• Options
• Login
• Desktop Style

A random rant about the VMS

• Index

  • The Voynich Ninja
  • Voynich Research
  • Voynich Talk
  • A random rant about the VMS
• A random rant about the VMS

• RE: A random rant about the VMS

  JustAnotherTheory > 17-01-2026, 03:50 PM

  So basically what you guys are saying, is that the VMS could have been written by anyone, illustrated by anyone, using inspiration from any medieval or prior drawings, styles and illustrations, and we're not even sure if it's a single manuscript as it might be a collection of Voynichese documents bound together at a later stage.
  
  That narrows it down

• RE: A random rant about the VMS

  Koen G > 17-01-2026, 04:31 PM

  I think what we should be saying is that unfortunately, a lot is unknown and there's a lot of speculation.
  
  About the subjects at hand, I personally believe the following:
  
  It's unclear how many corrections there actually are, or what we should expect if there actually were many corrections. I never understood why people get so hung up on this. What do corrections in regular manuscripts look like? Would we, as amateur researchers, always be able to point them out? Would we even recognize them if they stared us in the face? Would we go "ooh" in the same way when a regular manuscript doesn't have obvious corrections? 
  
  And if it does not contain corrections, is that because the scribe worked with utmost care, or because they just left mistakes in? Or because the system is some kind of flow of consciousness where mistakes aren't possible?
  
  You see how "lack of corrections" can be leveraged in three different ways: scribe cared a lot OR scribe did NOT care AND/OR the text doesn't mean anything.
  
  The quality of the drawings is generally bad. You notice this when they depict something of which we know what it's supposed to look like. The artist(s) had difficulties with human and animal anatomy and maintaining a coherent perspective. However, I am not certain of how many artists there were, or if every scribe did their own drawings. I can imagine that the person who drew the Rosettes was not the same as the one who drew the bull from the Zodiac section. 
  
  The drawings are coherent across sections. Having different sections in manuscripts like these is the norm, not the exception. Elements like nymphs, stars, patterns... betray some degree of cohesion across subjects.
  
  I personally believe that the images in the MS are adapted from traditional images of the type that would have been found in German-speaking regions. I believe that progress can be made by pinpointing the type of source materials and investigating how the VM changed them. But I also advise caution and restraint to anyone attempting this.
  
  Regarding "written by anyone", I'm sure some things can be said about the makers of the MS, but those things will be different for everyone you ask

• RE: A random rant about the VMS

  Rafal > 17-01-2026, 05:22 PM

  Quote:So basically what you guys are saying, is that the VMS could have been written by anyone, illustrated by anyone,

  
  Maybe not anyone. Everything, including carbon dating but not only, suggests early 1400s and the style suggests region of Southern Germany, Switzerland and Northern Italy.
  
  But people often make a mistake assuming for sure that it was created by some big, famous guy.
  
  They give names as Roger Bacon, Leonardo da Vinci, Nicholas of Cusa, Regiomontanus or even some  Antonio Averlino who is maybe 2nd league but still not a noname.
  
  For me it is very possible that VM was created by some totally unknown man, some John Doe (don't confuse with John Dee )
  
  And if it was made by some man whose name hasn't survived, then well, we will never know it (no sh!t Sherlock ).

• RE: A random rant about the VMS

  Jorge_Stolfi > 17-01-2026, 07:12 PM

  (17-01-2026, 04:31 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.What do corrections in regular manuscripts look like? Would we, as amateur researchers, always be able to point them out? Would we even recognize them if they stared us in the face? Would we go "ooh" in the same way when a regular manuscript doesn't have obvious corrections? 

  
  
  

  ---

  I suppose that they could be (1) strikeouts, overwriting, and insertions.  Those should be obvious:
  
     
  
     
  
     
  

  ---

  (2) Erasures. The following may be an instance:
     
  Note that this manuscript is on paper, not vellum. 
  

  ---

  However, in those examples the corrections seem to have been done by a Proofreader distinct from the Scribe who committed the errors.  I would guess that a Scribe who is merely copying from a draft would not notice his own errors.  For that he woudl have to go back and check again what he wrote against the draft.  That may take half as long as writing in the first place, for no extra pay; and still there is a high probability that he will make the same mistakes that he did the first time.
  
  And I think that the Author could not afford an independent Proofreader.
  
  All the best, --stolfi

• RE: A random rant about the VMS

  nablator > 17-01-2026, 08:48 PM

  "Koen G Wrote:What do corrections in regular manuscripts look like?

  
  Typical corrections in a random Latin manuscript of the Vatican, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  
  Dots under the error:
  
     
  
  Insertion point marked with the caret symbol:
  
     

• RE: A random rant about the VMS

  R. Sale > Yesterday, 04:13 AM

  The cosmic comparison is more than ten years on. There's some reading to catch up. BNF Fr. 565 dated c. 1410, Paris, was made several decades after Oresme's death. Compare with BNF Fr. 1082, which is similar, but also different. 
  
  Mr. Pelling found other versions of Oresme were either text only or unavailable.
  
  The other comparable cosmic diagrams are found in Harley 334 dated 2nd Qtr. 15th C., Paris, by Gautier de Metz, even longer dead. None of his prior works have illustrations like Harley 334. So, the common factor is not the *author* of the text, but the *artistic structure* of the diagram and the *place of production*.
  
  BNF Fr. 565, Harley 334, and the VMs share an uncommon, rather simplified, cosmic structure: a central, inverted T-O Earth surrounded by a field of stars, enclosed in a cosmic boundary. The typical medieval cosmos, in contrast is built upon multiple concentric spheres for the basic elements, for the planetary orbits, and for the various heavens. There are *no planets and no heavens* in the VMs cosmos or its two historical comparables.
  
  Despite the shared, structural similarities with the two similar historical examples, the VMs creates a total difference of appearance starting with a representation of the Earth that is not pictorial but instead is now linguistic.

• RE: A random rant about the VMS

  Rafal > Yesterday, 01:06 PM

  Quote:BNF Fr. 565, Harley 334, and the VMs share an uncommon, rather simplified, cosmic structure: a central, inverted T-O Earth surrounded by a field of stars, enclosed in a cosmic boundary. The typical medieval cosmos, in contrast is built upon multiple concentric spheres for the basic elements, for the planetary orbits, and for the various heavens.

  
  You need to remember that the picture in Nicole Oresme isn't scientific but mostly artistic.
  It is actually bigger that what you are usually shown as people often cut out "unnecessary" part.
  
  Now I'll give you a rare chance to see it complete 
     
  
  This picture isn't supposed to show and explain the structure of Universe. It shows an astronomer giving his book to a king.
  The Universe is simplified and doesn't have any text because its only goal is letting you know that the book in the picture is about astronomy.
  The details are explained elsewhere.
  
  The picture in VM on the other hand doesn't have any kings and seems to be more information loaded. But as we cannot read the text, we cannot be sure.

• RE: A random rant about the VMS

  Jorge_Stolfi > Yesterday, 02:04 PM

  (Yesterday, 01:06 PM)Rafal Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The Universe is simplified and doesn't have any text because its only goal is letting you know that the book in the picture is about astronomy.

  
  And it must have been added by the Illustrator on its own initiative.
  
  The astronomer in the picture presumably is Oresme, and the king is king of  France (I think I see a fleur-de-lys in that picture, but I may be hallucinating).
  
  That "T-O map" in the painting is funny: instead of Europe, Asia, and Oceania it shows sea, countryside, and ... and ... beuh... pea soup with pappardelle? (Sorry, I haven't had breakfast yet...)
  
  So the VMS Author and/or its Scribe apparently copied the central part of f68v3 from some variant of the above diagram.  The same inverted "T-O map" arrangement (only with text instead of drawings), and the star-studded area around it bounded by a wolkenband.  But it seems that they (or a BEEP) did not know what the latter was, or how it is "officially" supposed to be drawn.  It seems that they mistook it for the physical edge of the starry area, seen either as a pool or as a thick plate.  
  
  And then they added the eight curved roads or rivers, four ending at the edge of the "pool" and four going through it  to the "T-O map".   Has anyone found another version of that "universe" drawing out there with similar "spiral arms"?
  
  All the best, --stolfi

• RE: A random rant about the VMS

  nablator > Yesterday, 02:31 PM

  (Yesterday, 02:04 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The astronomer in the picture presumably is Oresme, and the king is king of France (I think I see a fleur-de-lys in that picture, but I may be hallucinating).

  
  Yes. Nicole Oresme presenting his translation [of Aristoteles' book] to King Charles V (The Heaven and the World, Book I)
  

  Quote:f. 23 : Nicole Oresme remettant sa traduction au roi Charles V (Du ciel et du monde, Livre I)

  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  
  

  Quote:That "T-O map" in the painting is funny: instead of Europe, Asia, and Oceania it shows sea, countryside, and ... and ... beuh... pea soup with pappardelle? (Sorry, I haven't had breakfast yet...)

  
  I remember a previous discussion of the meaning of the "soup" : You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

• RE: A random rant about the VMS

  Stefan Wirtz_2 > Yesterday, 03:23 PM

  (Yesterday, 02:04 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[..]
  That "T-O map" in the painting is funny: instead of Europe, Asia, and Oceania it shows sea, countryside, and ... and ... beuh... pea soup with pappardelle? (Sorry, I haven't had breakfast yet...)
  [..] 

  
  Even funnier things happened on the way to the forum...:
  
  
  
  
  So pea soup may be quite ok.
  
  

  Jorge_Stolfi Wrote:Has anyone found another version of that "universe" drawing out there with similar "spiral arms"?
  [..]

  
  Someone will bring up that Armenian circle with 8 arms upon this. I don't.
  
  

  JustAnotherTheory Wrote:So basically what you guys are saying, is that the VMS could have been written by anyone, illustrated by anyone, using inspiration from any medieval or prior drawings, styles and illustrations, and we're not even sure if it's a single manuscript as it might be a collection of Voynichese documents bound together at a later stage.
  

  
  
  It is briefly state-of-the-art, yes.
  Some answers may imply that there is an origin of Latin and/or somewhere north or south of the Alps, but with none valid proofs existing, just "impressions" and (strong) beliefs.
• Next Oldest Next Newest