Are the cosmological diagrams Copernican??

["Bradley E. SCHAEFER" <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi;
	Here is another non-trivial response to the Sky & Telescope
article.  
Cheers,
Brad

>X-Sender: jdonohue@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>From: MartinUrmson@xxxxxxx (by way of "Jill D. Considine"
<jconsidine@xxxxxxxxxx>)
>Subject: Voynich manuscript
>
>Forgive me if these points sound gauche, but I now little of astronomy; my 
>interest is history of science.  I am only a student, so have more questions 
>than answers.
>It strikes me that your illustrations on pages 41/42 imply a heliocentric 
>view of the solar system, while many assumptions of provenance result in a 
>date preceding Copernicus. From what I know of Copernicus, he is unlikely to 
>have been the author. So if we can assume that the Voynich document is 
>European in origin, there are only limited areas in which to search for the 
>author of a heliocentric theory pre Copernicus (eg Pierre Ramee, Nicholas of 
>Cusa and their disciples - yet I'm sure specialists will know of more).
>The sun-centred cosmology could place the Voynich manuscript after the 
>neo-Platonic revival (say circa 1500), which  was probably an influence on 
>Copernicus, who studied in Italy where it was centred at this time. If the 
>document was made after 1500, it would be useful to question why code was 
>used. The Catholic church has a history of repression of anti-Scriptural 
>interpretations of the Cosmos, but this was only really brought into force 
>against loud-mouthed troublemakers such as Giordano Bruno, who was executed 
>in 1500 or so. While Copernicus was certainly aware of the religious 
>controversy his work might cause, he did go ahead and publish - without any 
>secret language. Indeed De Revolutionibus was dedicated to the pope. 
>    So why the secret language? Anybody with useful connections would have
no 
>reason to use it. So is this document pre-Copernican, and did these ideas 
>have the currency to influence Copernicus? (It is after all difficult to 
>identify one major influence to his work). Or is it post-Copernican, and a 
>later document, made in the second half of the 16th century and influenced
by 
>mystical neo-Platonism? By this time the Church had become sensitive to 
>challenges to Scripture because of the bigger challenges presented by the 
>Protestant reformers. A good time to use code.
>     Sorry, I have no answers: just a suggestion that historians should be 
>able to make a few educated guesses.