I’ve spent some time recently revisiting the Voynich Manuscript’s labelese, as well as its Pisces zodiac roundel page, and thinking about how that might relate to February. However, making all of these parallel strands “land” at the same time has proved difficult: even if the zodiac labels are some kind of cisiojanus “syllable soup”, we still have many practical problems linking everything together into one solid decryption.
Still, having now spent some time putting February’s “Bri pur bla sus” saint’s days and festivals under the microscope, it’s becoming apparent that many of these Christian saints were martyred virgins: and so perhaps the whole notion of oddly-angelic naked nymphs isn’t as far away from the subject matter as you might at first think.
Moreover, having thought about the really important feast days associated with men, I’m coming round to the idea that perhaps these may be connected to the few “male nymphs”. I’m thinking specifically about whether the beardy breastless nymph below might be connected with February 22nd, Cathedra Petri [the Feast of St Peter’s Seat].
So I’m now coming round to wonder: if the (relatively few) male nymphs in the zodiac section are broadly linked to specifically male feast days, might we be able to use them to reconstruct the nymph numbering? (i.e. which nymph is linked with which day.)
But before launching into that, I thought it would be good to see what people had previously posted on this general topic.
Notes on Nymph Numbering
D’Imperio mentions (3.3.3) that Peterson noted that some of the nymphs might be male: but doesn’t seem to mention trying to reconstruct the correct order of the nymphs.
Going through the voynich.net archives reveals various observations:
- Rene Z [15 Aug 1997]: “The nymphs were drawn from the inside ring outwards, with the text added either immediately or afterwards. I think there are two possibilities for the order: either starting near 00:00 and going clockwise or starting near 09:00 and going against the clock, this from observing where the nymphs are more cramped together (especially the inner circle of Sagittarius).”
- Rene Z [15 Aug 1997] “There is one nymph in Gemini without a label. I would favour the idea that this was a simple oversight. There is also one nymph without a star somewhere…”
- John Grove [05 Oct 1997]: “In the June and December pages, the first nymph outside the circle has a ‘carpet’ under her feet. If you read the calendar from the inside out (as I have had a tendancy to do), these two nymphs occur 5 (for June) and 4 (for December) — days? — before the end of the zodiac month.”
- Rene Z [1 Oct 1998]: “In the zodiac section, the standing nymphs all have their right hands either pointing backwards or placed on their hips.”
- Rene Z [18 Jan 1999]: “About 1 out of 6 of the standing nymphs have their hand pointing behind them, not on the hip. But for nine-pointed stars this fraction is zero. I checked that the probability of this is 0.02 if this was just due to chance.”
One thread also suggested looking here at a woodcut in: Paul Heitz (Hg.), Einblattdrucke des 15. Jh., Bd. 18: Richard Schmidbauer, Einzel-Formschnitte des 15. Jh. in der Staats-, Kreis- und Stadtbibliothek Augsburg, Straßburg 1909, Taf. 9. Wilhelm Ludwig Schreiber, Handbuch der Holz- und Metallschnitte des XV. Jh., Leipzig 1925-1930, Nr. 1883a. However, Google Books didn’t seem to have a copy of this, alas.
I also found a VoynichViews blog post that highlighted a specific Sagittarius nymph holding her star downwards.
Please feel free to point me towards any posts that specifically discuss issues around determining / reconstructing the correct order of the Voynich zodiac nymphs, because (for example) I had no luck finding anything on voynich.ninja.
However, most of the interesting thoughts on the (old) list were in a single 1999 post by Jorge Stolfi: he wondered if he could discern any visual clues that signalled which was the first nymph of each zodiac page. So I decided to copy the whole post here as a section in its own right…
Jorge Stolfi’s thoughts [21 Jan 1999]
(Here’s what Jorge Stolfi posted on the subject of nymph numbering back in 1999):
Yesterday I thought that those nymphs might mark the starting point
for reading each ring of stars. Now that I have looked at those cases
with some care I am not so sure. Anyway, here are the cases that I
could see:
70v2 Pisces
There is one nymph with both arms raised at 00:15 in
the inner band.
I would say that this is the most likely starting point for
the inner star sequence, which runs clockwise (agreeing with
the text). Thus I think that the inner parade begins with
Miss Otalar (stretched arm), and ends with Miss Otaral
(facing clockwise)
This is another anomaly of Pisces, since in the
other diagrams the starting point seems to be around 10:30. I
suppose tha the last nymph at 11:30 was reversed so that it
would face the "honor spot" at noon.
The starting point of the outer band is not so obvious. I
would say it is near the top, too, but it could be before,
after, or in the middle of the four "baby" nymphs.f70v1 Aries “dark”
Here all nymphs have the right hand on the hip; several have
the left hand down too. My guess for the starting point is at
10:30 in both bands, i.e. Miss Otalchy (the Tar Am Dy) and
Miss Okoly. Note that they (and only they) are holding their
high enough to intrude into the surrounding text ring.
Moreover Miss Okoly is wearing a striped sleeve (or
whatever).
Note again that the label at 06:00 is not obviously
associated with any star, so it must be attached to one of
the nymphs. I would say that, going clockwise, each label is
associated with the preceding nymph.f71r Aries light
Here all nymphs have the same pose: right arm
on the hip, left arm up and holding the star.
The stars have no tails, except for the outer 04:30
one that has a very short one.
The starting point for each text ring is clearly marked by
the "notched square" device, which occurs in other cosmo
diagrams, presumably with the same function.
As I argued in my previous message, this is the zodiac page
with the most "primitive" style.f71v Taurus “light”
Here too all nymphs have the same pose. I see no obvious
"start" marker for the nymphs, except perhaps for the
decorated dustbin of Miss Otalody, the inner nymph at 00:00.
However the outer text ring has a wider gap at 10:30 (the
"standard" starting place), with a centered dot which may be
the last vestige of the notched square symbol.
To my eyes, the style of this page is only a bit less primitive than that
of f71r.f72r1 Taurus “dark”
The outer nymph at 02:30 has her right arm stretched back and
down; all the others have the right hand on the hip or inside
the dustbins.
There are no obviosu start markers that I can see, but the
reproduction I have is unreadable around 03:00. There is
anextra wide gap in the inner parade around 10:30, but that
may be a consequence of the "cigarette hole" and its visual
pun. Other plausible candidates are the nymphs at 00:00, Miss
Otchoshy and Miss Oaiin Ar-Ary.
I would say that the figures on the outer band of this
diagram are the first attempts by the artist at drawing
full-body naked women.f72r2 Gemini
My copy is almost illegible. I can see on the outer band one
naked nymph at 10:30, Miss Okar-Aldy, with the right arm
stretched out. That seems to be the "standard" starting
position in several other diagrams.
Most of the other nymphs have the right hand on the hip. Some
have the right arm back and down, bent or straight, but it is
questionable whether this pose is significantly different
from hand-on-hip. The extreme case is the figure at 06:30 on
the outer band, Miss (or Master?) Otarar (dressed, standing
on an horizontal tube); the first of four dressed figures.
Miss Ofchdamy, the first of the five "extra" nymphs at the top,
may be another significant exception, but her
forearm is not visible on my copy.f72r3 Cancer
The outer nymph at 11:00, miss Otchy(?)-Daiin, has the right
arm stretched back and down at 45 degrees. She may well be the
leader of that band; there is a wide gap between her and the
preceding nymph at 09:30.
I cannot see any other nymph with stretched right arm, but
half of the nymphs are just faint blurs on my copy. f72v3 Leo
I see two ladies with the right arm stretched back and down at
45 degrees, bot on the inner band: Miss Oky at 11:30,
and Miss Oteeod(?) at 06:15.
There is no obvious starting point, but the diagram is
cut by multiple creases between 07:00 and 10:30, which seems
a natural place to start.f72v2 Virgo
This seems to be a very complicated month astronomically 8-)
There are many nymphs in new and strange poses, and even a freak
reappearance of the dustbin (shallow, with "cutaway" edge).
I can see several nymphs with the right arm stretched back and
down at 45 degrees. In the outer band there are Opaiin at 08:30,
and Ofchdy-Sh. at 05:00. In the inner band we have four consecutive
nymphs starting at 05:00 (Cheosy, Ofcheey, Yteedy, On-Aiin).
However we also have a nymph at 00:15, Miss Oeedy, with *both*
arms stretched back, and hands clasped behind her. Three
nymphs (outer Oeedey and Oeeo-Daiin at 10:30-10:45, inner
Oka*** at 10:30) are grasping their stars with both hands;
and inner Okeeom at 01:30 is almost doing the same.f72v1 Libra
Miss Oteoly at 10:30 on the outer band (the "standard" starting
place), has the right arm stretched back and down. But so do
Miss Okeeoly at 01:00 and Miss Okal at 11:00.
In the inner band the nymphs are holding their right hand in
various positions near the hip; none seems to have a clearly
"stretched-out" arm. The one that comes closest is Miss Oko**y
at 03:30, but she is bending down to avoid the "cigarette
hole", and the hand position my be accidental. In any case
that hole would be a natural starting place for the inner band.f73r Scorpio
Outer Misses Dolshey and Opaiin at 08:00-09:00 have outstretched
right arms. The latter is more exhuberant and holds a bigger
star. 09:00 could be a starting place in this case.
Ladies Shekal, Okeedy and Okedal at 05:00-06:30 outer band,
have stretchde arms. They cannot be all starting points...
In the ineer band, the stretched-arm ladies are Miss Chek and
Miss Kar (not their real names, I am sure 8-) Miss Kar, by the
way, is the one who was involved in the cigarette hole affair
with Taurus girl, as reported bove.
Outside the diagram, at the top, there are Miss Chockhy and
Miss Yteeody; the latter may a full stop, hardly a start marker...f73v Sagittarus
I see only three ladies with stretched arms here. In the outer
band we have Miss Ykeody at 02:00 and Miss Okeody at 10:00; the
latter may well be the band leader. In the inner band I see only
Miss Otal at 03:00.
Nick,
The first of the calendar’s roundels is labelled ‘March’. True, this presents serious opposition to a northern European storyline, but I can see no reason for calling it ‘February’. Pisces as emblem for March is perfectly acceptable – in works from the warmer rather than the colder parts of Europe. I understand you’re basing this guess on the previous guess that each star-flower represents a different day, but this guess itself presents certain problems if you try matching any such sequence with the actual appearance of the night sky, and I’ve never encountered any effort made to correlate one-saint-one-star throughout the year. Which is not to say such a system might not have existed, only that I’ve never come across such a system except in rare and always *very* early Christian observances – such as the Baptist’s two feast-days.
I’d be glad to understand the reason for various others among your assumptions if you’d care to explain – such as an evident assumption that there at some time before 1440, within Europe, a western Christian could depict a female saint naked; not even the Magdalen in penitential mode is shown so but is given her skin-robe.
The argument you seem to be making has an internal logic, but seems to me to need some more solid basis than that, sorry.
About counting figures and noting the sex of each – if I recall, it was Ellie Velinska who first took up the task of identifying and counting all the male figures in the calendar tiers – she did it not least to criticise my habit of speaking about the ‘ladies folios’. (smiley emoticon}
Surely, what we have to do is to understand and explain what is actually on the page, rather than what would have been there if only …
Surely you would agree, as a scholar, that our first obligation is not to mislead, or at least to do our very best to avoid arbitrary or gratuitous errors – though (as the prover has it) – none is perfect but God only.
If you have reason to suppose the month-emblems and their inscriptions represent an error, and any solid reason for believing a one-day-one-saint-star set of correspondences existed anywhere before 1440, perhaps you could share that evidence. For me ‘March’ remains ‘March’ and the idea of naked nymph-saints in the western Christian liturgical calendar (let alone theology) an idea I’ve never before encountered.
Is this, perhaps, a close enough edition of book you mentioned?
Hundertfünfzig Einzelbilder des XV. Jahrhunderts, 1918, by Heitz, Paul, 1857-1943
https://archive.org/details/hundertfunfzigei00heit/mode/2up
I came to the same conclusion, that the months probably start from the inside ring, by a different observation: all the figures from Pisces to the inner ring of Taurus II are inside a tube, then from the outer ring of Taurus II onward, they are without a tube.
Also, it is worth noting that the bearded figure in the Pisces page is the only one of that outer ring that is facing a label not starting by “ot”.
However that is also true for the two Aries pages: there is only one figure facing an “ot”-less label, and that figure is to the south-east (at five o’clock) of the plane of the central roundel (Aries II is tilted).
In researching the calendar I reached a point where the possibility arose that figures shown in proximity in the upper, and the lower tiers respectively, might be actually complementary to one another. It wasn’t meant as a categorical statement, but as a line worth pursuing and was focused on fol.70v-ii but for any who might be interested, I said
“Suppose for argument’s sake that you accepted my identification of the ‘Amazon’ star as Bellatrix or even as Betelgeuse…” ( for reasons given in an earlier post ) “.. And suppose further that for the figure above it (in folio 70v-ii) you posit a star in Virgo …” (details provided in a subsequent post) .. “their relative positions in the sky in fact suggests two things: that one or more of my identifications is wrong, or that the relationship between the inner and outer rings in the diagram is not immediate but complementary. When Virgo and Orion may be seen in the sky together, Virgo has emerged in the east, but Orion is moving towards the west.”
This is off-topic in regard to Nick’s current exploration, but may be of interest to some.
The passages quoted from one post (March 9th., 2020) in a long series investigating the calendar.
There is at least another one interesting feature of this “calendar”. I mention it here, even if is slightly off topic. There is a strange sign, with a vague cross arrangement of its inner elements, in the outer rings of both Aries II and Cancer. If that sign is somewhat related to the unique crown with cross in Libra, those could be markers for the equinox and solstice, since they are traditionally the first points of Aries, Cancer, Libra and Capricorn. Unfortunately Capricorn is lost, so this jigsaw puzzle is incomplete.
Diane: the “Mars / Març” label (and all the others like it) are in a hand unlike anything else in the manuscript, so I’ve always been suspicious of any assertion that it represents original knowledge of the contents. And the 15th century calendars I’ve been looking at recently use Pisces for February. So it’s not an obviously bad working theory, particularly as it only has 29 nymphs.
Nick,
I do appreciate your making time to reply.
It is, of course, entirely reasonable to ask if divergence from the northern schemes is a mistake, and I asked that question too. Looking into it, though, I found other examples and tellingly, they were all from ‘southern Europe’ – in what I suppose might be loosely described as the ‘Norman’ line, from southern Italy, through France, into England. In case some instances will be of interest, one of my cited examples was in a mosaic from the same site whose charter was cited by Reeds as example for the ‘gallows’ letters. Another example came from a French franciscan breviary – from a house having strong ties to its Italian mother-house as that calendar attests. It is dated c.1350. Then, of course, there is that example of similar orthography for the month-names which you noted by 2006 (as later did Don Hoffman), found on astronomical instrument ascribed to Picardy and dated c.1400.
As you know, from the thirteenth century to the early fifteenth, there were such close intellectual, cultural, textual and (albeit hostile) diplomatic bonds between England and southern Europe – and for much of that time Calais was English territory – that I have included England in ‘southern Europe’ through the period to c.1415. Not that I limit England’s links to those, nor agree with Wilfrid’s description of the manuscript as English and Franciscan. Nor do all English calendars use a southern rather than northern correspondence for constellation-emblem and month. But the point is that what we have here – re connection between month, emblem and month-name – is demonstrably neither a peculiar invention, nor a mistake, nor an anachronism,, and is supported by the style in which the emblems are drawn and – as I say, most tellingly – assignment of the crocodile to November and the lobsters to July. All it means is ‘southern’ rather than ‘northern’.
It agree with you that it would be nice to have some well-qualified independent opinion about the month-names’ hand. At the same time, it has raised no eyebrows among the few well-qualified specialists, so far as I know.
I guess the basic question is whether a researcher is more likely to reach an accurate understanding of the Voynich calendar by focusing more on the heavens’ year and ‘labours of the months’ emblem, or concentrating more on the western Christian liturgical year.
Thanks again for your reply. I’m glad to understand your reasoning.
PS. That Franciscan breviary dated c.1350 is Oxford, Bodleian Douce MS 313. Its crocodile image was first mentioned in Voynich studies, so far as I know, by JKPetersen who could make no sense of it. In trying to discover more, I found a much useful historical material, well worth the time spent.
It seems to be a question of how you look at it.
If you read the books, Pisces is in Jupiter and not in Mars. That would also mean February.
The question would then be when exactly is the change.
https://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/cpg291/0056/image,info,thumbs
https://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/cpg291/0054/image,info,thumbs
But Pisces is also last in the calendar and not second. Does the calendar start at the beginning of spring (Aries)?
Thus a sentence in the fish is “The fish has the mark on the man. The feet even down and their days of sickness:”
So the sentence refers to a completely different image.
Symbol of the zodiac signs on man. See feet.
I think we should consider and understand the whole context.
https://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/cpg291/0100/image,info#col_thumbs
It’s always a bit worrying to see a very (very, very) old opinion of oneself being quoted, but upon re-reading I would say that not too much has changed since then. Nowadays I would mildly favour the 10:30 hour position as the starting point for each ring, simply because that is where other circular figures tend to start. f57v is a good example.
I was surprised to see that I considered an anti-clockwise order of the nymphs as a possibility. It feels awkward, but who knows….
Peter: there’s a whole load of secondary physical associations in astrology, e.g. Pisces is said to ‘rule’ the feet. Similarly, planets can be said to be ‘exalted’ when in certain signs, and so forth.
Diane: Pisces is (in all probability) February or March, it’s a 50-50 call either way. 🙂
René: what I found most interesting from rooting through the archives was that nobody seemed to have really picked up on it as a research topic in many years. 😮
Stefano Guidoni: thanks very much for your comment! I hadn’t thought about how the tube-to-no-tube transition might imply inner-first ordering, very well spotted! I’d noticed that the bearded Pisces nymph was associated withe a non-o+gallows label, but hadn’t thought that through any further than that (I’ve been deliberately over-focussing on Pisces).
Stefano Guidoni: there’s a whole ring of strange inserted geometric shapes in Pisces, nothing in Aries I, 2 in Aries II, nothing in Taurus I / II, a definite “start line” at 10 o’clock in Gemini, a start line and a shape in Cancer, a start line in Libra, not sure about Leo, nothing in Virgo, nothing in Scorpio, faint start line in Sagittarius.
All very puzzling!
At the risk of presenting a spanner in the works, it may or may not be helpful if I mention that when investigating the calendar’s iconography, i offered a suggestion that figures placed near each other in an upper and lower tier, respectively, might present stars in visible opposition during that month (i.e. the month identified by the label). It wasn’t a categorical opinion, but I did test it using an program able to adjust for both precession and proper motion.
In a post of March 9th., 2020, I included the following, though this is about folio 70v-ii :
“Suppose for argument’s sake that you accepted my identification of the ‘Amazon’ star as Bellatrix or even as Betelgeuse (stars in Orion – the identification having been explained in earlier work)… and suppose further that for the figure above it (on folio 70v-ii) you posit a star in Virgo – (reasons explained in a subsequent post) … their relative positions in the sky in fact suggests two things: that one or more of my identifications is wrong, or that the relationship between the inner and outer rings in the diagram is not immediate but complementary. When Virgo and Orion may be seen in the sky together, Virgo has emerged in the east, but Orion is moving towards the west.”
Oppositional pairings are found in many uses, from the old ‘anwa, to the eastern sidereal compass to cartography, the manufacture of astronomical instruments and the mesh-like diagrams that could be used to represent astronomical phenomena, but are more often seen in works about astrology.
I suppose what I’m suggesting is that position may be as important as order and while counting around the circle(s) may prove enlightening, what the makers intended to record was an order of visible stars, not an order of days.
Maybe.
PS So nice to see a variety of comments and angles offered in relation to this question. I have to struggle against feeling nostalgic. [smiley emotion]
If you are looking for a clue, it might be in April.
In Aries, right next to Pisces, there is a figure in the inner circle that is not holding the star on a string. You could say that it looks like a rope because a twist has been drawn.
It is the only figure with a rope. Here one could actually place the new year (1st March) or the beginning of spring (astronomically 9th March, or meteologically 1st March). The position of the figure would also be roughly correct here.
That would be a basis for a theory.
You’re trying too hard to find the things you are seeking, rather than accepting the things that the VMs has to give. You can’t hide the ‘golden bough’ in the forest, without using a lot of trees.
What Pisces has to offer initially is two things. The first is “pairing” The Pisces medallion is a natural and traditional pair of fish. Traditionally it is the last sign of the zodiac, not the first. Pisces begins a series of pairings. The occupants of the medallions for the first five months of the VMs zodiac are paired – by hook or crook – by complementary opposites (Gemini) of by division (Aries & Taurus ). Pairing has religious connections to the laws of Deuteronomy. The requirement of two or more witnesses is in the biblical text twice.
The second concept presented on VMs Pisces is armorial heraldry, as represented by the patterns on the outer ring of ‘tubs’. The patterns are a bit rough, and some are better than others. Chevrons are heraldic back to Lacedaemon.
Where do pairing and historical heraldry cross paths in the VMs? On f71r “White Aries” Read about what Stolfi called “notched squares”. Are these the “Useless fillers” they appear to be? The outer tub and the inner, patterned marker are connected in the illustration! This is a construction of the VMs artist’s choice. It requires specific, historical facts to make a viable interpretation. Bendy, argent et azure, x 2, plus a red galero. The origin of tradition.
There is no more effective disguise than to leave the keys in plain sight and have them be continually overlooked.
Out*of*the*Blue
I’m still wondering whether we imagine the drawings are ‘hidden’ information only because it’s difficult to accept that they require more study and new learning than most have the time, energy or interest for. Sure – the written text might have been made obscure deliberately, but I can’t say I’ve found the drawings to be so, once the work of analysis was done. In fact, I’d describe them as lucid, intelligent and .. I suppose you’d say intellectually sophisticated. Quite admirable, really. The manuscript’s content isn’t, for the greater part, any expression of fifteenth-century Latin culture, but at least one person from that environment appreciated it.
Diane,
It’s a complex topic as it relates to the VMs illustrations. Clearly it is at least partially true that obscurity is in the mind of the beholder. If one is not familiar with certain aspects the era (1400-1450), there are various opportunities for interpretation that will pass unrecognized. Primary examples are the cosmos, the mermaid, White Aries, etc.
The VMs Cosmos is comparable to BNF Fr. 565 and Harley 334 based on various similarities of structure (like the absence of planetary spheres) and their shared Parisian origins in the first half of 15th C. In contrast, in the absence of historical information, Newbold saw Andromeda. Who would have suggested Shirakatsi?
There is no question that specific historical details are essential to understand the VMs illustrations.
At the same time these illustrations when examined will display examples of artistic trickery. Oresme’s cosmos inside Shirakatsi’s wheel is just a start. Changing the inverted T-O Earth from a pictorial representation to a linguistic interpretation is an intentional code shift. Visual difference could not be more extreme. The stars are changed from asterisk-type to polygonal in the VMs and the cosmic boundary becomes a nebuly line. The 43 undulations of the Oresme illustration are ambiguously enumerated in the VMs.
Intentional artistic trickery continues with mythical Melusine of Luxembourg substituted in place of the generic mermaid and friends in Harley 334 and in Lauber. Mermaids don’t have thighs.
On VMs White Aries, a clear example of intentionally dualistic illustration is present. The orientation of the blue-striped patterns is either determined by the radially arranged individual nymphs, or by the basic placement of the patterns on the page. It is the inner circle nymph, with the blue stripes and the red galero that confirms the historical connection of the representation with church tradition – along with structural elements and heraldic canting.
Two things are going on together. There is the dark mirror of history. In addition to which there is also artistic manipulation, which, in general tends to amplify visual differences and maintain structural similarities. And blue stripes still need to be blue.
@Diane
You’re writing about Latin culture. Did it still exist around 1400?
After the collapse of the Roman Empire came the migration of peoples.
The Lombards moved from the North Sea to northern Italy. The Franks moved from the east to the west and also entered northern Italy from the west. In the 8th century, the Slavs moved from Romania to eastern northern Italy, the Czech Republic and areas of the North Sea. The Bavars expanded their empire southwards (Trento). Alemanni advanced up to and into the Alps. They all brought their traditions and customs with them.
Ergo, where exactly is the Latin culture?
I think the VM is a product of the regional environment.
Peter M: I think the VM be in essence the product of a cunning linguist no less.
Peter M.,
In terms of those centuries we call ‘medieval’, we speak of ‘Arabs’ to include many peoples who were not Arabs but who were united by having Arabic as the language used in common, especially for learning and diplomacy. It was the language of their common religion. Similarly, we speak of the ‘Greeks’ though as many scholars have pointed out, the inhabitants of Byzantium regarded themselves as Roman until quite late in the city’s history and were called ‘Roman’ by most other people. Here again, though, Greek was the language of liturgy and learning and the common language of the Byzantine empire – despite its includin many peoples who can’t be called ‘Greek’ in any other sense.
The peoples of western Europe were – in that way – united by use of Latin as the common language for liturgy, learning and diplomacy. It is in that sense I use the term ‘Latins’. In fact, Arabic speakers tended to refer, instead, to ‘Franks’ but to use that terms tangles things for moderns, who tend to identify ‘Franks’ with France or with Charlemagne etc. So ‘Latins’ is the term I prefer. It’s not meant to define any imagined “race” not any group who used no language save Latin; there was no such group by medieval times, and even if a monastery used no other, we may assume I think that monks knew one or more other regional dialects. Hope that’s cleared up any confusion.
PS – Peter, I’ve not encountered the term ‘Bavars’ before.
The wiki ‘disambiguation’ isn’t much help, giving only..
Bavar (Jajce), a village in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bavar, Iran, a village in Iran.
So far as I know, there was never a people who were called, or who called themselves ‘Bavars’ but perhaps you know more. The ‘Lombards’ story, as supposedly the migration of a coherent ethnic-racial-linguistic group is based on evidence so slight, and so ambiguous that I believe today those scholars who don’t reject the old idea treat it as an open question. Certainly I’ve seen nothing to suggest that the inhabitants of medieval Lombardy saw themselves as other than ‘Italian’ in the general sense, though as all Italy’s city-states were, primarily as inhabitants of that region and city. It is mistake not rarely made to suppose that ia person’s place of birth, first language or ethnic identity are in some vague way characteristics that are permanent or inalienable, but while such notions were popular in the nineteenth and earlier twentieth century, few maintain them today.
Peter, so the Latin culture ceased to exist begin of 15th century? I asked ChatGPT about something… How many words are of Latin origin in Peter‘s text. GPT: The text contains several words of Latin origin, such as “culture,” “empire,” and “traditions.” If you have specific words you’re curious about, feel free to ask! Me: Tell me the number of the words with Latin origin in the previous text GPT: In the provided text, there are approximately 14 words with Latin origin.
Out*of*the*Blue
I really could throttle old Wilfrid for having presumed the manuscript’s content was this-and-that, without first pausing to investigate. His assumption that all the content had been original at the time the present manuscript was made was just one of several failures which de-railed the manuscript’s study and are still present as things everyone ‘knows’ but for which there’s no foundation.
The revised version of the old T-O in western Christian manuscripts, and which makes it look more like the royal orb-as-world is an interesting corner in the history of western manuscript art, and there’s a whole philosophical-theological background to it. About Oresme – I suppose you know that his book was written to discourage the king from paying attention to foreign and non-Christian astronomer-astrologers and was composed as a tract against the practice of astrology as such? Since Ellie Velinska noticed the frontispiece to a copy of Oresme’s text, we’ve seen a settled habit of presuming some direct link between it and one diagram in the Vms, but I think it’s no more than evidence for adoption of certain fashions in southern Europe during the mid-fourteenth century. Influence from Asian art and scholarship, due to developments during the Mongol century are the chief cause (and the reason for adoption of the motif which art-historians call the ‘cloud-band’ But once again, more care and detail are needed than are possible in comments below Nick’s post.
Peter, you came with the old Germanic tribes, which took over in Europe-West… In Köln 1965 During construction work, remains of a Roman wall were found in which there were some stones from an earlier stone wall. It was found that they were stones from what was probably the oldest brick house or monument from pre-Roman times, the Ubier Monument. The old, pre-Roman Germans could build walls, at least one house, after all… there wasn’t much non-Latin, non-Greek things with which the European world could be impressed, except perhaps beer and a wild bravery that they could offer. The barbaric heritage, contribution to world history
@ Diane
Maybe I made a mistake there.
Actually Bayer = Bavaria / Bavaren.
The 4 major Celtic tribes from left to right.
Gauls/Gallii, Helvetians/Helvetii, Rhaetians/therefore Rhaetromanian and Baier/Bavarians/Bavars.
@ Diane
On the Lombards. You have to understand that the Lombards as an ethnic group had already ceased to exist by the year 1000. They had integrated into the other groups. Not extinct, just immigrated.
See Wiki German, image Migration of peoples / Lombards blue.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langobarden
The kings (Lombards) also disappeared into other ethnic groups. None left after 800.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stammliste_der_K%C3%B6nige_der_Langobarden
@Darius
Culture has nothing to do with language.
Latin has something to do with the spread of religion by the church. Roman administration in the empire (Latin) was also adopted by the church. The peoples in other cultures should also understand what was spoken. At least the scholars and the initiates.
If it is brick, then it is certainly Roman. Germanic peoples did not use brick before Roman times. And if a wall, then it was certainly a dry stone wall (natural stone).
Peter M,
re- Lombards. Yes, exactly.
I repeat that in speaking of the medieval period, by ‘Latins’ I don’t mean ancient Romans. It is one way to describe people for whom Latin served as their common language for education, religion and diplomacy and whose form of Christianity was that of a western, European rite. This use of the term ‘Latins’ distinguishes those populations from e.g. the medieval Byzantine ‘Greeks’, or those many different peoples within Islam whom we call ‘Arabs’ – no matter what their ethnicity nor whether they had been born in Arabia, or India, Khwarazm, or North Africa.
D.
To return to the topic of Nick’s post – work done under Mongol auspices resulted in corrections made to data derived from Ptolemy’s work and ‘the Handy Tables’. That work was led by astronomers who came from hither Asia, and especially from Khwarasm, where there may have been an astronomical tradition maintained from the time of the eastern Greek centres which, themselves, learned much from the older Indian astronomy. Whatever the case about its roots, the work produced under Mongol auspices influenced, first, Byzantine learning (via work done in the Black Sea city of Trebizond), and thereafter the knowledge of persons in, or from, the Latin west.
As ever, the persons most keenly interested in astronomy (as distinct from astrology) were the mariners and maritime cities such as Genoa or Venice who were active in the north.
When testing various possibilities in connection with the Voynich calendar, I was surprised to find they accorded very well with what could be seen at the latitude of Alexandria (Ptolemy’s base) in c.1400 AD.
So that might – maybe – mean that what we have is an adjusted or corrected version of an older source. Filling the hollow centre of the diagrams with emblems familiar from western ‘labours-of-the-months’ iconography makes sense, and the name-and-emblem series also agrees with a southern, rather than northern European practice. In my opinion, this (together with many other aspects of the manuscript, including the vellum’s coarse quality, the quires’ dimensions, the inclusion of quinions and, even more, septenions), all support Nick’s original conclusion that the present quires were probably made under specifically Italian auspices and – in his opinion – likely in Milan.
I’ll say that while I don’t dispute the Milan possibility, I think we owe arrival in the Latins’ horizon for most of the material to a lengthy co-operation between Genoese and Jews, particularly well-documented in Majorca, Pera, North Africa and Caffa and also (less prominently) around Baghdad and certain eastern trading ports.
I don’t know if many readers here will appreciate the extraordinarily delicate and difficult course of research implied by what Nick is attempting to do at the moment. It may seem a simple effort to tie the Voynich calendar to some version of the various western Christian liturgical rosters, but it involves far more – such as whether or not a fifteenth-century Latin, within Europe, would accept any representation of Christian saints as unclothed – and mostly female -figures. It also implies the survival in Christian theology to so late a period of a more ancient notion of the stars as souls, or as ensouled. To my knowledge the last notable theologian to maintain such an idea had lived in 3rdC Egypt. This was Origen – whose work enjoyed some favour among some eastern Christians but was regarded as near-heretical by the Latins.
Among other difficulties to be navigated is that any theory of the calendar’s star-flowers’ being not ‘stars’ but only asterisks pointing to the notes in Quire 20 encounters opposition from the fact that the Latins’ “asterisks” never took such a form, and so far as I’ve found (and I did look), there is never a case in Latin works of asterisks being used as key to material found far distant from that mark… Not like footnote numbers in a modern printed book, which may be separated by tens of pages from the ‘note’ itself.
So what Nick’s exploration must negotiate are the rocks of codicology, palaeography, earlier and later medieval theology, plus the many variations on the Latins’ liturgical calendar, and the question of whether the central emblems are literal, astronomical and meteorological constellation-emblems, or meant for use in astrological calculations, or even the sort of non-astrological calculations employed in determining Easter’s date: ‘compotus’.
I hope readers won’t under-estimate the level of historical knowledge and technical difficulty implied by Nick’s working on this problem. It is a rare pleasure to be shown another researcher’s working-out.
@Diane
My mistake again.
The exact name of the Bavarians in the Celtic Empire was the Bajuwaren. See Wiki.
Sorry,
Why does the Deepl always translate me to Bavarians.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bajuwaren
Diane, to say anything more specific now would be like the proverbial seeds that don’t sprout because they fall on rocky ground. But at least that – in my opinion – the Origenes-track is very hot. Try to find out who could have been tempted during this time +/- 100 years to attribute a collection of writings that were obviously not intended for general publication, in whatsoever form, to whom as original authors. Consider one thing: it is tacitly assumed that the medieval scribes knew exactly who the authors of this collection were. But that doesn’t have to have been the case at all, in whole or at least in parts. But since they knew that this was ancient material, they would of course try to find references to it in the writings of ancient church fathers.
Darius,
I’ve never felt much interest in trying to name names. I don’t see the point in spending time on it. Since the manuscript’s contents show no evident connection to works produced in Europe earlier than the fourteenth century, and very little in the Voynich manuscript has found reflection in later European mss, I must agree that it seems unlikely the work was ever widely known, or meant to be – though the possibility remains open that the manuscript’s disorder might reflect the typical carelessness of a printer.
Overall, it seems to me that at present, attempting to name some person whose name survives as the work’s ‘author’ is probably a total waste of time when research into the material itself is demanding and time-consuming enough.
I accept that it is so very easy to invent any number of historical-fictional scenarios in Wilfrid-style, and the idea of identifying some ‘author’ is especially interesting for cryptologists who want to whip the mask of that unknown person responsible for what they regard as a fiendishly clever form of enciphering, but it can have little relevance for the drawings, since they show some evidence of adaptations made at intervals over time – a considerable length of time – and, in addition to the evidence of stylistics as such,they show evidence of more than one chronological layer, such as that which saw the map’s revision and addition of the ‘castle’ roundel (so called). The ‘castle’ is, in my opinion, a token for Constantinople-Pera and its internal details led me to date that revision fairly close to 1349AD.
If by ‘Origines’ you mean ‘Origen’ – then anyone interested in his work will find enough about it easily enough, though finer details may require use of old-fashioned books in an old-fashioned library. Concerning his ideas about the stars I believe I first recommended Alan Scott’s study to readers of voynichimagery in 2012 or so, and have since mentioned it two or three times more over the years. It was also in c.2012 or perhaps a little before that I brought to notice an Ethiopian liturgical calendar-fan while treating another of the Voynich astronomical diagrams – not one in the Voynich calendar itself, though.
Details of Scott’s study…
Alan Scott, Origen and the Life of the Stars: a history of an idea (Oxford, Clarendon Press: 1991). It is a volume in Oxford’s Early Christian Studies series.
PS – I’ve never supposed the aim of researching a drawing was to invent a theory/storyline about it. From my point of view, my job is to understand correctly its intended purpose, and try -as best I’m able – to correctly identify when, where, and for what community the image was first formed and then, as necessary, to whom transmitted.
I doubt Wilfrid would approve of my indifference to dramatis personae and the European stud-books. [smiley emoticon].
PS – Darius
“since they knew that this was ancient material, they would of course try to find references to it in the writings of ancient church fathers.”
Not necessarily. It’s a curious fact that the more a person thinks they know, the more likely they are to anticipate, and thus to err. There have been various studies done on this subject. It’s worth remembering that to prevent such errors, the Jewish scribal tradition, with regard to Torah, was that dictation was done letter by letter, and (so it is said) scribes who knew no more than their letters were preferred. Also, at some stage in the Voynich research, I came across a paper – details elude me – in which was discussed the fact that chart-makers tended to be the finest copyists, being habituated to replicate precisely lines which had no other meaning for them. It seems to me you are assuming that the copyists were Latins (which may be so, given that the few glyphs most like Latin letters were said to be formed akin to uncial and Beneventan hands – see paper delivered at the 2022 zoom conference). However you seem to me to be presuming the scribes were clerics, and presuming further that it would be the scribes’ task to check the content for compatibility with the theology of some particular (Latin?) theological position. As a rule, in Latin Europe, that task of declaring ‘nihil obstat’ (about which term I suggest you search earlier posts by Nick), occurred only if the material was to be disseminated and might influence the general population in ways the western church thought inadvisable. I’ve not seen ‘nihil obstat’ in handwritten copies of ‘antique’ works about such practical things as plants and stars as in manuscript copies of Theophrastus’ works or copies Ptolemy’s Tables. Have you?
Male nymphs do not exist in Greek mythology which is where the word derives; As all you ad nauseum, ad infinitum, word meaning bickerers don’t seem to get the point of.
John Sanders: we only call them “nymphs” as a useful shorthand, but that’s just the surface layer. What’s going on under that surface layer is the actual issue.
Diane, I’ll write something more about your emails, but so much for now. If you really believe that the scribes were just copyists and perhaps had no idea about the meaning of the text, then I would be particularly sorry for your work. Because it would mean that the images have no foundation and are just imaginations. What is then the value of looking for traditions, styles and connections when it comes to those images?
Friends and comrades. I think the word Nick uses is a good one. Hence the word “Nympha”. I will show you one thing. Which page is the manuscript ( MS – 408 ) – folio 2v. Friends and scientists. “Waterlily” is drawn on that foil. In the text of that page, it is also written about the water lily.
Water lily = Nymphaea. ( very funny. At least for me. Because I can read the right text ).
To what I write. My friend understood well. So I will write you something important. I have water lilies here (in the Czech Republic). Says = Water Rose.
Eliška was as cunning as a fox. And so in the text of that page he writes: Ží Fod Růže ! ( Ží Vod Růže ). ( fonetika – F = V ). ( 8 = 6 ).
This means in the English language = Life of the Rose.
Eliška tells you what she will write about. Every smart scientist and pioneer who has been working for a hundred years to decipher the text of the manuscript. So he should finally know that Eliška from Rožmberk writes about = Life of his family. And that about the old Czech family, which was very important in history. About the great Rožmberk family. (Rosenberg family ).
So much for the word – Nympha.
I thank all the scientists for their support and I also greet everyone.
I’ll show you even more. Water lily in the water.
The popular name of the plant is: Water rose.
Eliška writes: ŽI FOD RUZE.
A scientist who tries to decipher the text, but does not know where the word begins. And he doesn’t know where the word ends. He also doesn’t know that each character has a numerical value.
And so I’ll turn those words into numbers for you.
71 874 2675. = ZI FOD RUZE.
Now the important knowledge = Jewish substitutions. When the letter D has the value of the number 4. ( the whole series of letters of the number 4 = D,M,T ).
So you replace the letter D. For the letter = T.
Then you will read = ŽI FOT RUZE. ( phonetics is important now. When will you read the letter F. Correctly in Czech = V. ( the way the manuscript text is written is as if a German would write it. German was spoken a lot here at that time. FON = VON. FOKO = VOKO. )etc .
In the next step, you connect ZI VOT. And You will read the word Z.I.V.O.T.
That word in the English language means = Life.
The picture and the text on that page describe the Life of the Rose.
Eliška was from the Rosen Berg family. That means from the Rose. And the mountains. (Berg = Mountain). Elizabeth of Rosenberg.
At the beginning of the manuscript, Eliška shows you what she will write about. On the next page, 2r shows you the Jewish substitution = C,G,S,L. = 3. ( root ). And also at the beginning it shows you and writes when she was born. (folio 1v. a symbolic plant is painted on that side. Which shows the year = 1466, Eliška writes in the text of that side: There are 14 green leaves and 6 and 6 golden leaves. And that is the year of my birth). When you add those numbers together, you get the year 1466.
What is difficult to understand about it?
In order for the scientist to be able to decipher the text of the manuscript. So he must master perfectly = Jewish substitution. And the Czech language.
All this is written at the beginning of the manuscript. Why it is written at the beginning of the manuscript, perhaps every scientist should understand. The reason why Eliška writes it at the beginning? Because he wants your help. But the text can only be understood by the scientist who knows the Kabbalistic numerological system of gematria. And the scientist should first of all see the numbers in the manuscript.
Diane, didn’t I write ‘Origenes’? But that’s beside the point… It’s not about finding an ancient author either. Maybe I expressed myself misleadingly. Given the volume and type of material, there will be no such specific author. Do you remember the Joseph and Asenath story? I stand by my assessment. According to researchers, this story is of Jewish origin, the author is of course unknown, and the vocabulary in Greek is based on the Septuagint. Has nothing to do with other pages or sections in the collection. So it’s just a matter of finding evidence of a group, a community, that has compiled such material as their ‚credo‘ if you assume a theological character for the most part
Darius
Not sure what you mean by my ’emails’ -perhaps you receive the blogposts by email?
You say,
“If you really believe that the scribes were just copyists and perhaps had no idea about the meaning of the text, then I would be particularly sorry for your work. Because it would mean that the images have no foundation and are just imaginations. What is then the value of looking for traditions, styles and connections when it comes to those images?”
Darius – Cool down. Think those ideas through.
You suppose that without understanding Voynichese, the only way to understand the drawings is by resort to imagination.
Alternatively, you suppose that images in a manuscript can only be products of individual fantasy, or close ‘illustrations’ of accompanying text.
Those assumptions form a very old Voynich ‘meme’ – one already circulating when I first encountered the Voynich community, and like so many similar Voynich memes, are superficially plausible but found, if thought through, to be irrational.
For example – the proposition that a copyist needs written text, or any understanding of intention, in order to copy an image. That’s plainly rubbish because you could go today to a galley or museum and copy any image you saw there – even a piece of modern abstract art. To copy needs only a level of hand-eye coordination.
Secondly, that drawings in one manuscript can only be understood if you can read the written text in that same, single manuscript. Another obvious nonsense. A Voynichero who cannot read Latin can still recognise in a medieval western manuscript that a figure shown on a fine horse and carrying a bird on his wrist is meant to be read as a nobleman going hunting, or that a figure given a halo about its head is meant for a Christian saint. This is possible because the signs of rank are part of a set vocabulary in the language of western, and Christian art.
When a person resorts to ‘imaginings’ it’s only a way to compensate for that person’s ignorance of the time, culture and/or visual language which produced the image.
If one person sees the figure of a female in a long robe, with an owl on her wrist and warrior’s helmet on her head, and says “this is the image of a European noblewoman going hunting” a better informed person might respond, “Not European but Greek; not a Christian noblewoman but a Greek deity…’ Where the image turns up is one thing; where it originated is quite another. Part of how we know that an Egyptian statue in an eighteenth-century building in Genoa is Egyptian, not Italian, and made in the 4thC BC, not 19thC AD is not imagination but knowledge – knowledge of traditions, styles and historical lines of connection being basic elements in all such studies, whether the subject is a written text or an image.
I’m sure that you already know these things at some level, but one finds so often that that realities and scholarship operating in the real world are treated as if irrelevant to what occurs in the ‘Voynich bubble’.
Darius – my emails? What emails?
Darius, ‘
I wrote a longer reply to your comment of February 24, 2024 at 10:47 am, but things became bit busy around then, and I may have moved off the page without hitting the ‘submit’ button.
So now, you say,
” If you really believe that the scribes were just copyists and perhaps had no idea about the meaning of the text… it would mean that the images have no foundation and are just imaginations.”
I can’t follow your reasoning. It is, obviously, entirely possible to copy an image without understanding what it was meant to convey.
You could go to a gallery or a museum and copy any image you saw there without having to know anything about where it came from, or when it was made, or from what social context. Copying is just copying.
How well or poorly you might copy that image would depend on many factors, including an ability to see accurately what was in front of you – a talent that is, overall, remarkably rare as any collection of ‘eye-witness’ reports will show.
So when you say,
“What is then the value of looking for traditions, styles and connections when it comes to those images?”
I’m sure you could work it out if you tried to think the question through.
A person familiar with medieval western Christian traditions and styles in art should have no difficulty understanding that a figure mounted on a fine horse with a bird on his hand is meant to convey the idea of a nobleman going hunting, even if the person knows no Latin and all the accompanying text is written in Latin.
In the same way that tradition and its defining styles mean the same person could recognise when a figure was meant for a mundane figure, and one marked by being more soul than body, and occupying a realm other than the earthly one – usually a saint, angel or a member of the Trinity. They often have a halo.
On the other hand, if that person knows nothing but medieval western Christian art, when they see a female wearing helmet and with a bird on her arm, they might assert this is a medieval noblewoman prepared for the hunt – turning to imagination and false ‘picture-matching’ as we do. A person who knows more, though, will recognise the style as Greek – perhaps 4thC BC – and if they have also learned something of Greek history and its traditions, they are in a better position to get things right – a Greek image of a deity known as Athena.
We create and use guesses, hypotheses and imagination to bridge areas about which we are ignorant. It’s good to keep that fact in mind, and not become too attached to them.
Prof, all is fine? Regards, to all Eliska-disciples too.
@Nick
Perhaps this book will be of interest to you.
It contains various sayings in German and Latin for the different months.
Zodiac, star constellations to the signs etc.
As well as Pisces at the end of the year.
https://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/de/csg/0827/264/0/
https://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/de/csg/0827/263/0/
https://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/de/csg/0827/265/0/
https://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/de/csg/0827/19
See book description
Diane, I don’t know if you really believe in the copy-only theory or if you’re just shadow boxing… maybe the controversy isn’t worth it. But if you go through the idea, you will quickly find the problem with it. What would have been copied? An earlier medieval script? Then why to go back to the 2nd or 3rd century looking for hints? But if it‘s ancient so you know for sure that „Ancient scripts from various cultures and civilizations were primarily focused on conveying written information rather than incorporating images. The earliest writing systems, such as cuneiform in Mesopotamia or hieroglyphs in Egypt, were predominantly logographic or syllabic, using symbols to represent words or sounds.
While these scripts could include intricate symbols and artistic elements, they were not equivalent to what we consider as standalone images or illustrations. The primary purpose was to communicate language and record information.“
And particularly for Jewish scripts (what I suppose): “In the context of Jewish manuscripts, particularly within the Hebrew Bible or other religious texts, it’s important to note that traditional Jewish scribal practices historically focused on textual elements rather than elaborate illustrations. Jewish scribes were meticulous in copying sacred texts with great precision, but they did not commonly include detailed images or illustrations in the manner of, for example, illuminated manuscripts in some Christian traditions.
While there may be decorative elements in some Jewish manuscripts, the primary emphasis has traditionally been on the sacred text itself. Elaborate illustrations became more common in medieval illuminated manuscripts, but this practice was not as prevalent in Jewish scribal traditions.”
The quoted texts are citations. I believe Dead Sea Scrolls e. g. don’t have even one single drawing. And yes, I wrote emails instead of blogposts, sorry for confusion
Darius, I’m not sure if you are actually asking what I think, or just expressing your views about why – if they were as you imagine – they would be wrong.
As I’ve said often, I have no opinion about the written text in this manuscript. I don’t know what language(s) it might encode, and I’m not competent to offer an opinion on even whether it is, or is not a cipher-text. People better qualified are many, and appear still divided on that question. For all I know, the present ‘Voynichese’ text only took its present form in the early fifteenth century. Whether the information it contains (if any) comes from an older text or not, I’m not able to say. I have no opinion on it.
My opinion about the drawings is that a majority were first given their form between c.3rdC BC – 1stC AD, though if better evidence turns up, I’d have no problem extend that to even to as late as the 5thC AD if an eastern context were indicated.
Apart from that oldest layer, there are others which show that the older material had been preserved and transmitted in an environment rather different in attitudes from the first. It is that phase which, in my opinion, first saw the ‘nymphs’ (so called) distorted and marred in face and body.
And then there are the drawings which appear to me to have been added during an important recension – and probable collection – of the material c.1350 AD. It is then, I’d argue, that the calendar-roundels received their central emblems, the Voynich map was radically altered to include what is now the North roundel, and when other Latin-compatible images came to be drawn – for example – on the back of the Voynich map, one of these figures showing an orator – possibly a cleric – who is dressed in a Mongol robe. While this might allude to any of the Mongol envoys, I’m inclined to identify it with a member of the Nestorian church.
Since it seems to me the most competent opinions date the manuscript’s inscription to the first three decades of the fifteenth century, with the radiocarbon 14 test returning c.1405-1438, the only conclusion I can reach is that the fifteenth-century scribes were copying from earlier exemplars. In fact, Panofsky and a keeper of manuscripts is on record as noting this likely gap in time between when the Voynich quires were inscribed and when the drawings (at least) had been first created.
I’m never sure when to respond to a question, or to enter a conversation, might be regarded as trolling, so perhaps we should end our conversation here?
For want of any other way to add a bookmark to general discussions of the Vms, I’ll register here a note from Anthony Grafton’s ‘Foreword’ to the 1993 edition of Boas’ translation of the Hieroglyphica of Horapollo, which puts a spotlight on the years between 1419-1435, lends still more support to Georg Baresch’s comments on the Vms, and also offers possible support for Nick’s theory about the Voynich calendar’s “March” diagram carrying a possible cisiojanus as link to the Latins’ liturgical calendar.
“..the craze for things Egyptian did not entirely depend on Horapollo. Egyptian relics in accessible places – such as Rome’s obelisks, one of which still stood at the end of the middle ages, as did others in Alexandria and Istanbul – fascinated the antiquarians of the early Renaissance. So did the pyramids at Memphis and other antiquities of Egypt itself, and which the pioneer archaeologist Cyriac of Ancona visited and vividly described in 1435.” A text of the Hieroglyphica was carried to Italy by Christoforo Buondelmonti, who had acquired it on the island of Andros in 1419.
I’ve already cited illustrations from copies of Buondelmonti’s works when treating the Voyninch map and discussing classical and medieval images of Constantinople-and-Pera.
Cheers
“