(06-02-2026, 07:29 PM)Antonio García Jiménez Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.NosDa, I'm glad we agree on the astrological content of this page. I didn't mean to make an ad hominem attack. I apologize if you interpreted it that way.
I simply wanted to express my astonishment that astrology still has followers in our time. But on the other hand, since astrology is fundamental to interpreting the Voynich, I believe you are in a better position than others to understand this manuscript.
Thank you, appreciate that. There's never going to be any exhortations from me on how others should view the cosmos. My intention is to shed light on how the VMS author may have viewed it, given how much time was paid to the astrological discipline. If concepts can be confidently identified (beyond simply saying 'mansions of the moon'), that information could be useful.
Being many thousands of years old, transmission has occurred across continents, endless translations have been made, and unfortunately many MS were lost to ideological rationales. Shunned by academia, we also have an industry that cannot be 'quality controlled', although many have tried. The consequence is that pinpointing where a doctrine came from, or rather which technical variants the VMS is using, becomes muddy.
Folio 67v2 clearly (to my mind) depicts planetary configurations, or aspects. There are many such aspects within astrology at this point, however, f67v2 shows only the major Ptolemaic configurations. This makes sense for an astrologer of the 15th century, because the others were later additions. However, they are not placed in the correct spots to reflect their configuration, they are simply images referencing such an event. This means that the layout of the angular circle is more likely a reference to house vitality and/or sect differences when thinking about an approach. That several concepts may be featured in this one illustration. House angularity as a concept survived fairly well, sect seems to have faired worse. If this folio does show those things, it would mean our author is working from very old instructions. If it shows one and not the other, also useful. Potential source documents are of obvious interest, because access could confer information about location or connections.
Anyway, I don't think I'm about to crack anything. But it does seem there's a place for this kind of contribution, if it ever gets towards a conclusion.