22-03-2026, 10:00 AM
I suppose some of you aren’t familiar with Llull’s images? I thought the similarities had already been discussed here?
But anyway, for those who haven’t read it: Compare them for yourselves.
Left: Ramon Llull, Prima Figura, Ars demonstrativa, c. 1283. Concentric rings. Letters on the outer edge. Connecting lines in the centre. A machine for generating combinations.
Right: VMS f57v. Concentric rings. Voynich symbols within the rings. Four comic figures drawn by a poor cartoonist in the centre. A machine for … something – more of an invitation to think: who knows if it is a machine – how is it supposed to work if it is labelled with what it is supposed to produce... .
(I traced the lines formed by the positioning of the figures arms and the direction of the text. The resulting pattern bears a structural resemblance to Llulls combinatorial figures – (but on a very much smaller scale) though I wouldn’t go so far as to claim that it is one; I would never do such a thing.)
What I will point out is this: the VMS has one more ring than Llull’s Prima Figura. Actually, two circles with single symbols and two labelled ones; it has four divisions, not three. Yes, Llull was further developed in the period that followed, in many respects. As we shall see later, there are also works that claim to be Llull but are not. Here, it looks as though someone looked at Llull’s wheel and thought: nice, but not quite enough slots – the confusion isn’t quite enough yet.
As everyone here knows – yes, I’ve counted them too (what on earth has become of my life) you get 4 × 17 = 68 entries. This is no random number; 17 is one of the few numbers that has absolutely no obvious significance, unlike Llull’s divine 9, precisely because the text deals with the negation of the spirit, with failure in itself.
The Prima Figura has 9 positions. The VMS has 68. The combinatorial space of the VMS would therefore be only a little tiny bit larger than Llull’s – insignificant – downright minuscule.
Which means either that the creator was more ambitious than Llull.
Or considerably more confused
....Possibly both
But anyway, for those who haven’t read it: Compare them for yourselves.
Left: Ramon Llull, Prima Figura, Ars demonstrativa, c. 1283. Concentric rings. Letters on the outer edge. Connecting lines in the centre. A machine for generating combinations.
Right: VMS f57v. Concentric rings. Voynich symbols within the rings. Four comic figures drawn by a poor cartoonist in the centre. A machine for … something – more of an invitation to think: who knows if it is a machine – how is it supposed to work if it is labelled with what it is supposed to produce... .
(I traced the lines formed by the positioning of the figures arms and the direction of the text. The resulting pattern bears a structural resemblance to Llulls combinatorial figures – (but on a very much smaller scale) though I wouldn’t go so far as to claim that it is one; I would never do such a thing.)
What I will point out is this: the VMS has one more ring than Llull’s Prima Figura. Actually, two circles with single symbols and two labelled ones; it has four divisions, not three. Yes, Llull was further developed in the period that followed, in many respects. As we shall see later, there are also works that claim to be Llull but are not. Here, it looks as though someone looked at Llull’s wheel and thought: nice, but not quite enough slots – the confusion isn’t quite enough yet.
As everyone here knows – yes, I’ve counted them too (what on earth has become of my life) you get 4 × 17 = 68 entries. This is no random number; 17 is one of the few numbers that has absolutely no obvious significance, unlike Llull’s divine 9, precisely because the text deals with the negation of the spirit, with failure in itself.
The Prima Figura has 9 positions. The VMS has 68. The combinatorial space of the VMS would therefore be only a little tiny bit larger than Llull’s – insignificant – downright minuscule.
Which means either that the creator was more ambitious than Llull.
Or considerably more confused
....Possibly both