10-03-2026, 01:25 AM
This page is one of the most fascinating pieces of the VM puzzle for me.
I've made 2 overlays:
The copy is too perfectly aligned for a freehand work, even by a skilled copyist. However it is not perfectly aligned. Or rather, the whole page is an improvement over the original.I don't know if the parchment is transparent enough to see the original page through it well enough to trace it. But the copyist must at least have marked key points and worked from there. I think he traced a sketch from the original and then slightly overworked it.
The ornate gallow is almost perfectly copied, but the copyist makes a mistake right at the start and adds a serif. As a result, the following 'd' does not fit in place and has to be moved right one space, cramming the first word together. However, by the end of the word, the copyist is back on track. Gallows of the first line are almost perfectly aligned. Then the copyist moves the 'dy' too far to the right merging it with 'ypchor'. Again, this does not result in moving the entire text. The copying mistakes aside, the copyist tries to correct the slant of the original text block and spread it out. This is especially apparent in the last line.
The plant is also extremely well aligned. The copyist increases the leaf serration and adds additional serration right of the leftmost fruitstalk. The fruit (?) of the left and right fruitstalk (but not middle due to the text) are sightly enlarged and the lowest one of the left fruitstalk is less curved. Leaf venation and shading are added. Apart from that, an extremely good match. Only further down the copyist gets more bold and adds a third leaf on the left and a completely new root system for whatever reason.
So now the big question is - why?
To me it makes no sense to make such a copy for Kircher in order to get a translation/solution. The page layout is reproduced extremely (unnecessarily) well, yet the text is copied sloppily and incorrectly. Readability is bad. Part of the plant is also reproduced faithfully, but then additional details are added. All in all it makes no sense from a practical standpoint. Even to a layman it must have been immediately obvious that this was a very 'creative' copy of the original text, and thus not exactly helpful for a deciphering attempt. Unless we argue this specific sheet was itself created after an imperfect draft copy from the VM...
Not only is the VM odd in every aspect, there's also this equally odd copy as well.
I've made 2 overlays:
The copy is too perfectly aligned for a freehand work, even by a skilled copyist. However it is not perfectly aligned. Or rather, the whole page is an improvement over the original.I don't know if the parchment is transparent enough to see the original page through it well enough to trace it. But the copyist must at least have marked key points and worked from there. I think he traced a sketch from the original and then slightly overworked it.
The ornate gallow is almost perfectly copied, but the copyist makes a mistake right at the start and adds a serif. As a result, the following 'd' does not fit in place and has to be moved right one space, cramming the first word together. However, by the end of the word, the copyist is back on track. Gallows of the first line are almost perfectly aligned. Then the copyist moves the 'dy' too far to the right merging it with 'ypchor'. Again, this does not result in moving the entire text. The copying mistakes aside, the copyist tries to correct the slant of the original text block and spread it out. This is especially apparent in the last line.
The plant is also extremely well aligned. The copyist increases the leaf serration and adds additional serration right of the leftmost fruitstalk. The fruit (?) of the left and right fruitstalk (but not middle due to the text) are sightly enlarged and the lowest one of the left fruitstalk is less curved. Leaf venation and shading are added. Apart from that, an extremely good match. Only further down the copyist gets more bold and adds a third leaf on the left and a completely new root system for whatever reason.
So now the big question is - why?
To me it makes no sense to make such a copy for Kircher in order to get a translation/solution. The page layout is reproduced extremely (unnecessarily) well, yet the text is copied sloppily and incorrectly. Readability is bad. Part of the plant is also reproduced faithfully, but then additional details are added. All in all it makes no sense from a practical standpoint. Even to a layman it must have been immediately obvious that this was a very 'creative' copy of the original text, and thus not exactly helpful for a deciphering attempt. Unless we argue this specific sheet was itself created after an imperfect draft copy from the VM...
Not only is the VM odd in every aspect, there's also this equally odd copy as well.
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)