- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
No text, but a visual code
- No text, but a visual code
-
RE: No text, but a visual code
Antonio García Jiménez > 01-12-2025, 01:37 PM
I think it's good that we disagree. Almost everyone thinks like you, but images speak to those who know how to interpret them, and the script is mute to those who think in terms of text. -
RE: No text, but a visual code
Antonio García Jiménez > 09-12-2025, 10:13 AM
Page You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is a good indication of the script's nature. There we see four circles filled with glyphs. As we all know, one of the circles contains the symbols repeated four times. It's interesting, but I think the other three circles are more revealing. What we see in them is that the glyphs are sometimes alone and at other times they are joined together. The feeling is that the meaning of each symbol, whatever it may be, is the same whether it is separate or joined to others.
I believe this fact hasn't received the attention it deserves. To me, it's a powerful indication that each glyph has semantic content, its own meaning. -
RE: No text, but a visual code
Antonio García Jiménez > 10-12-2025, 10:14 AM
There has been debate about the circle with the sequence of glyphs repeated four times, but not about the other circles where single glyphs and single groupings of symbols alternate. And it's worth reflecting on, because that succession of singles and groups doesn't seem to make sense if you think in terms of language.
If a group of glyphs represents a word, whether in a natural or encrypted language, I wonder what the point is of finding a single glyph afterward, and then another word and another single symbol. And a succession of words followed by a succession of single symbols. Does that make any sense? Isn't it more reasonable to think of symbols full of meaning that come together or that can function on their own? -
RE: No text, but a visual code
davidma > 10-12-2025, 12:33 PM
(10-12-2025, 10:14 AM)Antonio García Jiménez Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. If a group of glyphs represents a word, whether in a natural or encrypted language, I wonder what the point is of finding a single glyph afterward, and then another word and another single symbol. And a succession of words followed by a succession of single symbols. Does that make any sense? Isn't it more reasonable to think of symbols full of meaning that come together or that can function on their own?
It could very well be that they are numbers. The fact that there are no numbers in the VM (apart from the folio and quire numbers, and the numbers on f49v) when it was extremely common for manuscripts at the time to have them (especially astrological ones) should tell us something about what these individual glyphs might mean. I don't think your option necessarily excludes the other, i.e. you could have "symbols full of meaning" in themselves (such as astrological notation, gradients, numbers etc...) intertwined with a different encoding system. I mean it has already been shown how labelese and the rest of the VM behave very differently. Whether that's the result of a separate encryption procedure or of the underlying properties of the encrypted text (and this is assuming it is an encrypted text), we can't really say, but speculation never hurt anyone
-
RE: No text, but a visual code
Jorge_Stolfi > 10-12-2025, 03:44 PM
(10-12-2025, 12:33 PM)davidma Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The fact that there are no numbers in the VM
In some languages and scripts there is no distinction between words and numbers. Numbers traditionally have always been spelled out. A notation similar to Indian-Arabic decimals would actually be longer on average, and would not provide any significant advantage for computations.
All the best, --stolfi. -
RE: No text, but a visual code
Antonio García Jiménez > 10-12-2025, 08:55 PM
I think what I meant was misunderstood. It's not about speculating about those rare glyphs that aren't found in the main body of the script. These could be numbers or, as I believe, astrological aspects, which implies geometric relationships between celestial objects.
What I'm saying is that we see many conventional single glyphs, which we do see throughout the script. And I wonder why those single glyphs come before or are followed by groups of glyphs, some of which are the same ones that appear as singles. I can't make any sense of it in terms of language. It's not coherent, and while medieval people had a different mindset than we do, it was still coherent. -
RE: No text, but a visual code
Antonio García Jiménez > 14-12-2025, 06:31 PM
Anyone who follows this thread will see that I refer to the script and the imagery interchangeably. For me, they form a whole and convey the same message. I want to remind everyone that even though I don't believe in a language, I do think that the script conveys a message.
Some people think the Voynich Manuscript is a kind of encyclopedia covering various subjects. For me, it's nothing of the sort, but rather a coherent book on a single topic: the influence of the stars on medicinal herbs. I would define the codex as an astrological herbal. -
RE: No text, but a visual code
qoltedy > 17-12-2025, 10:34 AM
I was reading Athanasius Kircher's Wikipedia page and this sentence reminded me of this thread
"In Oedipus Aegyptiacus, Kircher argued under the impression of the Hieroglyphica that ancient Egyptian was the language spoken by Adam and Eve, that Hermes Trismegistus was Moses, and that hieroglyphs were occult symbols which "cannot be translated by words, but expressed only by marks, characters and figures."
Kircher was supposedly one of the first people we know of who attempted to decode the Voynich Manuscript. Perhaps he had similar ideas for deciphering the Voynich? Just speculation. But perhaps this idea is quite a bit older than this thread. -
RE: No text, but a visual code
Antonio García Jiménez > 21-12-2025, 01:06 PM
A thread has been opened speculating that the female reproductive system, or part of it, may be represented in Quire 13. It is not the first time I have read or heard this, which for me is the biggest misinterpretation of the Voynich imagery. I understand it's easy to fall into that trap, as well as the trap of believing in a balneological section. Our eyes seem to show us something obvious, but then: why didn't one of the leading authorities on iconography, like Erwin Panofsky, see anything related to the woman?
Panofsky held the codex in his hands, clearly saw the hundreds of female figures, which allowed him to make some observations about the date and style, but nevertheless, for him, there is nothing related to women in the content of the document. I think this is a good example of what differentiates the perspective of an expert from that of someone who is not.
I was confused too until I let myself be guided by the opinion of someone who knew how to interpret images from the past. Panofsky spoke of celestial influences, astral radiation, spirits that transmit the occult powers of the stars. He didn't explicitly mention the female figures, but it's clear he was referring to them. More specifically, I believe each of the figures we see represents a fixed star of the zodiac.
I think we can all agree that the female figures we see on the zodiac pages are the same ones we see on Quire 13 and therefore represent the same thing. On the zodiac wheels, we see each figure holding a star, which is already a powerful clue, but the zodiac signs are constellations of stars, an obvious fact that seems to be forgotten. Even in some zodiac signs we see female figures in tubes, tubes that we later see in Quire 13 and also on the Rosettes page, because the entire codex is interconnected. These tubes serve to channel the influence of each of the stars.
In Quire 13 we see how the female figures descend from those structures of wavy lines and sometimes pineapple-shaped forms that allude to the sphere of stars of the medieval cosmos. We see the colors green and blue alternating or mixing as a clear symbol of their celestial origin on the one hand, and their influence on the plant world on the other. We see some of the female figures with spindles, a clear allusion to their role in weaving the cyclical nature of time. Others wear jeweled rings alluding to their brilliance, or crowns alluding to their greater luminous power. -
RE: No text, but a visual code
Rafal > 21-12-2025, 01:28 PM
Quote:Panofsky held the codex in his hands, clearly saw the hundreds of female figures, which allowed him to make some observations about the date and style, but nevertheless, for him, there is nothing related to women in the content of the document. I think this is a good example of what differentiates the perspective of an expert from that of someone who is not.
You are using here "argument from authority". Unfortunately it doesn't have to be true.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
An argument from authority is a form of argument in which the opinion of an authority figure (or figures) is used as evidence to support an argument.
The argument from authority is often considered a logical fallacy and obtaining knowledge in this way is fallible
In case of Voynich Manuscript several experts with scientific background made fools of themselves like Newbold or more recently Stephen Bax.
Voynich Manuscript is so weird that experience may not help you at all. It can even interfere with your work it you think schematic and try to fit it into known frames.