09-03-2026, 03:44 PM
I need to clarify and update a few things regarding my last post.
When I referred to the "original" edition in my last post, what I really meant to refer to was the 1500s edition of the Lapidary (I even referred to it as "original/earlier"), which would be earlier than a 1800s edition. But I should have referred to it as just "earlier" (not "original").
As we know Alfonso X lived 1221-1284, and the original Lapidary was a mid 13th century (1200s) work, which I had already assumed in my last post, given that the Voynich manuscript could not have been inspired by it (in my and others' thinking) without the Lapidary being an earlier work, which it is. Alfonso X's Lapidary sources in Arabic/Persian were dated even earlier than 1200s, as we know and is assumed.
But it turns out that the 1800s edition is the earliest/original version of the Lapidary going back to 1250s in its dating (if not, please correct me). It just happens that the 1800s edition is a 1800s (RE)PUBLICATION edition/copy of that original edition. So, this explains the more details found of the degree figures across ALL the extant Zodiac charts in it. So, the figures with hands pointing to above and below is the original version, unless there is another copy version I have not across.
This means that we are in a way back to square one and need to explain the variations in the degree figures (if meaningful) in the earliest 1250 edition of the Lapidary which exist across all Zodiac charts. In fact variation playfulness is done there also by way of colors of benches and the sky backgrounds as well (I forgot to mention), if you look at all of them carefully.
Regarding my comparative inferences from the Alfonso X Lapidary about the order of degree nymphs in the Voynich manuscript, I am open to another way of reading the rings in the latter, which I have also provided alternative images for in this post. I am now more inclined to consider the images posted below as a counting system, but can't rule out the one I shared earlier. Both are possibilities.
In this alternative order, first we begin counting at 9/10 o'clock on the outer ring moving counterclockwise, then we proceed to the same in the inner ring, and then (for those two Zodiac charts) proceed to counting the top four nymph figures, still counterclockwise. The position of each nymph (and their distances from one another) does not have any significance other than its place in the order of the counterclockwise counting, since these Zodiac charts only serve to magnify the 30 degrees in that Zodiac as part of a 360-degree annual chart.
The key here is that, in my view, the reason the rings exist in the Voynich manuscript Zodiac charts has to do simply with spacing the larger size of nymphs for degrees for the 30 per chart counting. The essential point is that the counting starts (like house counting in Zodiac) at 9/10 o'clock moving counterclockwise across the rings one way or another.
I realize none of this may be of interest to others to consider as usual, but I wanted to clarify things for the record.
When I referred to the "original" edition in my last post, what I really meant to refer to was the 1500s edition of the Lapidary (I even referred to it as "original/earlier"), which would be earlier than a 1800s edition. But I should have referred to it as just "earlier" (not "original").
As we know Alfonso X lived 1221-1284, and the original Lapidary was a mid 13th century (1200s) work, which I had already assumed in my last post, given that the Voynich manuscript could not have been inspired by it (in my and others' thinking) without the Lapidary being an earlier work, which it is. Alfonso X's Lapidary sources in Arabic/Persian were dated even earlier than 1200s, as we know and is assumed.
But it turns out that the 1800s edition is the earliest/original version of the Lapidary going back to 1250s in its dating (if not, please correct me). It just happens that the 1800s edition is a 1800s (RE)PUBLICATION edition/copy of that original edition. So, this explains the more details found of the degree figures across ALL the extant Zodiac charts in it. So, the figures with hands pointing to above and below is the original version, unless there is another copy version I have not across.
This means that we are in a way back to square one and need to explain the variations in the degree figures (if meaningful) in the earliest 1250 edition of the Lapidary which exist across all Zodiac charts. In fact variation playfulness is done there also by way of colors of benches and the sky backgrounds as well (I forgot to mention), if you look at all of them carefully.
Regarding my comparative inferences from the Alfonso X Lapidary about the order of degree nymphs in the Voynich manuscript, I am open to another way of reading the rings in the latter, which I have also provided alternative images for in this post. I am now more inclined to consider the images posted below as a counting system, but can't rule out the one I shared earlier. Both are possibilities.
In this alternative order, first we begin counting at 9/10 o'clock on the outer ring moving counterclockwise, then we proceed to the same in the inner ring, and then (for those two Zodiac charts) proceed to counting the top four nymph figures, still counterclockwise. The position of each nymph (and their distances from one another) does not have any significance other than its place in the order of the counterclockwise counting, since these Zodiac charts only serve to magnify the 30 degrees in that Zodiac as part of a 360-degree annual chart.
The key here is that, in my view, the reason the rings exist in the Voynich manuscript Zodiac charts has to do simply with spacing the larger size of nymphs for degrees for the 30 per chart counting. The essential point is that the counting starts (like house counting in Zodiac) at 9/10 o'clock moving counterclockwise across the rings one way or another.
I realize none of this may be of interest to others to consider as usual, but I wanted to clarify things for the record.