned in light of the above and I have barely scratched the surface of everything generations of VM scholars have done to bring us to this point. If I have left out any contributions that resonates with my finding, please see it as my not having yet had time to find and read it, or not gotten around to commenting on them. So, you can do me a favor by sharing your contribution if you think it supports or overlaps with the above finding about the author of the Voynich manuscript being Margaret, Countess of Tyrol.
RE: Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations - oshfdk - 02-02-2026
(02-02-2026, 02:57 AM)MHTamdgidi_(Behrooz) Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The University of Vienna was established in 1365, and given her long years of legal battles, she must have had a strong legal team to leave behind her legacy and the manuscript, instructing them (with payments received in advance), to put her legacy manuscript to a durable vellum manuscript, at a time her enemies had left the scene, several decades later (early 1400s). I think the first page of the Voynich manuscript is a statement of the legal obligations that were being fulfilled on her behalf posthumously.
(02-02-2026, 02:57 AM)MHTamdgidi_(Behrooz) Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....I think Putsch and the scribes working for him may have had a lot to do with the VM vellum production in early 1400s. He was a Bishop at the service of Friedrich IV, who basically had inherited Margaret’s legacy, and had a team of scribes under his command.
This seems to contrast the low cost materials used in producing the manuscript. Wouldn't it be disgraceful for a Bishop and his team of scribes to use low quality vellum for the legacy work of his late patron?
E.g., quoting from Lisa Fagin Davis from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.:
(27-01-2026, 01:56 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.All we can really do is speak in relative terms. The VMS parchment is absolutely very low quality when compared to the fine vellum of, say, a thirteenth-century Paris Bible or the early fifteenth-century Très Riches Heures. That observation is completely in line with the quality of the artwork and of the inks and pigments, which are of the homemade variety without the high-cost minerals like lapis or malachite found in a high-end luxury production. In fact, I would have been stunned if the McCrone report had reported finding lapis or malachite in the blue or green, as that would have been at odds with quality of the parchment and artwork. As it stands, all of the forensic results are consistent with a manuscript produced for relatively low "cost" or made with homemade materials.
RE: Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations - MHTamdgidi_(Behrooz) - 02-02-2026
(02-02-2026, 09:16 AM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This seems to contrast the low cost materials used in producing the manuscript. Wouldn't it be disgraceful for a Bishop and his team of scribes to use low quality vellum for the legacy work of his late patron?
Thanks for your question.
In my view, the question about where the vellum was produced and by whom and at what cost are secondary and tentative to my finding. I was just speculating and trying to acknowledge contributions others had made on this forum as a plausible explanation; if you can offer a better alternative for my finding’s narrative, I am all ears. It could have been done by others and in a different setting in early 1400s. I don’t think the vellum is a disgraceful work of art at all, and it has proven its worth despite your claim, substantively and physically, over centuries, and any such judgments you are making are subjective and not necessarily based on a knowledge of the resources available at the time.
So, I am open to any other considerations you or others may have regarding the vellum production. But, the notion of supposedly “very low quality” of vellum being a determinant of the overall finding is in my view not a reasonable way of going about evaluating my finding about the authorship of the Voynich manuscript, since it was no longer in Margaret’s hands to decide who did it, as I think it was legally decided and arranged to be done posthumously. You can’t blame the deceased author and her intentions based on what those carrying out her will actually did.
That thread discussion about the “very low quality” (or not) of the vellum seemed in my view to be somewhat directed in a way to fulfill other narratives. As far as I know, the Yale edition is clearly offering a range defined in terms of more to less expensive, rather than expensive vs. cheap. There is no question in my mind about what the Yale edition was stating. Those who are leaning on the “cheap” narrative now I think are revising the published and established assessments in favor of their own views and need to explain why they are doing it. Below is from the Yale edition. If they now disagree with this, they need to be saying so.
“While it is not of highest quality for the time, the parchment that makes up the text-block, particularly the large foldout pages, was still expensive. In consultation with a practicing parchment maker, researchers have estimated that the volume required the entire skins of fourteen to fifteen calves, especially to yield the foldouts of such quantity and size. Foldouts and unusual page designs certainly existed in the Gothic period and were used in calendars, volvelles (rotating paper wheels used for prognostication among other things), and vade mecums (folding handbooks often worn on a belt by a doctor to allow quick reference). As described above, the construction of the foldouts in the Voynich Manuscript varies, from those that are long (as many as five leaves) sewn through their first fold, to double-spread pages, to one that opens out and up into a sheet six times the size of the volume itself. The quantity and size of the foldouts in the Voynich Manuscript are very unusual for the time period. …” (p. 27).
RE: Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations - MHTamdgidi_(Behrooz) - 03-02-2026
@JoJo-Jost also @Aga Tentakulus and others who know German (and Bavarian)
Can I ask you (and others native to German in this forum) the following question? I can ask this in JoJo-Jost’s Bavarian study thread, but to avoid misunderstanding of relating it to my interpretation, I am posting it here.
The poem on Margaret Maultasch’s bridal cup says, “LIEBES LANGER MANGEL IST MIINES HERZEN ANGEL”. Noticeably it has short words, most having 6 characters, one being 5 and another 3; the double ‘I' is also interesting to me.
Can you detect any language clues as to whether it is Bavarian, any specific local dialect, or is it just a simple German (for the times)? Any local dialect that suggests its association with Tyrol (that would have to be assumed given the expression is already associated with her, from Tyrol)? From what I have read in your thread, the pattern of the poem fits well with brief short words you say you find in Bavarian. But this may be coincidental, if it is a more generic German (sorry, I know little about German language).
Can you also offer any better translation than the following I found being given online for the expression on the bridal cup? I added the “fishing” in the parenthesis, since it better associates the fishing connotation of the word ‘angel’ (and may account for the expected and unexpected fishing lines in the VM, perhaps). I am giving alternative versions below, but you may do better than all of them in translating it.
The preference I think it would be for a more poetic rendering, given the bridal cap context. In any case, she seems to have also been inclined to poetry and the arts (not to neglect plants given the images on the cup, plus lots of dots perhaps standing for grapes of wine, given the bridal cup or bowl must have implied drinking wine in it at the wedding, given Tyrol was a rich wine country and is still is with centuries old traditions such as Törggelen You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.).
“Love’s long deprivation is a (fishing) barb in my heart”
“Love’s long deprivation is a sting in my heart”
“Love’s long deprivation is a hook in my heart”
RE: Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations - Aga Tentakulus - 03-02-2026
Since we are talking about poetry, it is not that simple. The only word that has a distinctive feature is ‘Miines’ MHD = ‘meines’.
However, this is not specifically Bavarian. We in Alemannic German also use the double ‘ii’. ‘Miin, miine, miinem. The double “ii” represents a long ’i".
Des Herzens Angel. Angel here has nothing to do with hooks or stings.
The heart wants to catch love, to ‘fish’ for it.
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
RE: Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations - MHTamdgidi_(Behrooz) - 03-02-2026
(03-02-2026, 08:20 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Since we are talking about poetry, it is not that simple. The only word that has a distinctive feature is ‘Miines’ MHD = ‘meines’.
However, this is not specifically Bavarian. We in Alemannic German also use the double ‘ii’. ‘Miin, miine, miinem. The double “ii” represents a long ’i".
Des Herzens Angel. Angel here has nothing to do with hooks or stings.
The heart wants to catch love, to ‘fish’ for it.
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
Thanks, that is very helpful to know regarding the language features and also the translation options. So, in your reading, instead of being a "hurtful" note (I am stung by a longing for love), it can have more of a "I have been seeking (or fishing for) love" meaning. The latter, as you put it, actually makes more sense for a bridal cup for a wedding. So, good clarification.
RE: Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations - Aga Tentakulus - 04-02-2026
Reading between the lines, one could also say, ‘I'll take anything that bites.’
RE: Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations - MHTamdgidi_(Behrooz) - 04-02-2026
(04-02-2026, 07:36 AM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Reading between the lines, one could also say, ‘I'll take anything that bites.’
This interpretation is interesting too. I am thinking that given the poetic nature of the message, it can be a both/and situation. She may mean she is fishing for love because her heart has been bitten by those who did not appreciate catching her before. Regarding “I will take anything that bites” I am not sure. The cup must have been a bridal present to her by her second husband, based on perhaps what he had heard from her regarding her first bitter marriage and love of plants and nature in her wine country.
I am still impressed by your “you are the goddess of your country” example. For me it does not matter whether it is based on actual text reading. I am impressed that it inspired you to make that point, visually, textually, or not. The spirit of this “poem” too is very revealing. Note, you did not say “I am the goddess of my (or your) country”. Rather, it means to be a teaching and inspirational advice to women to know their worth, not as appendages of men (or to prove they are manly), but beings at the heart of “mother nature” because they alone can appreciate what it takes to make human beings, with their flesh and blood, and heart and mind.
I mean, where did we all come from, if not for the labors and sacrifices of our mothers in a way that no man can claim to endure?
I strongly believe that the author (who I believe to be Margaret Maultasch) had Fransiscan Christian leanings, seeing spirituality not as an institution but built into every little detail of nature. She was deeply spiritual, but did not think well of the church as an institution. That is why she hid her Christianity in the very fabric of her art. No wonder her manuscript was found and kept in a Franciscan archive.
I have learned many new things about the Voynich manuscript that will share, as the identification of the author of the manuscript, for me, has opened a new window of explaining many puzzles and enigmas about the text in a way that could not be explained otherwise.
RE: Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations - MHTamdgidi_(Behrooz) - 06-02-2026
My identification of Countess Margaret of Tyrol (1318-1365) as the author of the Voynich manuscript provides a plausible explanation for the way the Zodiac charts have been rendered in it, shedding significant lights on why the Capricorn and Aquarius charts were literally cut of the manuscript to suppress her identity as the author of the book, and, relatedly, why the series begins, uncharacteristically, with the Pisces chart.
The Zodiac charts served as a way of making the intricacies of astrological interpretation of her own chart visually accessible for her. A day by day and month by month “calendar” of fixed star influences where nude nymphs are attributed their power and astrological values, by way of hand gestures, body positions, facial gestures, in tub or walking, flat or upright tubs, headgears or crowns, and so on, would have visually made it easier for her to decide on the actions to be taken (or not) on those days and months, in light of the astrological meanings associated with the stars they hold.
Rather than having to go through a purely textual “handbook,” now she could easily tell whether a given day was a right time to do this or that, and this did not have to be limited to health or fertility/pregnancy considerations. Even making personal or social-political decisions would have been made easier for her given the astrological worldviews people, including nobles, took into serious consideration at that time.
The overall calendrical fixed-star structure of a year’s calendar also allowed her to insert and mark her most important life events, which are represented by clothed figures in the charts. While the nude nymphs represent souls associated with their corresponding fixed stars, the clothed figures represent herself and possibly those she knew in her life. This then allowed her to understand her life events in relation to the planetary and fixed-star structure of her life.
The Zodiac charts are intimately shaped around the (now missing) planetary features of her horoscope, aspects of which (such as the Pleiades and Aldebaran having been on the cusp or inside the 12th house) fortunately survived the efforts made by others to suppress her identity by removing or cutting out of some pages from the Voynich manuscript.
The reason the Zodiac months for Aries and Taurus are split each into two is to offer more details of her astrologically most important birth circumstances which must have happened in early April 1318. From Pisces, the journey of her soul in her mother’s womb is traced into the Aries and Taurus months.
There are two charts of 15 days each for Aries and two charts of 15 days each for Taurus. Aries 1 chart include all-nude nymphs, and Aries 2 chart includes all-clothed figures. Conversely, Taurus 1 includes mixed clothed/nude figures, and Taurus 2 includes all-nude figures.
At that time, Aries begun on March 15, so Aries 1 chart includes March 15-29. Aries 2 chart include March 30 and March 31 to April 13. Her birth is depicted to have taken place in this Aries 2 chart, given it is also the most developed and colored chart of the entire Zodiac months surviving in her chart.
The reason the Taurus chart is also split, aside from the fact that it includes days April 14-28 in Taurus 1 chart and April 29-May 14 is that in Tyrol of that time it was customary for noble new-borns to have a very important “Churching of Women” ceremony 40 days after the physical birth. I will later show (in future posts) that her birth must have taken place on April 4 which would mean her Churching of Women ceremony would have taken place on May 13th, near the last day of her Taurus 2 chart.
The reason the series begins with Pisces has to do with the reason the series (must have) ended with Capricorn and Aquarius. She wanted the series to end in those months for a very important reason. Countess Margaret’s abdication took place in January of 1363, shortly after the death of her only heir and son on January 13, 1363. January 13 would fall toward the end of Capricorn, and her abdication and subsequent official proceedings would have fallen in Aquarius (January 15- February 13). These are most important events of her mature life.
Just as a general outline, the following would have been the days that fell in each Zodiac month at the time based on a standard 30–31 day cycle, starting from March 15 (likely leap years may have to be considered, but this is perhaps the month/day structure of her Zodiac charts):
Aries: March 15 – April 13
Taurus: April 14 – May 14
Gemini: May 15 – June 14
Cancer: June 15 – July 15
Leo: July 16 – August 15
Virgo: August 16 – September 15
Libra: September 16 – October 16
Scorpio: October 17 – November 15
Sagittarius: November 16 – December 15
Capricorn: December 16 – January 14
Aquarius: January 15 – February 13
Pisces: February 14 – March 14
Following her clothed calendar markings for her birth related events in Aries and Taurus charts, she may have given sufficient clues in the Zodiac months of Capricorn and Aquarius about herself as the author of the manuscript. So, by cutting them off from the Voynich manuscript, along with removing the bifolia containing her astrological charts, the medieval “forgers” would have made it much harder for a Rudolf II to identify the author of the manuscript as being Margaret “Maultasch” in order to sell it as an exotic and enigmatic book.
Another significant life even in her life that took place in February (1342) was her second marriage to Lous I. Margrave of Brandenburg on Feb. 10. Not having yet “divorced” her first husband, whom she abhorred and expelled from her castle, having accused him and his family of intentionally not consuming their marriage in order to discontinue her legacy, she obtained a Civil Annulment from Holy Roman Emperor Louis IV to marry his son, and against the order of the church, for which they were excommunicated until later. I will elaborate on the significant challenges of her life and how they shed new light on everything happening in the manuscript.
So, if she had conveyed visually the above also in her Aquarius chart, that would have been another significant life event that had become well-known and would have certainly identified her as an author for the Voynich manuscript.
I am now moving away from the notion of the Zodiac charts in the Voynich manuscript as strictly and narrowly serving a fertility or pregnancy function. These latter needs could have been just two uses she may have used them for. The overall fixed star/soul attribute dy by day calendar, could have served generally as a detailed visual way of her “reading her stars” each day of the year, allowing her to make important and appropriate decisions in a timely way, not just health or fertility related, but also social and political, or personal. “Not today, stars are not right for it, I will wait till next week ion Wednesday to decide on doing that!”
The Zodiac charts also served her indicating, by way of clothed figures, the most important life events of her life, allowing her to see the astrological “the above and the below” links of her life and how her life events were shaped from her time’s astrological point of view.
This is not about us believing in astrological belief systems. It is about the hermeneutics of understanding her mind in the context of her times. If she grew up knowing about her astrological chart features and how, in her time, as a noble heir, she had been tasked to protect her legacy despite the challenges of her life, she would have decided to do everything with full knowledge, as best as she could, of the planetary and fixed star structures of her birth chart.