Glyph sets

There is an unknown number of glyphs in the Voynich text, or there is no agreement on the number. There is an agreed alphabet of the main glyphs, but then there is an assortment of variations, or possible variations, and a smattering of rare glyphs. They are counted and identified in different ways by different investigators.

The arrangement of glyphs on page f57v - four groups of seventeen glyphs repeated in quadrants around circles - seems especially significant and displays a combination of common and rare glyphs.

There have been sundry unconvincing attempts to account for all of the glyphs through a single system of strokes and marks, but there is stronger evidence that there is not one system but several. That is, all the glyphs don't belong to a single construction. Rather there are several glyph sets, each constructed differently.

I identify four such glyph sets:

1. First there is a set of glyphs constructed from the primal binary of c-curve and backslash (more or less as described by Brian Cham in his Curve-and-Line analysis of the script.) These glyphs are c-curves or backslashes with various loops, tails and ligatures attached. They have been designed systematically as a set. Most of the text consists of these "letters".

2. Secondly, and most conspicuously, there is a set of four so-called gallows glyphs, elevated glyphs with stilts. There is a simple system of four: one legged, two legged, one looped, two looped. They are not made from c-curves and backslashes. They are a separate group designed according to different principles. (Note: I suspect the Voynich <q> may also be in this set.)

3. Thirdly, there is a set of four so-called "bench gallows". They are not really a separate set of designs: they are a combination of the first group with the second. The four gallows glyphs have been combined with a "bench" of two c-curves. This tells us that even though the first set and the second are designed according to different principles, they have been conceived and belong together.

4. Fourthly, there is a set of glyphs apparently unconnected to the first three sets - a set of glyphs of a totally different design. They are conspicuously geometric, simple arrangements of lines (and dots). What they have in common is the inverted V  form. They can be explained as a series of geometrical arrangements of lines based on the inverted V.  A few glyphs from this set do appear as letters in the running text alongside glyphs from the first three sets, but they are rare. This group includes the three red glyphs that appear on the first page. They are made from the upright V form and lines, and are therefore made from the same geometric elements.

We can say a few intelligent things about each set. The first group, for example, renders a set of glyphs that generally resemble lower case letters of the Latin alphabet. They look Latin-like. The second group, the stilts, also seem repurposed from the conventions of Latin manuscripts. Notice that the 'benched gallows' are not listed as independent units on page f57v. They are composite in nature. 

Of the last group we can say that glyphs from this set most resemble alchemical designs, of all the glyphs in the manuscript. The codex is notably devoid of the familiar astrological and alchemical glyphs typical of medieval and Renaissance cosmology - but the fourth set of glyphs seems astro-alchemical and includes forms that appear in later alchemical works. Alternatively, the fourth group is most cypher-like; in any case, the least linguistic and orthographic and the most obviously symbolic or coded in nature. They are a distinctly separate group.

The only point of overlap (and confusion?) is in the penultimate glyph of the sequence shown on f57v. In one iteration it seems like part of the geometric set, but in the other versions on the page it seems more like a c-curve with the straight ligature at the top. In which set does it belong? Does it indicate that the two sets are related in design? Does the c-curve form 'evolve' (as a cursive form) from a static, angular geometric form?

R. B.