Back in 2006, I reasoned (in The Curse of the Voynich) that if the nine-rosette page’s circular city with a castle at the top…
…represented Milan (one of only three cities renowned for their circular shape), then the presence of swallowtail merlons on the drawing implied it must have been drawn after 1450, when the rebuilding of the old Porta Giovia castle (that was wrecked during the Ambrosian Republic) by Francesco Sforza as [what is now known as] the Castello Sforzesco began.
Ten Years Later, A Challenge
However, Mark Knowles recently challenged me on this: how was I so sure that the older castle on the site didn’t also have swallowtail merlons?
While writing Curse, for the history of Milan I mainly relied on the collection of essays and drawings in Vergilio Vercelloni’s excellent “Atlante Storico di Milano, Città di Lombardia”, such as these two pictures from Milano fantastica, in “Historia Evangelica et actos apostolorum cum alijs illorum temporum eventibus cum figuris crebioribus delineatis”, circa 1380:
…and this old favourite (which Boucheron notes [p.199] is a copy probably made between 1456 and 1472 of an original made in the 1420s)…
On the surface, it seemed from these as though I had done enough. But coming back to it, might I have been too hasty? I decided to fetch down my copies of Evelyn Welch’s “Art and Authority in Renaissance Milan” and Patrick Boucheron’s “Le Pouvoir de Bâtir” from the book overflow in the attic and have another look…
Revisiting Milan’s Merlons
What did I find? Well: firstly, tucked away in a corner of a drawing by Galvano Fiamma (in the 1330s) of a view of Milan (reproduced as Plate IIa at the back of Boucheron’s book), the city walls appear to have some swallowtail merlons (look just inside the two outermost towers and you should see them):
And in a corner of a drawing by Anovelo da Imbonate depicting and celebrating the 1395 investiture of Gian Galeazzo Visconti (reproduced in Welch p.24), I noticed a tiny detail that I hadn’t picked up on before… yet more swallowtail merlons:
Then, when I looked at other miniatures by the same Anovelo da Imbonate, I found two other (admittedly stylized) depictions of Milan by him that also unmistakeably have swallowtail merlons:
So it would seem that Milan’s city walls may well have had swallowtail merlons prior to 1450. The problem is that the city walls aren’t the same as the Porta Giovia castle walls (built from 1358, according to Corio): and I don’t think we know enough to say whether or not the castle itself had swallowtail merlons. It’s debatable whether the drawing of the 1395 investiture (which took place in the Porta Giovia castle) depicts the castle itself having swallowtail merlons: I just don’t know.
But the short version of the long answer is that because the Porta Giovia castle was only built from 1358-1372 (or thereabouts), we can’t rely on texts written before then (such as Galvano Fiamma’s). And there seems quite good reason to suspect (the Massajo drawing notwithstanding) that the Porta Giovia castle may well have had swallowtail merlons when it was used for the Visconti investiture in 1395. But I don’t know for certain, sorry. 🙁
There are texts that might give us an answer: for example, the (1437) “De Laudibus Mediolanensium urbis panegyricus” by Pier Candido Decembrio (mentioned in Boucheron p.74), or Bernardino Corio’s “Storia di Milano”. There are plenty of documents Boucheron cites in footnotes (pp.202-205), including “Lavori ai castelli di Bellinzona nel periodo visconteo”, Bolletino della Svizzera italiana, XXV, 1903, pp.101-104 (which I’ll leave for another day). But it’s obviously quite a lot of work. 🙁
Finally, I should perhaps add that a few details by Anovelo da Imbonate have an intriguingly Voynichian feel:
Though there were plenty of other miniature artists active in the Visconti court in Milan in the decades up to 1447, parallels between their art and the Voynich Manuscript’s drawings haven’t been explored much to date. Perhaps this is a deficiency in our collective Art Historical view that should be rectified. 🙂
I should just mention in passing that Bernardino Corio’s “Storia di Milano” is available as a FREE Ebook on Google Books though I haven’t yet managed to find a picture of the castle battlements.
Mark: I was hoping to find clues in the text there (rather than in any pictures). But as I recall there’s quite a lot of it… =:-o
Nick: First of all I should commend you for the overall thoroughness of your research here and elsewhere. I downloaded the pdf’s of the 3 volumes of Bernardino Corio’s “Storia di Milano” and did some searching inside; of course one big advantage of having electronic copies. In the second volume I was pleased to find quite a few references to an illustrious Valsesia and Novara family in particular a Francesco of that family. In the second volume I searched for “merlo” and found a few references “Google Translate” translates this as Blackbird, however I thought this term refers to battlements in general not just swallow(or blackbird)-tail battlements. I also searched for “giovia”, but I wonder if you would suggest other more suitable search terms or another approach to the book.
Nick: I thought I would mention my favourite quote from you in the BBC 4 documentary.
“Emperor Rudolf was a LOVELY guy I’m sure, but basically mad. He invited all the alchemists from Europe to his court and if they couldn’t produce what he wanted he KILLED them.”
I don’t feel these statements are wholly compatible. Madness aside, lovely people don’t go round killing other people.
Otherwise I would say in all honesty I felt, when I first watched this documentary, at the time that I just started delving into the Voynich, that you were the most impressive person in the documentary, so I merely mention my previous point in jest.
Nick: Before I went to University I read a book on the Philosophy of Maths. One thing the author criticised is that when one studies Maths, and I would think many other subjects, one learns what the end product of an amount of research is and not the process by which a researcher arrived at the end result. So for example one might study say Calculus and the standard formal derivations, but one doesn’t study how the original inventor/discoverer, say Newton, Leibniz or Archimedes, really developed their theory over time.
So how is this relevant? Well your book is great, but it is largely presented as the end result of a period of research rather than the journey you took leading you to the end result. Obviously your book is told as a story which makes perfect sense for popular academic books, although it is not ideally in the form a researcher might like. For example footnotes would have really helped. The book is great and I am glad I bought it, but for someone researching this area knowing what sources you used would be really valuable.
Mark: http://www.compellingpress.com/voynich/bibliography.html
Nick: Apologies, I hadn’t spotted that. Thanks
Nick: One thing I believe you used for your dating of the manuscript between 1450 and 1460 is the occurrence of the “4o” character in ciphers of that period, but not appearing in earlier ciphers. I have looked at the Biblography and it isn’t immediately obvious to me where you found these ciphers. This is something I have been very interested in, in general, for some time. I am sorry if you have provided this information elsewhere. By the way, what were your other reasons for your manuscript dating?
Mark: I covered a lot of them in Curse, but I’ll have a look in the blog, see if there’s a post on this already.
Nick: It would also be useful to know about all the Northern Italian and specifically Milanese ciphers say after 1380 that you have collated. I don’t want to put a lot of work on your plate, so whatever you have readily available would be really appreciated. Many Thanks!
This could represent in the future a basis for starting my research into this area. The Curse is great, but anything relevant that isn’t contained in their could also be useful.
Mark: as I recall, the ciphers in the 4o table in Curse were either from the 1440 Urbino cipher or from the Milanese Tranchedino cipher ledger (I don’t have a copy of Curse with me right now, I’ll check it at home tonight).
In the Curse you say it crops up in the Urbino cipher and the Milanese ciphers dated 1450, 1455 and 1456. So you are right about that. Sorry for your inconvenience I think I have tracked down the references in the Bibliography now. Interestingly the 1440 date of the Urbino cipher starts to approach my 1431 date. If I understand correctly from what you say you are not aware of any examples surviving of Milanese ciphers from the early 15th century, so it would be impossible to determine if the “4o” symbol was used prior to 1440.
I do not know why, but Nine Rosettes Page strangely reminds me of Moscow Red Square with St.Basil’s Cathedral(center rosette) and the
Moscow Kremlin(the long walls with swallow-tail merlons, small and big towers).More exactly, reminds me of a walk around the cathedral
of St. Basil, starting from the top right rosette in the clockwise direction.I think the whole drawing is made schematic,by
memory.This explains the differences (Saint Basil has eight towers and one central, not six as the figure in the central rosette), but
the most impressive details such as the shape and pattern of the domes and the stone pedestal of the cathedral are shown.Explore the
cathedral from all sides and you will understand what I mean.The same applies to the Moscow Kremlin.Only the most impressive details
are shown.The “tower in the hole” and the tower just below it are very similar to some of the angular towers of the Kremlin,the castle
we see under the right top rosette (normally upside down) reminds us of the Kremlin’s Nikolskaya Tower.Explore Kremlin from all sides
and you will understand what I mean.For long walls with smaller towers and swallow-tail merlons there is no need to comment anymore.I
guess the other eight rosettes also schematically and in memory describe other sights of Moscow.On the issue of the walls and towers of Kremlin Wikipedia says:1)”Grand Prince Ivan III organised the reconstruction of the Kremlin, inviting a number of skilled architects from Renaissance Italy, including Petrus Antonius Solarius, who designed the new Kremlin wall and its towers”;2)” The Kremlin walls as they now appear were built between 1485 and 1495.” This, grossly taking into account the uncertainty in the time of radiocarbon dating(50-60 years),coincides with the presumed time of creating the manuscript (or at least the parchment).On the other hand, St. Basil’s Cathedral was built from 1555–61 on orders from Ivan the Terrible(Wikipedia).This does not coincides with the presumed time of creating the parchment, but…at least the manuscript?
Milen: I wouldn’t worry about the Carbon Dating people generally interpret that in whichever way best fits their theory. So for example if they think the manuscript was written by Wilfred Voynich then people will say that he used very old parchment and pigments and that explains the carbon dating.
Thank You,Mark.
I just wanted to be more precise about such people. I do not want to get into a dispute about dates, facts, details and so on, because that way this site is becoming a simple chat. I want to read real news and not empty disputes .A few months ago I sent a comment to Mr. T.Spande with a nickname OutSiter. I prefer to stay like this and read so much more before I decide to say something.
Cheers (and You Tom)
Milen: I hope I didn’t sound rude, but I would be careful about coming to a date for the manuscript so much later than the Carbon Dating. Of course it is possible the author used old inks and old parchment or that the Carbon Dating is incorrect. However I would suggest that you need a very strong theory before you can justify that conclusion.
The problem we all face is that some drawings can easily look similar to many different buildings or other things. So the central rosette certainly resembles St.Basil’s Cathedral, but it also resembles many places and things. For example it could be said to resemble a salad bowl next to some salt and pepper grinders, but I really don’t think that is what it represents,
I would suggest one needs to try to explain every aspect of a drawing not just some and also one should explain why it differs from the thing you believe it represents, so the domes of St. Basil’s are joined together in real life whereas on the map they appear quite separate and therefore it does look different from St. Basil’s.
I believe the central rosette represents the Pope, not a place like the rest of the map. My own interpretation is that it shows a crown surrounded by chalices; note there is what appears to be the rim of another crown on the outer edge of the central rosette and the Pope’s tiara consisted of more than 1 crown. A combination of a crown, as the Pope was the king of his own state, and chalices, which are obvious religious symbols, explains my conclusion. The identification of the Pope also goes neatly with my other identifications on the map.
You can see my full analysis of the map the page below:
ciphermysteries.com/2010/05/29/a-miscellany-of-nine-rosette-link
Feel free to ask questions and pose criticisms.
For example one question that could be asked of my identification is why the “chalices” all look different from one another. The answer is I don’t know. My speculation is that they may represent different cardinals or different parts of the Pope’s dominion. There are other details of the drawing that could lead me to ask questions. However my identification of the central rosette seems to be the most complete and internally and externally consistent that I am aware of.
Milen: Analysing the map is very difficult, because we know the map is not a completely accurate representation of an area of land in the way a modern map would be. Also we know the author has incorporated artistic or design themes as part of their drawing, so inevitably meaning it deviates from reality. We also know the author was more ignorant of the actual geography of the area of land the drawing refers to than we are today. In addition the author probably didn’t feel the expectation that we have today that the map should be an accurate geographic representation.
So we are stuck with the problem that we know it doesn’t accurately represent the real world, but we need to determine which part of the real world it does nevertheless represent,
Continuing…
Milen: So what level and kind of deviation from reality is acceptable in our interpretation of the Voynich map? The simplest answer is as little deviation from reality as possible. Obviously where there is deviation it should be as far as possible consistent throughout the map. Does the deviation make logical sense? Does it fit within an artistic/design paradigm? Can one find a good justification for the difference?
In my opinion constructing a simple fairly plausible theory of the map is easy constructing a strong theory is very hard. I, personally, have done my best, but I am still faced as anyone would be with the questions I have listed above.
Mark: the structural problem with all theories that move from Voynich Manuscript images (whether nine-rosette page, nymphs, plants, jars or whatever) outwards to some presumed historical milieu is that they are almost always plastic enough to adapt themselves around details in a way that feels good, yet without any obvious way of gaining any external connectivity that could point back in. Tricky. 😐
Nick: You are absolutely right, though one has to inevitably accept that whilst that is a problem, some theories have a better fit than others. So for example I could postulate that the manuscript represents Oxford, the town in which I live, to make that theory work I believe I would require a more plastic theory than the Switzerland theory that I have posed, in my opinion. Furthermore a theory that claimed the map represents Australia would require a huge level of plasticity for that to fit. Whilst it might have seemed very frivolous this was a point I was trying to illustrate with my twerking example. So one naturally aims to find a theory with the minimum need for plasticity that one can create; what I call a theory of best fit. So in a theoretical sense one could come up with a hierarchy of theories in terms of their ability to fit the evidence of the map.
It is the case that to a significant extent my map theory was grounded in ideas of yours and to some extent others, so was not wholly dependent on geographical considerations. However I have been diligent in doing the best I can to challenge and criticise my theory every step of the way and as much as possible avoid unwarranted plasticity. I certainly did not go into my analysis with Switzerland on my mind, far from it, I found myself forced into it, because it just seemed to make much more sense than anywhere else, certainly within the framework of the Milan identification.
You make a very good point, there is a difficulty with on the one hand trying to interpret new details within an existing theory and making new details fit an existing theory, like forcing pieces to fit within a jigsaw even when they are not quite the right shape. (By new details I mean evidence that has not yet been examined like features of the map not yet looked at.) Getting the balance right is really hard.
In terms of questions of authorship or in my case the Council of Basel these details can be connected back to real history and examined in this context. Also the appearance of certain buildings or geographic features at the time of writing of the manuscript are important to giving a historical anchor to a theory.
Partial map theories allow for much greater plasticity than a whole map theory. To take an extreme example a theory which identifies only one building on the map is really much easier to fit. So I am inclined to believe one should aim to explain as many of the details, even the very minor details, on the map not just the obvious details; I feel this challenges the theory more to see if it can handle explaining as much as possible.
At the moment my whole map theory seems to me to be a significantly better fit than any others that I am aware of. However maybe someone will come up with a better theory than mine which in one way I will find disheartening, but in another exciting as it will represent progress.
Also in general any theory of any kind of the manuscript is a theory of best fit. We are all trying to find the optimal model which explains the manuscript.
But, finally you are right it is all very very tricky and anyone who is not very conscious of this is very likely to produce a poor to bad theory. Anyway, ultimately one has to do the best one can and I have and continue to try to do so.
Nick: One thing I feel increasingly is important is the ability of a theory to make predictions that can be subsequently tested. I think to some extent there can be a parallel made with scientific theories.
So for example, in Physics a theory like Electromagnetic Theory, Relativity and so on have been developed on the basis of empirical evidence, however they have also been used subsequently to make predictions about the physical world which have then been observed experimentally.
Whilst one does not do experiments with the Voynich one can make predictions on the basis of a theory one has developed about evidence that one has not yet analysed. The ability of a theory to make correct predictions can be viewed I think as a measure of its effectiveness or validity.
I fully accept that one needs to be careful in applying this parallel between scientific research and historical research too far. Although I think if one is very careful this can serve as a useful frame of reference.
My map theory makes a variety of predictions such as:
In 1431 the tower of the Abbey of St.Gall was under construction or in a state of destruction. This corresponds to what I think is termed “the hole in a hole” on the Causeway between the top left rosette and the top centre rosette, but I view as being the Abbey of St.Gall in the valley of St. Gallen.
As is so often the case with the Voynich finding the evidence in this case is difficult, although I know this Abbey experienced significant conflict and turbulence during the early 15th century.
You are aware of some other predictions my theory makes and has made. Such as the precise visual appearance of the crown of Milan. I can find a description in words which fits, but an image would be much better.
I have made many predictions of locations or appearance which I think I come out with an unexpectedly high level of accuracy.
Still the question remains if 1 prediction is incorrect does one decide the whole theory is wrong or can one justify modifying the theory to explain the mistaken prediction.
Whilst I can’t say every prediction I have made has come out the way I expected I think I have had a significantly higher success rate than one would otherwise anticipate most markedly as the theory has developed i.e. my predictions have got significantly better as the theory has become more complete whilst still non-obvious Whether the predictive power of the theory is good enough is far from certain, but I think, personally, well beyond mere coincidence.
Gentlemen, I am unable to see in any of the predominant blogs (Bax, Zandbergen, here and the V Temple) any chart or list of substantial findings with regard to the VM. A couple of possibles exist with regards to plants and buildings, more with cosmological charts but nothing about the language.
Am I wrong in thinking that there has been no attempt to lay the manuscript open before an Indian linguist, specifically one who has expertise in Northern Indian dialects?
petebowes: there’s a guy called Sukhwant Singh who has been trumpeting his Voynich theory for some time, I’m surprised that your searches so far haven’t uncovered his many, many, many claims. (Particularly on YouTube.)
http://www.voynich-manuscript-landa-khojki-scripts-sindhi-mahajans-book.net/
Also: Stephen Bax and his linguistic acolytes have put a lot of effort into uncovering so-thin-they’re-almost-transparent links between all manner of languages and Voynichese. However, if they’ve managed to make any progress beyond triumphant and self-congratulatory press releases, I’ve yet to see it.
Thanks for that ….
@Nick
Looking closer at page 76v, she tells us a story. On the upper right you can see how she is standing in a vessel and distributes something. That will probably be the sowat.
Then we see a kind of protective cover and hold a plant in your hand. This is probably the Hege and the harvest.
Then we see the dry, we know from old pictures of pharmacies.
So, in the next step, we see the first step that crushes, and at the same time separate that by the seven.
Why should someone put women in pots?
So it is probably plants where the horoscope part is represented, it is also obvious that the bathing mermaids are plants.
The timing of planting and harvesting has been defined by the calendar thousands of years ago.
Therefore, it is more than just logical to me what he represents here.
Peter, women may have bathed while standing in a waste water pot in the days a home didn’t have a bathroom.
Just a thought.
Petebowes: And in the horoscope part they still wear the clothes in the pot because the washing machine was not yet invented 🙂
… either that or the illustrator was a randy old goat for every month of the year.
Nick: Looking at the 9 rosette page over and over again and continuing to challenge myself and considering small revisions to my identifications, I thought about something you might find worth thinking about. The Bell Tower on the causeway between the top right and top centre rosette appears to have a Bell Tower design seen in a limited geographic area. Specifically the curly pattern just under the roof. On first investigation it looks like this kind of design can only be see on Bell Towers in Italy and South France. Overall the kind of flat roofed Bell Tower is most common in Italy.
Even if you disagree with my overall identification I think like the swallow tail battlements this could serve as a useful marker. For me, of course, this helps to further justify my broad geographic identification of the area covered by the “map”. If what I am saying is unclear I can send you an image illustrating what I mean.
Mark: thanks for the bell tower image, I’ll need to have a think about how that could be tested…
Nick: Yes as part of continually challenging my map theory I am questioning everything. I still seem to be drawn inexorably to broadly speaking the same conclusions, though I recognise that it is possible for specifics to be wrong. As part of this continual challenge to myself I am obviously challenging the Italy and Switzerland hypothesis overall. However features like the swallow tail battlements and the bell tower keep pushing me back to Italy. And the bearings and the Swiss lakes, in particular the profusion of lakes around Lucerne amongst other things, keep pushing me back into Switzerland. My core working hypothesis is much the same As before although I am tinkering with details. The main practical things I see coming from my analysis IF true are: first of all authorship which leads to the slow and arduous process of broadly speaking finding information about the author to determine influences on the cipher they might use and secondly an observation about the cipher and some short word possible identifications.(I much prefer short words to long words for obvious reasons. It also seems to me that labels are most likely superior to sentence words.) At the moment I have still barely glanced at the rest of the manusctipt and my write up looks like it will just get longer especially as I think I should do as much as possible to criticise my own analysis rather than let someone else do it.
@Mark
Sure you already know this. But to the left of the castle there is a kind of fortress lock. I can imagine this is also an important note.
Example:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BChlbacher_Klause
PS: Behind Bellinzona there are also 2.
And I live very close to Zurich.
Nick: I would like to be able to email Peter an image or two. I am not sure that I want to put my email address publically on this forum and similarly I don’t know if Peter would be happy to declare his email address. However you have both of our email addresses, so maybe you can email Peter my address and possibly vice a versa if you think appropriate.
Peter: I believe one building on the map to represent the Reichskloster Fraumünster in Zurich. I believe Lake Zurich, Lake Constance and the Limmat River are also illustrated as is Laufen Castle in Schaffhausen and St. Johann & Castle in Rapperswil plus Basel Munster. These are all illustrated on the Causeway from the Top Centre rosette to the Top Left rosette. If I email you an image it will make it much clearer what I mean. Hopefully you might also be able to help me with my enquiries.
Peter: One big problem with Mühlbacher Klause is that it does not have Swallow Tail battlements. Also from my personal perspective it does not fit with the rest of my analysis. Bellinzona fits much better for many reasons which I could go into.
Peter: Having read your comment again I am not exactly sure that I understand what you are saying; your English is much better than my German, so this is not intended as a criticism. Maybe we can chat online about this.
Nick: One issue which I think needs to be addressed is that of where there were swallow tail merlons around the time from which the manuscript dates.
I have my identifications of the locations of these merlons on the “map”. However I would really like to put this question on a firmer footing. This is an issue which has bugged me since the first time I looked at the manuscript.
The standard mantra is that at the time of the writing of the Voynich swallow tail merlons were found only in Northern Italy. However on what basis are we saying that. Clearly this benefits my and your narrative, but I am not confident that this has been sufficiently well justified. Being able to say this categorically would be really valuable.
I note that there is strong evidence that there were swallow tail battlements in the Eastern Mediterranean in the latter half of the 15th century.
It reasonable to say that swallow tail battlements were vastly more common in Northern Italy at the time of the writing of the Voynich than they were anywhere else, but is there good reason to believe they could not possibly have been anywhere else at that time or is this really guesswork?
Mark: I have never argued that swallowtail merlons were found only in Northern Italy. I would agree that they were most commonly found there, but (as you point out) that was not the same thing. 🙂
Nick: I know is very difficult, but it would nice to get on top of this. Similarly my observation regarding the geographical spread of the flat-roofed bell towers I emailed you about I think it would be nice to pin those down geographically more precisely. There is another building which I have been thinking about with regard to geographical area of that kind of architecture which I may get back to you on. As an aside it is striking the dramatic difference in architecture between Italy and Italian Switzerland compared with German Switzerland. Not being someone who has ever thought much about the history of architecture it is really noticeable how different architecture can be between 2 neighbouring areas; I am sure to some this is an obvious point.
@Nick@Mark: Plus to Milan:) — the style of drawing EVA-Q is most similar to the Milan style of the Arabic numerals ‘4’ in the XV-XVI centuries.
Nick: Do you know of anyone else who has seriously explored the Milanese association Voynich hypothesis, other than yourself? Ot potentially someone ecploring Northern Italian cipher research of that period. I can see an advantage in pooling resources and collaborating with someone on this research.
Mark Knowles:
What do you think of the hypothesis that links some VMS images to a castle in northern Italy, namely Runkelstein castle (Castel Roncolo, swallow-tail merlons) near Bolzano in South Tyrol? There are similarities to the frescoes created around 1400, see the websites linked by me in another thread: http://ciphermysteries.com/2017/11/19/a-voynich-morning#comments.
Thomas: At the moment my thinking is far from South Tyrol.
Can you remind me of your email address?
Or can you email me at [email protected]?
Mark: as far as the Milanese angle goes, I published everything I dug up in “The Curse of the Voynich”, so that would almost certainly be the #1 place to start.
One prominent and relevant and interesting family I found found from the time of the Filippo Maria Visconti’s Chancery connected to diplomatic communication was the Castiglioni family particularly Guarniero Castiglioni and Franchino Castiglioni. In addition Giacomo Barbavara and his sons played a very important role. The other figures of significance in the Filippo Maria Visconti administration do not appear to have been so involved in the nitty of Milanese diplomacy though clearly Pietro Candido Decembrio, who was a well-known writer and secretary to the Duke, was a leading light and there were certainly other people who served important roles.
Something that I only just read:
Duke of Milan, Giovanni Maria Visconti, was murdered on the threshold of the church of San Gottardo.
Nick, I have been inclined to think your identification of San Gottardo is correct. I have only been slightly worried by the fact the bearings are somewhat off and it lies outside the city walls. Nevertheless this is one more reason to think you are right as clearly San Gottardo would have been a place of significance in the 15th century Milanese mind.
It seems increasingly that my theory implies that much of the Voynich was written during and influenced by the author’s journey to and from the Council of Basel. The author would have stopped at various libraries on the journey, studying manuscripts and picking up influences on his work. He spent some time at the Council and during his free time could have been visiting libraries there and working on his manuscript; appararently there are very rich manuscript collections in Basel. He was not a very prominent figure at the Council and so may have had plenty of free time. I do not know yet when he left for the Council and when he returned, but it could account for much of the time it took to write the Voynich. It also would account for the mixture of Italian, German and even some French influences on the contents of the Voynich. His herbal could be influenced by the wild plants, especially alpine plants, that he would have encountered on his journey. Now my theory leads me to believe that the cipher symbols and influences were mostly or wholly Italian.
This theory would imply that the 9 rosette foldout was written after 1430. I am inclined to believe that it was written before 1435, though this is fairly speculative. Again it would seem, though again this is speculation, that the Voynich was written over 2 or 3 years. So this would make me inclined to think the whole manuscript was written between 1428 and 1436 and more likely between 1429 and 1434.
So if a more precise carbon dating were to come to a date like 1412 that really demolishes my theory as I find it hard to believe that the parchment used would have been lying around for 15 years before being used; especially as I would expect that the large piece, I guess non-standard, of parchment used for the 9 rosette page would have been cut specially for the author.
Mark: I’m not sure what more precise carbon dating might be contemplated; Your query on that brings to mind my frustrating efforts to locate formal documentation that supports the original press statement made by Dr. Greg Hodgins. This related to results of detailed carbon dating process conducted at his AU accellerator lab upon the four MS samples provided for the purpose. It was reported in a Science Daily at the time, that the results also included support for the inks used on the test velum being of the same period ie. 1404-38. Some worthy like yourself, with a lust for original document procurement, might feel like chasing this one up; presuming that the logical place of keeping would be at Beneike Library, the client sponsor.
Nick: I am inclined to the view that the current appearance of the Sforzesco castle with its front tower probably does not reflect how it looked in the 15th century as you have argued. So my previous objection to your identification as the Sforzesco castle on this basis is probably not valid. However, of course, this in no way undermines my assertion of it being the Castello di Porta Giova.
Nick: As part of my writeup I have tried to address all the alternative theories of this page. You have suggested that the page represents Architect’s plans and I am not sure precisely what you mean by that. Do you know of any document from that time period of architects plans in any way similar to the 9 rosette foldout?
Mark: what I wondered (in Curse back in 2006) was whether the nine-rosette page might be a record of buildings that Antonio Averlino had worked on – as with the rest of Curse, this was a consequence of the hypothesis that the Voynich Manuscript was in some way a version of Averlino’s little books of secrets. As such, that would make it not so much a map as a collection of places linked by a different kind of (non-geographic) thread.
Nick: That is very interesting. Did you have the chance to see if there was any documentary precedent for a collection of places linked by a different kind of (non-geographic) thread elsewhere?
So far I have only seen crudely drawn distributed buildings in maps of the period, but there may be documents that I have not seen.
Mark: it’s hard to look for manuscripts based on what they aren’t. 😉
Nick: Yeah, so far the only non-map image that I have seen with some loose similarity to the 9 rosette page is the 4 elements image that I included in the download. Rene suggestion that the rosette may represent planets again I have seen no precedent for elsewhere. One thing I think I need to look into is the map with the causeways as from what I have read this may present some kind of paradigm for the causeway structure that we see on the rosettes page.
Really from my perspective the Voynich “map” is very like a medieval strip map. A strip map is a series of strips corresponding to different parts of a journey, a good example of such a map is that of Matthew Paris from around the year 1250.
Within that paradigm the Voynich map represents a series of strips representing a circular journey with strips on each side of a square. However the Voynich “map” has more in common with other maps than the strip maps do as the strips are as broadly consistent with the bearings. So the Voynich “map” is a combination of a medieval strip map and a normal medieval map. The circular city in the top right rosette is very consistent with a medieval map, the other corner rosettes are less like what we see amongst medieval maps though not necessarily inconsistent. The key difference are the centre side rosettes and the central rosette as there are not obvious parallels to these amongst any maps that I know of. However it should not be a shock to find the highly inventive author producing his/her own way of representing their journey.
I should add that Matthew Paris was a Benedictine monk and he produced a series of strip maps illustrating his journey from London to Jerusalem. One page of his strip maps concerns his journey through Lombardy. I would argue that this parallels what we see with the causeways in the Voynich.
The longer I look at the rosette page and compare it with the rest of the book I don’t see any travel. It may be a way.
I start at the top left, where looks like a sun ( warmth, light) and walk down what resembles some lakes ( water) ” maybe mountains “.
Further right where looks like a garden and fields ( earth) and above the city.
With the city, it raises some questions for me. Are the three others the cornerstones of plants (“life”) where remedies are processed in the city and thus land in the middle of the rosette in the vessels?
Compared to the rest of the book, where mainly plants and stars are involved (as far as we know), I see here the greatest possible match
Peter: I agree with the argument expressed by someone else that the two suns represent the rising of the sun in the East and the setting of the sun in the West. I agree with you regarding the resemblance to “lakes” in the bottom left hand corner. I agree broadly speaking with your interpretation of the bottom right rosette as a garden and fields. As regards your interpretation of the meaning cornerstones and the middle rosette my interpretation is very different. I have described my “map of a journey” interpretation at length on this website.
Peter: I think the key unique features of the 9 rosette page are first of all the presence of many distinctly different detailed though crudely drawn buildings with very specific relative locations on the page, in addition we see illustrations of water which are very typical of what we see on maps of that time and illustrations of mountains and cliffs. Of all the documents that I have seen of that time the 9 rosette page resembles maps much more than any of documents. I would welcome anyone to produce a document that resembles the page as much as a map of that time. Whilst it has some aspects to it not seen in maps of that time it has others which closely resemble what we see in maps of that period. A wide diversity of ways of representing maps unlike in our time was common in that period, so in that sense the 9 rosette “map” is not unusual as a medieval map.
Peter: I argue that given that if one were to select a medieval document at random that has distinctly different detailed crudely drawn buildings specifically located on it as well as geographical features like mountains and cliffs the overwhelming probability is that the document you have selected would be a map; I can say this based on my experience even though I obviously have not seen all such documents.
All alternative explanations involve a significant element of fantasy to them, I mean by that that one has to conceive of a documentary form of representation for which their is no parallel from that time period that we are aware of.
Peter: Almost certainly I have studied this page of the Voynich in more detail than anyone. When one studies it very carefully, one becomes conscious of the number of precise and specific details throughout the page. I wonder why someone would take so much care to draw those details and why buy a large expensive piece of skin for the purpose if those details did not have a significance. I share the view which Nick has expressed of the author being “hyper-rational” and so I believe all the details were drawn intently. Which from my perspective fits neatly with the idea of it being a map.
What is interesting to me is that now I wonder if in some ways that page is the most important in the manuscript and the page around which the rest revolves. This is, because I wonder about the connection between the manuscript as a whole and the journey he/she took. If much of the manuscript were written and compiled from resources that the author encountered on that journey and written whilst conducting that journey then the page assumes a special significance.
Mark, if I compare what you write with the rest of the VM, it simply makes no sense.
I do not write a construction manual of a motor in a cookbook.
I just do not see any connection, so the theory of a trip is off the table for me.
Peter: I understand your point, one can ask why a map was included and why it was necessary. There may be references in the Voynich to specific places where certain plants, recipes or source manuscripts for various contents in the Voynich manuscript were to be found, in which case the “map” would be a useful reference. I think many manuscripts had diverse content at that time, so I think it is not as unusual as you suggest. We know the Voynich is more than a cookbook as it contains astrological drawings, so we already know it contains some diverse content.
Of course we know that the contents of the Voynich manuscript may have been assembled later and so it is possible that distinct and different documents that were not originally together were later assembled into one manuscript.
The practical point to me is that if you go into your bathroom and find what looks and acts just like a platypus swimming in your bath then you will conclude it is a platypus no matter how out of keeping with its surroundings it is. To find a map in such a manuscript is far more likely than finding a platypus in your bath.
The fundamental point for me is that it much more closely resembles a map than anything else.
Peter, many of the themes in the VMS are medical. Medieval medical students were required to study plants, healthful bathing practices, anatomy, and astrology (including “good” and “bad” days on the calendar for certain procedures or for administering certain medications).
Medical students traveled as they do today. Many did their undergraduate work at one university (London, Heidelberg, Paris, Padua, Pisa, etc.) and their graduate work elsewhere (Salerno, Naples, London, etc.).
So, IF the VMS were a medical reference (not saying it is, but the themes do fit), then the inclusion of a map would not be unreasonable. It was quite common for people in the Middle Ages to write out their travel itineraries. Perhaps this is a visual embodiment of the same idea.
Mark, the first question where I am, what should the platypus in my bathtub and what is it doing there? With a spider or maybe even a mouse, I can understand that …. but a platypus?
And that’s exactly what it’s all about, it’s simply incomprehensible, no matter what kind of possibilities you are heading for … beach holidays?
J.K. Petersen, what would you draw on a journey? Certainly something you have never seen before.
Everything except the rosette is normal. Does he suddenly have a bang?
It just does not fit the rest of the book.
Therefore, the trip is a dead end for me.
Ants.
J.K.Peterson – 0 ( bad ).
Mark Knowlwes – 0 ( bad, bad, bad ).
Peter – good.
You see mountains and rosettes. And that’s good. 🙂
1. Deutsch : Berg.
1. Czech : Hora.
2. Deutsch : Rosette.
2. Czech : Růžice.
Dast ist ein versteckter Name : Rosenberg.
This is a hidden name : Rosengerg.
Elizabeth of Rosenberg. 🙂
Eliška z Rožmberka .
Peter: As I have explained in detail on this website, I interpret the page as representing a journey to and from the Papal Council of Basel starting in Lombardy. On this journey the author would have encountered important libraries with manuscripts which may have acted as sources for the Voynich and most probably various wild herbs. So in fact in this context the page may have been integral to the manuscript rather than a peripheral anomaly.
I do wonder if even the size of the page would support the idea of it being a map as larger pieces of vellum were more likely to used for maps than smaller pieces of vellum. I have not researched this topic of the size of vellum used for medieval maps relative to the size of vellum used for other documents, however I would expect a correlation. It would be an interesting question as to what the probability of it being a map is purely based on its size.
Mark: the super-wide bifolios elsewhere in the Voynich seem to have no obvious parallels, so it would appear that something odd is going on with many of the page sizes. :-/
Peter wrote: “J.K. Petersen, what would you draw on a journey? Certainly something you have never seen before.”
It depends whether it’s a journal or an itinerary.
• A journal would record what was seen along the way.
• An itinerary would record landmarks to help one FIND the way.
Itineraries were extremely important in the Middle Ages because the only way to move overland was by walking (even if you went by donkey, the donkey still had to walk), and it was not uncommon for people to walk thousands of miles.
As just one possibility, if the VMS were created by a doctor for his son (as a way of passing on confidential knowledge), the doctor might document important landmarks on a journey to the medical schools or to places with important pharmacies, or to places where medicinal plants might be found, or to stopovers where relatives might provide shelter along the way.
To me they look like landmarks (twin towers, Ghibelline merlons, a prominent mountain or volcano or colliseum, etc.). It’s also possible it’s a metaphorical map (like the new Jerusalem), or a mnemonic map, but my gut feeling leans toward a real map.
Nick: That is a good point. I have not investigated the parallels to other pages in the Voynich, so I can’t comment on that. However I think we can say that we are dealing with an inventive and original thinker, for such a person it would not be surprising to find documents with no obvious parallel elsewhere. (This, as I have stated before, has been a source of slight concern with the Block Paradigm approach; though I still support that approach.)
My simple argument as I have expressed in detail here is that it fits much more neatly in the box of maps than the box of non-maps with more parallels to maps of that time than any other documents that we know of. It should not be surprising that our inventive author had his/her own way of representing a map. Though as I have said before at that time there was a wide variety of different ways of representing a map unlike our modern maps with their consistently accurate representation of distances and angles; in fact modern maps allow far less for artistic creativity. Again, it strikes me that topological maps like the London Underground map are a closer parallel. In some ways modern maps are very boring as precision is key, so inevitably one map looks very similar to the next.
JKP: Wow. It seems like we have a point of some agreement rather than butting heads.
I, obviously, have my own very specific and detailed analysis of this page. If you are interested email me at:
[email protected]
I tend to find the non-map theories generally, so insubstantive that there is nothing to argue with as they seem to be based on a couple of ideas picked out of thin air. (It is true that Nick’s theory is very specific in certain areas, but as an overall theory of the page it is very non-specific.)
I could suggest that every rosette represents a bowling ball and the buildings all represent pins and this theory is plucked out of thin air in the way that some, not all, non-map theories are based on a few loose visual similarities or commonalities. Also these theories can usually be detailed on the back of a matchbox.
The “map” theories, however flawed some of them certainly are, do tend to be more fleshed out and detailed. Whether we are talking about Diane’s theory or Gerard Cheshire’s theory or others that I have seen whose originators I have forgotten. Clearly detail does not mean correctness especially as these theories are mutually contradictory. However their detail does provide a basis for a critical analysis which is lacking in non-map theories.
Needless to say my own “map” theory is much more detailed, whether right or wrong, than any other “map” theory; I think I can now say this with confidence.
I thought I should say that the “Tabula Peutingeriana” Roman map seems to be interesting and relevant to the Voynich “map”.
Those interested in non-map theories may be interested the late 15th Century German Apocalypse maps, though some pages of the manuscript containing the maps are intended to represent real maps, I believe.
Having looked at some Islamic maps they look very different in style.
My researches have led me very much to the conclusion that if the 9 rosette foldout is a map then for that period it is not unusual in looking unusual. In fact it looks much more like a standard medieval map than quite a few.
To suggest it is not a map requires one to create a new form of representation with no known contemporary precedents. As far as I know nobody has even elucidated clearly what that new form of representation is and how it manifests itself on the page even before getting to specific details. Now, as said before, the author being a creative person may have generated their own unique form of representation without parallel. Still there needs to be some suggestion as to what that form is.
I have to return to the conclusion that I am about as certain as you can get that it is a map.
I have noted that some suggest the * type shapes in the centre of the central rosette represent stars, but these * s are all over the page. I believe they are a design feature and have no meaning as such.
Rene: I have been giving thought to other 9 rosette pages theories as part of my writeup.
Rene, your Planets theory fails to explain a lot. Why are there causeways with buildings between them on the causeway connecting top centre to top left and a wall between bottom left to bottom centre. Are these buildings on other planets or merely floating through space? That there are buildings on the other 2 causeways makes little sense. In fact the mere presence of the causeways and their differing appearance is completely unexplained by your theory. What the illustrations on the other “planets” mean is unexplained. As well as almost all of the other details. I feel that it is so simple and incomplete that it can hardly be called a theory at all.
I’m too tired to do much except to refer you to the wharves of Rome and Frascati. One of the folios in the so-called “Voynich” manuscript illiustrates the wharves… Take a look at the base of one of those wharves/landings which have several ships tied up to them.
BTW Rome and Frascati share the tall wall which separates them from each other , but also surrounds Rome entirely
bd
Nick: I just wanted to say that the considerable help that you gave me on this question was really very much appreciated and something I would probably have found difficult to do myself. It is also indicative of your intellectual open-mindedness, your willingless to challenge your own ideas on the basis of evidence, your commitment to assisting other Voynich researchers with their own research and your overall thoroughness in research; I have a lot of respect for that. I know I probably seemed overly hostile in our previous discussion, so I am sorry for that.
I’ve been going over the various Voynich writers’ lists of extant examples of ‘fishtail merlons’ (though termed by Voynich writers ‘swallow-tail merlons).
No-one doubts that the French-Savoy Challant family, and the Vale d’Aosta, saw the style proliferate from about the thirteenth century, but the problem with these recent Voynich lists is that few seem to know that during the late eighteenth but more particularly during the nineteenth century, romanticised ‘re-constructions’ of old castles became popular – much like the ‘Gothic revival’ movement.
Even military historians and archaeologists express difficulty in dating such details as fishtail merlons, which means that if people are only going to consider such examples as remain today, and only in Europe, they need to look into each example in some depth before claiming they looked like that before 1440 AD.
I wish I had time to dig into the question of why the Franco-Savoyard Challant family adopted the style. Did it occur after the County was declared a duchy in its own right – which was done by the Sicilian Frederick II ( termed ‘the baptised Saracen’). Now, examples occur earlier in Sicily, as I’ve shown, and comparable forms occur earlier still in Islamic military architecture, and still stand in Spain. Some examples from Sicily allow an argument that these fishtails are an effort to produce, in brick, forms earlier made in mud-brick.
Full disclosure – I identified the so-called ‘Castle’ as a token for Constantinople/Pera, with the small roundel in which it appears dated from internal details to c.1350 AD. That small detail doesn’t show a castle, and includes square and fishtail merlon to convey information by reason of the significance attaching to those motifs. Literalism cannot – should not – be presumed in treating these drawings.
@Diane
Small correction.
It is called Swiss family, House of Savoy.
Peter I of Savoy was cousin of Rudolf I of Habsburg.
Grandmother of both was Margaret of Savoy, Countess of Kyburg (Winterthur).
https://www.chillon.ch/en/castle/savoy-period/
Diane: do I dare to consider my humble self as being one of your so called “Voynich writers”, even to your own virtual exclusion? If so thanks, though I doubt that Nick Pelling and most others of equal standing would agree with such elevated status.
John, the Challant family were not Swiss.
Sorry Peter, I addressed the comment to John.
Nationality, cultural environment, and bloodline are distinct things, Peter.
You can’t inherit German-ness or Italian-ness or Irish-ness or English-ness by blood alone.
In almost any part of medieval Europe you care to name, the local peasants had more claim to long histories than whoever happened to occupy the local throne at the moment.
Have you ever seen a map of the marriage networks in medieval Europe?
(you might have to shrink your screen a bit to see this)
https://voynichrevisionist.files.wordpress.com/2022/12/map-entanglements-marriages-medieval.png?w=768
The source is credited in the caption.
In my opinion, the SWALLOW-TAIL MERLONS that are on the VOYNICH NINE-ROSETTE PAGE are the ideograph of the Moscow Kremlin – the walls and the tower of the Kremlin.
https://www.shutterstock.com/pl/search/kremlin-wall
Grzegorz, Yes I looked at those very early on, when first surveying instances attested in documents and in archaeology of those fishtail merlons (which is what you’ll find them called in non-Voyich technical studies).
The dates are wrong. simple as that.
In my opinion, Folio 86V is a graphically encoded map of the world. The centrally located segment “tells” about the spiritual cradle of the world – which is Jerusalem.
Diane – especially for you below I present a visualization of how I see it. In the next link, the addresses of the Facebook page where I describe everything in words.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_D7519kDE0&list=PLNNZZOSa8w1trMNDRYyvHFoFjcBp6Yk2B&index=137&ab_channel=GrzegorzOstrowski
https://www.facebook.com/grzegorzzkoszalina/
Diane. And other scientists. Study this :https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ro%C5%BEmberk_(castle)
Here you will find out the name of the castle. Where did our very clever Eliška live. The castle was rebuilt several times. And so the walls are gone today. The castle was built by Witigo of Rosenberg. This is what Vítek from Rožmberk means today. That’s why Eliška showed it to you on those walls with the letter – V. (V or in other rosettes the letter VV = W. It means the name Witigo or Vítek).
Diane and the fact that the tower is outside the castle. So it shows that another castle was built next to that castle. These are two castles next to each other. The Rosenberg family lived in both castles.
From the original castle. Which was built first. Only one tower remains. And her name is Jacobinka. Eliška liked it very much. because from it she observed the surroundings of the castle. And she was also thinking about how to confuse various scientists in Australia and the USA.
The manuscript has nothing to do with Italy. Although on the other hand, Eliška’s grandfather. A certain Oldrich II. of Rosenberg tried to connect the Rosenberg families with the Italian Orsini family. He went to Italy often. As well as other members of this Czech noble family. Eliška was also at home in Italy. Before she got married in Austria, she went to a castle that Hendrich Graf von Hardegg bought from the sons of the Czech king Jiří from Poděbrady for a lot of gold.
Diane and the scientists. And what is important. The name of the castle is written in the rosette. – Rožmberk. (Rose mountain = Rosen Berg). And directly above the castle are three letters. o.a.m. This means the word = to live.
Substitution. o.a.m. = z.i.t. (there are no hooks and commas in the manuscript). So you add a hook and a dash. The word will = ž.í.t.
In the English language it means = to live. Eliška writes to you that she lives at Rosenberg Castle.
And what every scientist can surely see. He sees a fish, of course. And the fish is waving its hand at you all. That’s what Eliška from Rožmberk is waving at you. With that, everyone greets you. The fish has two blue eyes. And a big smile too. That’s how Eliška from Rožmberk laughs. Why is he laughing? Because it takes you a hundred years. And so she laughs and waves at you to encourage you into action.
Those who do not know the Jewish substitution cipher and the Czech language will never be able to decipher the text of the manuscript.
Grzegorz,
My own conclusion, after spending quite some time on the research, is that it is a map in the true sense, but interestingly one whose style, layout and stylistics overall are neither those of the Arabic nor of the European traditions.
Most interestingly, I thought, it makes no reference to Rome or to Jerusalem, and the Mediterranean is only referenced by one small roundel (placed in our version in the northern quadrant, but distinct from the ‘north’ emblem as such).
For too many reasons to repeat here, I believe it based on a Hellenistic-era original, to which additions were made in at least two earlier recensions, the last having added the Mediterranean, but in the form of a circular ‘itinerary’.
For reasons concerning stylistics, the concept of a ‘square’ earth (which is not the Latins’ tradition at all) and other particular details, I think our present version reflects the period of the Mongol century and more exactly a period close to 1349-1350. The translation into Europe I have tentatively ascribed to the well-known and close co-operation of Genoese and Jews in ports of the Black Sea after c.1291, although (as I explained in more detail in the research-summary posts to Voynichimagery) the role played by Constantinople, and to a lesser extent by the Venetians in negotiating an alliance between Mamluk Egypt and the Mongols around the Black Sea means that we cannot rule out the possibility of Venetian, rather than Genoese involvement in the making of our present version. It is other details – such as those in the calendar which indicate, rather the communication lines controlled by Genoa in the south-western Mediterranean.
That’s a very brief summary, and while I don’t dispute that the drawing is a form of map, I did not find that it represented the entire world as we know it, but its limits are pretty much those of Alexander’s empire, with the inclusion of a major site in north Africa, but nothing except the late ‘itinerary’ of Europe and what I had initially thought a reference to Avignon I found later to refer to some site – I would not be more definite – on the western side of Sicily. That it cannot be of an originally Latin (i.e. western Christian) medieval origin is clear not only from stylistic considerations, but because a route overland across northern Africa is indicated, and that route was entirely barred to westerners, so far as our historical records go – though admittedly the same route is seen on Cresques map of 1375 and he also puts in the same relative position (north-west) the image I’ve called the ‘Angel of the Rose’. It is drawn far more literally in the Voynich map, and we find in other fourteenth century charts of the cartes marine type details which allowed me to conclude, again, that the Voynich material had reached western Europe through Jewish-Genoese co-operation, during the fourteenth century.
I’ve explained at such length here, Grzegorz, because at present I have little reason or incentive to re-publish the whole analysis of the map.
I did not find that it was in any sense ‘enciphered’ or rendered secret – the reason it proves so obscure, for the most part, to modern western readers is that the visual language used in most of it is an unfamiliar one. Difficulties arise when people accustomed to read images in their own traditional codes simply presume all images use the same. The north roundel, which I consider an addition made during the fourteenth-century recension does employ a code which is near-enough to that used by western Europe – which is why it draws the eye of modern readers, and especially the inclusion of a structure sporting what is usually called, in Voynich studies, swallowtail merlons.
Just recently, I’ve come to think that we might learn a good deal more about the antecedents of the map, and of most of the material in the manuscript, from some serious, detailed study of works that had been produced under the auspices of the Caliph al Ma’mun ( a son of Harun al Raschid) – chiefly in astronomy, geography and mathematics. To do the research justice, you’d need someone like Langermann or King, who was competent to read, analyse and comment on original documents. Not me.
Cheers.
The key figure is Giovani Fontana
Dave – interesting you should say that. I’ve constantly read Philip Neal’s translations of the seventeenth-century documents, but never before his page about Giovani Fontana.
One sentence suggests that Fontana had been influenced by the theories propounded by Hugh of St.Victor:
“… The accompanying text concerns the principle that mnemonic images should be dramatic and exaggerated; water should gush in floods, animals should be fierce and so on.”
A manuscript which Marco Ponzi brought to notice a few years ago was a student’s notebook with borders adorned with drawings of that kind too. More nearly Renaissance bodies, though.
It’s interesting to see that Fontana wrote a book on the subject of perspective – which is so noticeably absent from the Vms drawings and from one that Neal shows in that page on his site. Have you seen it?
http://philipneal.net/voynichsources/fontana_cipher_manuscripts/
Nick has also written some great posts about Fontana and his works.
I’ll add a note and link to Neal’s page at my blog, too. Though I have to say I think when it comes to drawings in those manuscripts of Fontana’s text, Neal is perfectly right in not exaggerating their similarity to the Vms’. They have signs of the ruler and compass everywhere – the Vms scarcely anywhere.
I have uploaded my “map” finally on Voynich Ninja
I found the castle. https://x.com/attackgirl/status/1337840052462825474?s=61
And it all matches …perfectly everything
Apropos of nothing much, it’s surprising how often the same few surnames turn up in Voynich studies. Some which come to mind.. Two ‘Petersens’, two ‘Tuckers’, now a non-Arthur-C ‘Clarke’. I’ve also seen another ‘Diane’ – which is not a common name since the 1960s, and there may be more if one were to go looking at posts to ‘X-twits’ and Voynich forums.
Even the trees are the same!
https://x.com/attackgirl/status/1758903463256187292?s=61
Nick –
Rightly or not I have a very distinct impression of reading something you wrote about the merlons, where you mentioned the Val d’Aosta as a region where there are many buildings today that have original, or renovated, swallowtail merlons.
I’m just re-printing a post that shows an image representing an apothecary’s shop in the Val d’Aosta (c.1500 though) and I’d really like to make the connection to your earlier comments on that region. Can’t find it in ‘Curse’ or by a search here.
Have I mis-remembered?
D.N. O’Donovan,
A Prayer to Filarete (14/4/2017)
Sired by Fact and out of Fiction
That’s your Voynich contradiction.
The plot does not translate to diction,
That’s the fault, the dereliction.
Be the Merlons round or square
We just don’t know and I won’t dare
To say you’re wrong or that I care
What made them put embrasures there
For who am I to probe and vet
Distorted flimsy facts and yet
If I was to place my bet
An outside chance I’d say Rosette
The nubile Nymphs what do they mean
By waving tits and womb and spleen
Tasteless sick and most obscene
Let’s put the blame on Thomas Keane
The victuals shown be quite absurd
Some hint of tubers others turd
No sign of game or fish or curd
Just one old dried up gooney bird
Now could this be the missing clue
In AD 1432 when man first sailed the oceans blue
And found strange lands they never knew
Did Averlino chance to go there too
They met some beauties from the Basque
And placed each in a wooden cask
Then rubbed them down but please don’t ask
What salve they used that’s not my task
If you really seek such knowledge
Then swing by Filarete’s old college
Whilst there you’ll take the campus pledge
Not to query doubt or sledge the sacred Voynich tutelage.
@Mark Knowles,
Among your comments above, just re-read, I find a conclusion that I’d agree with almost completely.
“…one can ask why a map was included and why it was necessary. There may be references in the Voynich to specific places where certain plants, recipes or source manuscripts for various contents in the Voynich manuscript were to be found, in which case the “map” would be a useful reference.”
except that I’d say one *must* “ask why the map was included and why it was necessary.” and rather than hypothesising “certain plants, recipes or source manuscripts” just say “.. places where certain goods were available.”
I spent about 3 years’ researching that drawing (2011-2012), pubishing research summaries and continuing to supplement that work with small additions to as late as 2018, and I understand how the idea of a ‘sources for manuscripts’ idea might have seeped into Voynich conversations, because at one stage, while treating the importance given Constantinople-Pera (for which the ‘castle’ is token), I discussed the interest shown by Italy’s maritime states in gaining knowledge of routes east – not for pilgrimage but for commerce – and spoke in particular of one chap’s notebook in which he described his journey, commissioned by Italian humanists, to obtain ‘ancient’ manuscripts from sites in the old Byzantine sphere. I’ve also spoken -separately – of one particular manuscript (not linked to him) in which we find copied works of the minor Greek geographers, the majority of whom had been products of the Hellenistic, rather than Classical Greek world. So while it is theoretically possible such works contained a basic model for the Voynich map, whose parameters are closely compatible with those of the Hellenistic kingdoms (but with addition of a site in North Africa and another in eastern Sicily), there is still the simple fact that the Voynich map is unmatched in structure and in stylistics (save the itinerary-roundel containing the ‘castle’) by any known tradition of Latin or of Islamic cartography. I cannot see any reason for imposing a ‘Latin’ theory on the manuscript when, if its drawings were a product of medieval Latin culture, even at one remove, it defies reason to suppose that competent specialists and keepers of manuscripts, who had assigned thousands – tens of thousands – of medieval European manuscripts and drawings their region and period and textual and iconographic lineage by1912, and done so ever since, would not have classified the Voynich drawings (at least). We are reasonably sure the present quires were inscribed under Latin auspices, and some plant-pictures are Dioscoridan in type and thus compatible with Mediterranean and Islamic tradition, but I know of no product of medieval European cartography which omitted both Rome and Jerusalem – both of which were evidently irrelevant to the persons who first formed the Voynich map or those involved in its subsequent recensions. What I did find was that there is some evidence to support an opinion that the first medieval westerners to show evidence of contact with the Voynich map were fourteenth-century Genoese and Jewish cartographers and, possibly, makers of Islamicate astronomical instruments. In that context I referred to the Genoese Vesconti, and the Marjorcan Abraham Cresques. ( Excuse my getting so technical).
One of these days I might re-publish the whole series of research-summaries for the map, but at present my focus is more on the history of Voynich studies and how – and why – its course diverged so early, and so markedly, from any other subject in historical or in manuscript studies.
Diane, I wouldn’t commit to an concrete Italian city state. People worked for different states during their lives if they weren‘t shipbuilder in Venice or glassblower in Murano. Aurispa e.g. brought hundreds of manuscripts to Italy, ancient Greek playwrights Ischylus, Sophocles (until then unknown in the West), sacred writings, etc. some to Genoa, Savona, some to Venice, some to Noto, others to Florence, some he kept, others he sold to finance trips to Constantinople. At the end the most found their way to the pope in Roma
John Slanders, I have one minor complaint with your latest poetic achievement: “Keane” does not rhyme with “mean” or “spleen”. Maybe “Jestyn” does.
Darius,
I like your decisions – time and range etc. – when deciding to make Aurispa a central character for the theory. Very heartening to see that you can suggest the manuscript’s content not of Latin origin without having to cope with masses of brickbats, as was the case a decade ago.
One difficulty you face is, of course, that our records of who carried ‘ancient’ manuscripts and scrolls westwards during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries is very scrappy, and that (even so) there are numerous possibilities, none of whom is more obviously likely than any other, or than one of whom no mention occurs in the records.
Among those I’ve mentioned over the years, one was a Jewish physician who brought substantial library with him when he settled .. if I recall .. in Majorca. He willed the collection to his community, only to have the Christian ruler commandeer most of the collection “because they were works he had not read.”
There is another account of a Latin being asked by the governor of one the larger Greek islands, to translate ancient works on astronomy etc. which the chap had ordered brought to his court from ancient centres around the Levant. (Sorry, I did this research years ago, and details now escape me). There are also instances of non-Europeans having made official visits to western Europe, and so, while I do understand that many people seem to feel panicky at the thought of such processes happening without a Latin in the driver’s seat, that may be what happened.
As you know, I concluded that the balance of evidence, primary and secondary, suggests the material in the Vms entered Latin horizons as a result of co-operation between Jews and Genoese, not only in the Balearics but elsewhere – so I liked your choosing someone born in southern Europe, educated at Bologna *and* directly associated with an island in the Aegean. The one difficulty I have with casting Ausipa as chief protagonist is his interests were in the more literary works – plays, poems, histories etc., and hardly explain the space devoted in the Vms to plants. Still, there’s no necessary connection between image and associated text, so if Voynichese is ever read, it may lend much support to your proposition.
Stefano Guidoni,
Perhaps Keane doesn’t fit the rhyme where you’re from but, aside from that I dare not replace it with a Jewish name like JEstyn. That would only upset folks like Diane who can’t accept the possibility of there being any connection to Hebrew linga in Wilfrid Voynich’s clever hoax.
Diane, you are right that Aurispa was primarily interested in Greek, ancient literature. But he probably bought everything antique that he could get in his hands in Constantinople. He was even denounced to the emperor and accused of buying up half of Constantinople. Aurispa was just an example. He was active at the beginning of the carbon-determined VMS creation period, but I believe that the material came to Italy in the 1430s. But it could also be that the explosiveness of the material was not immediately recognized and that it simply sat there unnoticed for a few years before someone with the relevant knowledge got his hands on it. This wouldn’t be surprising in case of Aramaic. I don’t necessarily want to commit myself to Aurispa… It doesn’t necessarily have to have been Constantinople either, other regions are also possible, core Greece, St. Catherine’s Monastery etc
Darius: how’s about Lambert Castle New Jersey. Voynich almost certainly visited there with Ted I Taylor the famous british artist in early 1915. Or would that too late for your B408.
John S, you forget that my assessments are text-based… I present you a thought to ponder. My translations are out there, they exist, everyone can read them. They can only be one of two – either they have something to do with the plain text or they have nothing to do with it. But they reflect an ancient, religious world of thought in great detail in an ancient language. Or can you tell me a sentence from the translations that doesn’t fit the anticipated time and place of origination? – we exclude page 57v because it contains instructions for the scribes about the meaning of rarely used glyphs, pronunciation, and design instructions for the script + behavioural instructions. Fabricating something like this with this level of detail would be infinitely more complicated than cracking a medieval code. So you have a lot of credit for me, John S.
So you have a theory in which Lambert Castle New Jersey plays a significant role? Or should it just serve as an example that you can recreate something that seems older? But the castle is Vitrorian after all.
Darius,
I Agree with a text based ancient language VM derivation entirely. In main because, the the simple logic of such satisfies my long held opinion it be generally based on a medieval Bohemian Czech dialect discovered in archives of the British Museum library. Most likely by Wilfred Voynich himself with guidance of Dick Garnet and the extended Boole family in the 1890s. Your assessment of my Lambert Castle theory being precicely as predicated..well spotted!
Just wondering about the blue wash non descript and very much out of place personage at rear of Voynich castle. At first bluff it reveals a good likeness to Disney’s big bad wolf cartoon character dressed to the nines with hat and cane; but then it also bears semblance to a slim waisted and bodice attired lady of the late Victorian period sitting at her office typwriter. Anyone beg to differ?
John, the figure’s nose could be interpreted as a fox-nose, or a bird-nose, but not so much a wolf’s, which would more nearly resemble a dog’s nose. For want of any better description, I call it the ‘Angel of the Rose’. In a more abstracted form, and minus its hat, it becomes the first known representation of the compass Rose on Abraham Cresques’ rose-gridded world-map (1375). He e places it in the same quarter, too – the North-west – where that figure is placed on the Voynich map, though – as I’ve argued – it had originally occupied the North roundel, now filled by a later itinerary-style guide to the eastern Mediterranean, though still indifferent to western Europe. In one corner of another early example of the rose-gridded chart – this time by a Genoese cartographer (Pietro Vesconti/Vesconte) you see the chart-maker’s image of himself, and he wears a hat of similar type, though minus the white feathers/cockade.
Walt Disney and the Victorian era are not unreasonable as comparisons available to an imagination informed by modern European history, but the persons who first made the drawing had other thoughts in mind.