Rich, thank you for the links. It helps to bring some clarity to the VMS discussion-history.

Rich, for the rotum on the middle-right that you mention, I like the idea of a fountain. The VMS is full of water imagery, so a fountain would be completely in keeping.

I considered that the middle-top and middle-bottom might be fountains (aerial view) or water wheels (the middle-top reminds me of a cistern/fountain with spouts arranged around the perimeter). I’m not certain, they might also be cosmological rather than literal, but if there are fountains on the “map” page in one form or another, I will not be surprised.

https://proto57.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/86v_detail.jpg

Yes, just read all the comments, and saw René also clarified this issue… but again, it was brought to my attention, not an original find, nor identification, of mine.

As for what I think it may be: http://www.santa-coloma.net/voynich_drebbel/general/hogg_compare.jpg

… this, because it has long been noted (from before we all were born), and I agree, that many images from the Voynich resemble microscopic organisms, plants, and anatomical features, and I have speculatively identified the sources of many as coming from three specific books on microscopy.

I believe the attempt on the rosettes pages is to display the aerial scenery as the macrocosm, and that the rosettes, individually, reflect various “wheel” illustrations found elsewhere in the Voynich… the lower left resembles the “farm” scene, with the pickers; the lower right resembles the “fountain” wheel, and so on. A couple are missing, but several match pretty well. But the lower left “farm” matches closely this microscopic wheat stem image, which has farmers in it (macrocosm/microcosm… farm overhead, wheat stem structure, below): http://www.santa-coloma.net/voynich_drebbel/general/wheat_with_overlay.jpg

Here is another microscopic comparison from Hogg: http://www.santa-coloma.net/voynich_drebbel/general/f39r_screw_moss_1869_hogg.jpg

… and so on. But to this point: I do think the “underfold image” of the rosettes page may be to represent a macrocosmic image of a land feature, and show its similarity to a microcosmic image, the organism, by drawing it the same.

Anyway, that’s my take… your mileage may vary.

Thanks,

Rich.

“Nonsense. I am not indebted to Rich SantaColoma. I have never read his “volcano” idea. Rotum-1 looked like a volcano to me the first time I saw it (among other things). There are escarpments around it, it’s steep. There are flamey shapes inside it (that might be fire or water). It probably looks like a volcano to MANY people the first time they see it.”

Several mistakes here: First of all, it was a Tim Tattrie who seems to have first mused on a possible “volcano”… not me, in any case… he brought it to my attention about 2012, because a year before he had requested from the Beinecke what might be in the fold of the rosettes… and they came back with an image, which does show something “spewing” from a “volcano-like” mound…

Secondly, that “volcano” which Mr. Tattrie found (he does not say it IS a volcano, only that it looks like one), and showed me… which I shared with the VMs Net and others… is NOT the “upper left rosette”. Maybe someone thinks that is a volcano, that is of course their choice… I just never heard of it being referred to as such…

Thirdly, you don’t show a picture of the Tattrie “Volcano” in any case. You show the old image of the rosettes, which does not show the contents of the fold, nor the image with started the whole volcano discussion in the first place… Here is a link to the actual volcano image, on my blog post on the subject, which started all this…

https://proto57.wordpress.com/2012/04/21/a-volcano-in-the-voynich/

By the way, my “take” on the lighthouse rosette you show is that it is a fountain, spewing into a pool.

Keep up the good work,

Rich.

René, thank you for clarifying that.

So there are two different parts of the “map” image that have been associated with volcanoes, the top-left rotum (aerial view), and the textured mountainy thing with something coming out of the top, which is attached to the side of the rotum (which I agree could be interpreted as a volcano, fume vent, geyser, or something along those lines).

For anyone who is confused, my comments in this blog were specific to Rotum 1 (as pictured partway through the blog with the pipes coming out at about 2 o’clock).

I haven’t read most of what SantaColoma has written, so I haven’t seen anything about his “volcano idea” and didn’t know that Diane was talking about a different structure than what this blog is about.

.
Rene, in answer to your question, I honestly don’t remember which version of the VMS scans I was using in the beginning. They were low-res, black and white and annoyingly difficult to interpret, so I put most of my attention to the big plants. As soon as better scans came along, I dumped the old ones.

Most people now interested in the Voynich MS grew up with the first set of digital scans made in 2004. In these scans, this item is partly blocked by the fold in the page. (One can check this in the Jason Davies site).
When the 2014 scans came out, this item became fully visible, and in a way it does look like a mountain with an open top emitting ‘fumes’. Thus Rich described it as a volcano.

However, before the availability of the digital scans, there was a thing called the ‘copyflo’, which is a printout of a 1970’s B/W microfilm of the MS. This could be ordered from the Beinecke, and it was the main instrument for people interested in the MS in the 1990’s. I wonder if you have one, JKP. I ditched mine during my latest move. Anyway, in this copyflo, the ‘volcano’ was clearly visible as such, so the ‘revelation’ by Rich some time after 2014 was not a big surprise for some. Of course it was ‘news’ for most of the post-2004 Voynich MS enthousiasts.

D.N. O’Donovan wrote: “It was my own work which provided for what had been called the ‘Nine Rosettes Page’ a full , detailed analytical study identifying not only the correct orientation for it, but detailed description of the routes, landforms,…”

Good grief. You don’t know if your analysis is CORRECT. It’s meaningless until it is proven.

As for orientation, there are two suns on the folio. It’s OBVIOUS that the two suns MIGHT indicate sunrise and sunset (east and west), or maybe they describe summer and winter solstice. We don’t know yet.

There is also a T-O shape in the upper right, which is a medieval indication of orientation. Are you saying you are the only person on the planet to NOTICE that? That this is some special insight? It’s NOT!

Diane, I am perfectly willing to give credit for insightful research and analysis, but people who whine about not getting credit for things that are obvious need to grow up, stop whining, and just get ON with more research that can prove or DENY the analysis in a more definite way.

Nonsense. I am not indebted to Rich SantaColoma. I have never read his “volcano” idea. Rotum-1 looked like a volcano to me the first time I saw it (among other things). There are escarpments around it, it’s steep. There are flamey shapes inside it (that might be fire or water). It probably looks like a volcano to MANY people the first time they see it.

If I see an apple and call it an apple, I am not going to hunt for the first person to call an apple an apple and cite them every time I eat one.

It’s ridiculous to “give credit” to someone who is stating the obvious. Do we have to cite the first person to say the VMS plants look like plants?

.
My point in this blog is not to say it’s a volcano (I made other suggestions as well). The POINT is that IF it is a volcano, then topologically (and thematically), it fits quite well with some of the geological (and cultural) structures found in Naples (and possibly also Sicily).

It was my own work which provided for what had been called the ‘Nine Rosettes Page’ a full , detailed analytical study identifying not only the correct orientation for it, but detailed description of the routes, landforms, centres of occupation, explanation for the abstract motifs – with historical and cultural notes – which proved that the sheet was a map whose extent was exactly that of contemporary (to 1330) diplomatic and trading ties between three specific partners. Since it represented a couple of months’ labour, I was annoyed to find that while I was on Sabbatical, some charming used-car-salesman had decided to bestow on various friends and acquaintences the brilliant ‘idea’ that folio ‘could be’ a map and that they might like to have a go at the ‘idea’. The various efforts at imitation did nothing for the manuscript’s study but make a total mess, confuse researchers and allow the ‘charming chap’ to pretend that the original study need not be acknowledged.

As far as I recall, the Balneis was contributed to this manuscript’s body of research by someone contributing to a thread begun by Nick Pelling (check his blog).

New work, and solid original research takes time, effort, reading and talent. Donating that to the study surely deserves, at the very least, that no-one else pretend to have done it, even by omission.

Then instead of having to re-work it all, over and over, each person can work at something interesting, new and different.

PS – I don’t agree with Rich’s idea about the volcano.. but read his argument and decide for yourself.

I enjoyed your volcano comparisons. I think there are quite a few references in the manuscript, actually.

Your mountains of the moon example from the Portolan map may yet be a volcano since some place them at Mount Kilimanjaro. In any event they would exist near the East African Rift.

Thanks for the Huntington one, interesting stuff in the rest of that manuscript too. Do you know if it is showing a particular volcano? I can’t read it and the description doesn’t explain specifically.

I have always taken the volcano in the TO rosette to stand in for Italy when looking at the rosette as Europe, ie the part that sticks out, like the boot does. I always thought of it as Vesuvius. But you are right, it could be Etna.

I never considered the left top rosette as a volcano but i accept it completely now that you have presented it as such. I see it as Ceuta, which has underwater volcanic activity in the general location of the guns, which i take to signify Portugal’s capture thereof. But the Atlas mountains also contain old volcanos, so the rosette could also be thought of as Morocco. I had always thought it indicated a barren area, and i thought maybe the crescents were linked with Berbers, on the Catalan Atlas there are a bunch of tents with this symbol at the top of each. I like the hellmouth idea too. Would there be any link with the volcano idea and the flower that resembles this rosette? I had thought of it as Celosia cristata, upside down the flower kind of resembles a volcano, especially a red one. The scallopped designs here mean mountains to me, which is appropriate anywhere you may place it.

Funny you should mention the scallopped umbrella design, because i think those designs in the manuscript are also volcanos, along with various other representations.

Cheers