Voynich's anatomy

[Oscroft]

For me, an anachronism is something that doesn’t fit the time. Are the depictions of the organs not fitting the time?

I think what Koen means is that the VMS illustrations are anachronistic compared to contemporaneous knowledge/illustrations. The earliest accurate description I can find is from Falloppi himself in 1561, but without illustrations. Leonardo did some reproductive system drawings earlier - but no fallopian tubes one in that form, and his uterus drawing was inaccurate (and possibly more like that of a cow).

The following is an LLM response, so it would need further investigation which I don't have time for now...

"William Hunter’s 1774 publication Anatomia Uteri Humani Gravidi (The Anatomy of the Human Gravid Uterus Exhibited in Figures) is widely considered the earliest truly accurate and scientifically precise published illustration of the human female reproductive system."

Maybe someone at the time of VMS had access (directly via dissection, for example), and VMS actually provides the first good illustration from more than 300 years before Hunter - but it really sounds like that anatomy was not well known at the time.

Compare it with the appearance that the VMS illustrator couldn't even draw a penis accurately (when almost everyone knew what they looked like), and the idea that VMS is a pioneering anatomical work seems very remote.