I’ve been reading up on the pre-history of the telescope recently (hence my reviews of Eileen Reeves’ Galileo’s Glassworks and Albert van Helden’s The Invention of the Telescope), but have omitted to mention why I thought this might be of relevance to the Voynich Manuscript.
The answer relates to Richard SantaColoma’s article in Renaissance Magazine #53 (March 2007) with the title “The Voynich Manuscript: Drebbel’s Lost Notebook?”, which claimed to find a persuasive familial similarity between the curious jars arranged vertically in the pharma sections and Renaissance microscopes, specifically those described or designed by Cornelius Drebbel. His (updated) research also appears here.
The biggest problem with Voynich hypotheses is that, given 200+ pages of interesting stuff, it is comparatively easy to dig up historical evidence that appears to show some kind of correlation. In the case SantaColoma’s webpage, this category covers the stars, the hands, braids, caps, colours, four elements, Francis Bacon’s New Atlantis and handwriting matches suggested: none of these is causative, and the level of correlation is really quite low. All of which is still perfectly OK, as these parallels are only presented as suggestive evidence, not as any kind of direct proof.
It is also tempting to use a given hypothesis to try to support itself: in the 1920s, William Romaine Newbold famously did this with his own circular hypothesis, where he said that the only way that the manuscript’s microscopic cipher could have been written was with the aid of a microscope, ergo Roger Bacon must have invented the microscope. All false, of course. Into this second category falls the “cheese mold”, “diatoms” and “cilia” of SantaColoma’s webpage: if these are to used as definitive proof of the presence of microscopy in the VMs, the level of correlation would need to be substantially higher. But these parallels are, once again, only presented as suggestive evidence, not proof.
Strip all these away, and you’re still left with the real meat of SantaColoma’s case: a set of striking similarities between 17th century microscopes and the curious devices in the Voynich Manuscript’s pharma section. Even if (as I do) you doubt that all the colouring on the pages was original (and upon which some of SantaColoma’s argument seems to rest), it’s an interesting observation.
Having said that, no actual proof or means of proof (or disproof) is offered: it is just a set of observations, resting upon a relatively little-tested tranche of history, that of the microscope. Can we do better? I think we can.
Firstly, modern telescope historians (I’m thinking of Albert van Helden here, though he is far from alone in this respect) now seem somewhat dubious of the various Janssen family claims: and so I’m far from comfortable with placing the likely birth of the microscope with the Janssens in 1590. As Richard SantaColoma points out, Cornelius Drebbel is definitely one of the earliest documented microscope makers (from perhaps a little earlier than 1620, but probably not much before 1612, I would guess).
Secondly, it is likely that the power of the lenses available for spectacles pre-1600 was not great: Albert van Helden calculated that a telescope made to della Porta’s (admittedly cryptic) specification could only have given a magnification of around 2x, which would be no more than a telescopic toy. I would somewhat surprised if microscopes constructed from the same basic components had significantly higher magnification.
Thirdly, the claimed presence of knurled edges in the VMs’ images would only make sense if used in conjunction with a fine screwthread, to enable the vertical position of an element along the optical axis to be varied: but I’m not sure when these were invented or adapted for microscopes.
All in all, I would assert that if what is being depicted in the VMs’ pharma section is indeed microscopes from the same family as were built by Drebbel from (say) 1610 onwards, there would seem no obvious grounds for dating this to significantly earlier than 1610: even if it all came directly from Della Porta, around 1589 would seem to be the earliest tenable date.
The problem is that there is plenty of art historical data which places the VMs circa 1450-1500: and a century-long leap would seem to be hard to support without more definitive evidence.
As always, there are plenty of Plan B hypotheses, each of which has its own unresolved issues:-
(a) they are microscropes/telescopes, but from an unknown 16th century inventor/tradition
(b) they are microscropes/telescopes, but from an unknown 15th century inventor/tradition
(c) they’re not microscopes/telescopes, they just happen to look a bit like them
(d) they’re not microscopes/telescopes, but were later emended/coloured to look like them
(e) it’s all a Dee/Kelley hoax (John Dee was Thomas Digges’ guardian from the age of 13)
Despite everything I’ve read about the early history of the telescope and microscope, I really don’t think that we currently can resolve this whole issue (and certainly not with the degree of certainty that Richard SantaColoma suggests). The jury remains out.
But I can offer some observations based on what is in the Voynich Manuscript itself, and this might cast some light on the matter for those who are interested.
(1) The two pharma quires seem to be out of order: if you treat the ornate jars as part of a visual sequence, it seems probable that Q19 (Quire 19) originally came immediately before Q17 in the original binding.
(2) The same distinctive square “filler” motif appears in the astronomical section (f67r1, f67r2, f67v1), the zodiac section (Pisces, light Aries), the nine rosette page (central rosette), and in a band across the fifth ornate jar in Q19. This points not only to their sharing the same scribe, but also to a single (possibly even improvised) construction/design process: that is, the whole pharma section is not simply a tacked-on addition, it is an integral part of the manuscript.
(3) Some paint on the pharma jars appear original: but most seems to be a later addition. For example: on f99v, I could quite accept that the palette of (now-faded) paints used to colour in the plants and roots was original (and I would predict that a spectroscopic or Raman analysis would indicate that this was probably comprised solely of plant-based organic paints), which would be consistent with the faded original paint on the roots of f2v. However, I would think that the bolder (and, frankly, a little uglier) paints used on the same page were not original.
Put all these tiny fragments together, and I think this throws doubt on one key part of SantaColoma’s visual argument. He claims that the parallel hatching inside the ornate jar at the top of f88r (the very first jar in Q17) is a direct indication that it is a lens we are looking at, fixed within a vertical optical structure. However, if you place Q19 before Q17 (as I believe the original order to have been), then a different story emerges. The ten jars immediately before f88v (ie at the end of Q19) all have vertical parallel hatching inside their tops, none of which looks at all like the subtle lens-like shading to which SantaColoma is referring. For reference, I’ve reproduced the tops of the last four jars below, with the final two heavily image-enhanced to remove the heavy (I think later) overpainting that has obscured much of the finer detail.
This is the “mouth” of the top jar on f102r: the vertical parallel hatching seems to depict the back wall of a jar, ending in a pool of faintly-coloured yellow liquid (probably the original paint).
This is the mouth of the bottom jar on f102r, which appears to have vertical parallel hatching right down, as though the jar is empty near the top (or perhaps its contents are clear).
This is the top jar on 102v, enhanced to remove the paint. I think some vertical hatching is still visible there: it would take a closer examination to determine what was originally drawn there.
This is the bottom jar on f102v, again heavily enhanced to remove paint. Vertical hatching of some sort is visible.
The second enlargement is brilliant, Nick. If it represented the glaze on ceramic, it’s clear enough to be identifiable. If.
.. and the key point is never addressed – what person from the age of microscopes didn’t think scientific drawings had to be literalist, and who from that era and environment didn’t draw a telescope that looked like a telescope?
What has to be proven about any drawing is that the posited time and place of composition is compatible with what is known of drawings created in that time, place and context.
Someone might feel that illustrations in a tenth-century Coptic manuscript reminded them of pictures made by a seventeenth century Russian master of icons but as I keep trying – without much success – to explain to Voynicheros, there are objective criteria and a whole mass of scholarship against which a theorist really should test such impressions before launching them in public.
I like Rich Santacoloma, who has a passion for research and if not prodded by others is normally courteous towards people whose opinions differ from his own. I also like Koen Gheuens, for the same reasons.
But neither has taken enough time to move their level of engagement with these drawings from the level of ‘theoretical/imaginative/ideal’ narrative to that applied to the evaluation of problematic drawings in the real world.
Santacoloma would first need to show – at the very least – that someone in scientific circles drew microscopes in such a way during the years, and in the cultural environment, that his microscope theory (or Newbold’s) would have the drawings first made.
I think text can spread some light on the mystery of this image. To avoid any comments on grammar from some people who don’t understand a single word in the assumed plaintext language I give only the translation. So here is the operating manual for the microscope:
The text in the upper device says (synonyms in brackets) –
softly rising ghost (spirit of a dead one) making petition (seeking for favour), ready (prepared) in fear (respect, reverence, piety) (of God) to be removed far away (be removed far off from the Father) to finish (complete, accomplish) (the existence)
Below the upper device, which is filled with the soul (deep blue) expecting the verdict, we see an empty vessel (pale blue), the empty shell of the earthen body left behind. Interesting – the soul isn’t threatened with the Sheol but to be removed from the Father, to spend the eternity far away from the light, wisdom and everything interesting. What will such a removed soul do in the afterlife? I guess, it will speculate baseless all the long time – but alone, in seclusion, without internet…
Sorry, I couldn’t withstand.
Nick, you mention ‘faintly yellow coloured liquid’ – the new scans have so reduced the colours (or perhaps corrected them – who knows?) that no sign of yellow appears now. I can’t recall where I saw it said, but I’ve recently seen a comment left somewhere that asserts there is no yellow in the Voynich palette. Could be an instance of imagination stated as if fact, or it could be so. I do wish the Beinecke would provide a full description of the palette, preferably one identifying the metals by XRF scan. It alone should either confirm or refute the theories arguing a date later than the mid-fifteenth century. If there are yellows, thpse pigment/s used could be especially interesting.
Nick, you use the words proof and evidence. I’m a natural science traditionalist regarding these words. For a proof I need an axiomatic system, a logic we agree on (propositional logic, predicate logic…) and a theorem to be proved, formulated in the chosen formalism. Hence, I prefer to use the word verification. However, one doesn’t need to practice hair-splitting over it.
But I would like to grasp the sense of these words regarding VMS and learn something about the pragmatic approach to them as from your perspective. What would be in your opinion the essence of a verification or a reliable criterium for decryption evidence (for the text, let now the images out of scope)?
I hope you are not an advocate of Habermas’ consensus theory of truth. We see recently what the outcome of different truths is (distributed among different consensus groups around the globe).
Darius: having studied philosophy at university (many years ago), my opinion is that the word “proof” needn’t always be accompanied by a bodyguard of ninja logicians to be useful. 😉
As far as the Voynich Manuscript goes, I think a ‘proof’ should be something very much stronger than a ‘possible interpretative reading’, which itself is something that most so-called Vpoynich decryptions only vaguely approximate. A reading that only one person can read is about as far as we have got so far. 🙁
Dianne: It might be wise to consider that Wilfred was a qualified chemist and likely had a sound knowledge of artistic pigments and dyes, their introduction uses and durability &c. Had it been his intention to emulating the works of Roger Bacon (13th not 15th century) eg., he would no doubt have taken utmost care in selection of his dye tones and colourations lest they be identified as being out of character.
Nick, when it comes to my theory, there is a clear obstacle to any public decoding & reading by more people – an ancient, now for centuries only literary plaintext language. The words are pressed together, which is not encoding and invented for the encryption but practice in Hebrew, Aramaic texts (in vocalised texts the syllable or word break is indicated by two vertical dots below the final letter so the pulling apart of words is easier). Hence, without basics in Aramaic it will be very tough.
The alphabet/code is publicly available for more than a year now (explained in 2 first documents on my webpage) and the code is still valid for all newer texts ~98% (no need to amend it), it’s accessible to everyone, usable by everyone and not a secret. The plaintext is grammatically highly pure, e. g. in my opinion there are not more than 5 abbreviations, logograms used (for YHWH, for the chief presbyter of Jerusalem, for ‘the Word’…) and of consistent use throughout the script – as far as the examined pages.
I could perhaps prepare a paper, which is somehow more didactic and put more emphasis on the putative encryption process, trying to explain the way from the plaintext to the Voynichese vords. But would it change the above said?
The Day of the Lord is a Day of Calamity
Nick, the “proto-optics” folio 102v (and probably the others from this section) is the Sistine Chapel of the VMS. It’s about Last Judgement, the main text starts:
…רוּד עפל עֵלָּא יָעַד דָּת אִלֵּךְ
roaming (wandering restlessly), lifted up above,
placed before the law (of God) these (those) (sinners)
(on) the day of calamity, the doors of heavens above
(being) withdrawn, comes with the petition (request)
a filthy lament (mourning because of calamity), darkness, void (nothing)…
Here the evildoers receive their verdict and punishment.
I found it particularly interesting athough not so unsurprising that, following Wilfrid’s death in 1930, American newspapers of the period were still happy to acknowledge time honoured assertions that 13th century Franciscan Friar and Philosopher Roger Bacon compiled the so called Voynich Manuscript by his own hand. It is also noted that, prior to the VM’s public exposure around 1921 or so, going back to at least 1904 Wilfrid Voynich or Mikael Wojnicz was being lorded in the American and International press as being a respected book seller/bibliophile. It’s possible that Voynich brought ‘the Bacon’ to America in 1914 on the ill fated Lusitania although, I think it more likely that as a precaution against unwanted exposure, the book accompanied his ‘brother-in-law’ famous British landscape artist and botanist Edward Taylor on his 1915 field trip to NY from London.
John, do I get you right? You think Voynich brought Roger Bacon into play to prevent exposure and a more deeply analysis by others? So, he fed the public with ‘Bacon’ to gain more time for its own studies. Intriguing…
So far, 102v text is eschatological (concrete Judgment Day) – a very sad perspective for wrongdoers and ignorants! Knowing the meaning of leaves from the translation of 5v as offspring, descendants (the nation of Israel is often depicted as a fig tree and their children as leaves elsewhere) we can grasp what the leaves and plants here intent to show. However, these aren’t concrete persons.
Most interesting are the two vessels at the left side of the folio. The text says ‘the spirit of a dead one is softly rising’ – so apparently, it’s an image of the metamorphosis (big theme in the eastern churches but not that much in the western). The spirit leaves the expended earthen vessel behind. But isn’t it clothed with a new dress as a new (immaterial?) entity above? Did they believe, this can happen within the realm of known or unknown physics (I think the term ‘living God’ points in this direction) or should it be a process without any connection to physical world?
In the first case, with one step, we would be midst in all the quests considered very scientific today: what is space, what are objects and their emanations moving in it, what is matter? Is there something other than spacetime? Is there a transition between different manifolds? What is that self-conscious spirit and consciousness in general?
So far, I can’t find in the blogs any posts or comments on these texts, even not in a hypothetical tenor, so I must assume, the most people reading this will be horrible disappointed not to find here a good advice how many lavender should be put into water for a relaxing bath…
Diane, a lot of work you invested on 67v analysis and your explanation is convincing.
Assuming now the text is ancient and written originally on papyri – it must have been copied on new material every 100-150 years. I don’t think the earliest copies were illustrated with images. As I know that would be very unusual as for ancient rolls or first codices, but correct me when I’m wrong. But in the further process of copying, so from the early medieval age on, images could begin to appear. Not all at the same time, so possible these most elaborate are late, the simple ones (like our T-map on 85v/86r) earlier. Earlier than any early medieval Isidore of Seville’s T-map? Not impossible. Then they would naturally reflect much more the customs of the region and the ’fashion’ of the age than those of the text origin. And the text could have been rearranged and recompiled every time as well.
Darius – from what language, in what period, are you getting these readings of the written text?
Have you evidence that the people who used that language, at that time, made drawings comparable in style and content with those you’ve mentioned?
Just btw – you say you’ve not seen anything similar in earlier Voynich writings. As it happens, Koen Gheuens pursued a theory that the drawings reflect Ovid’s Metamorphoses, and I’ve published a summary of detailed research into folio 5v.
For all I know, the written text might say what you assert it does; not my field.
Diane, what I’m saying is, that not everything in the VMS seems to be from the same age. My opinion is – I think that is clear from my previous posts – that the main material, the big paragraphs und the circular texts, are from 1 CE and that this text is a form of a gospel in B. Aramaic. But you hit on short comments (mostly acrimonious and condemning), which obviously don’t belong to the original corpus – e. g. the last lines of paragraphs, which are mostly different structured (left part separated from the right part) are, so far I see, such kind of comment. These comments are very likely made by the mediaeval scribes. Then you have a type of short memos on devices and nearby the images, which explain in short words what is depicted. Concrete – on 102v the words ‘the spirit of a dead one is softly rising’ are written on the device at the left side, so this particular image is apparently depicting the metamorphosis (in a religious sense, I don’t know how this intersects with Ovid’s Metamorphoses). These words are most probably added by the illustrator himself, not necessarily in the very last edition of the script, they could be simply copied together with the image from former editions.
As I understood your article, you say that the images on 67v are probably older than other images in the VMS so this would support this idea. I think the provenance of the script could be more complex than the ‘simplistic’ theories suggest.
Did I say this ‘you’ve not seen anything similar in earlier Voynich writings? Not! But in my analysis I relay mainly on my translation of 5v, which I consider correct (after 12 consistent and narratively coherent translated passages the probability to be wrong is dwindling). Nonetheless, I believe to have found a way for an even stronger evidence and verification. That I’ll try to complete later this year. Before my holiday break (I’ll take a holiday from VMS as well), I’ll try to provide the translation of 102v, at least the upper part of the folio.
Diane, be sure, the main text and all the supposed later additions are so far in Aramaic – so those people knew the language. Merely who those later copyists, editors, commentators and illustrators were – I can’t tell you. Here is something for you to reveal! Can the images tell us about their origins? Your claim was, that it should be possible in some kind and you gave good examples for eastern influences on them.
Darius – in my sort of work, most of the time is spent in research. Working through the Voynich map took my all my spare time for almost three years. I assure you it contains no ‘T-O’ diagram and neither does it refer to western Europe, save one small motif in a late-added circular ‘itinerary’.
I’ve found nothing in the drawings which refers to anything but solidly practical information and while I can accept that there might be a disjunction between the content of the drawings as against that of the written text, I think you need to establish a better historical grounding for your opinions. Where, when and by whom was Aramaic used in the early centuries AD? How do you explain the difference between the Voynich glyphs and every other of the dozens of alphabets derived from the classical Aramaic forms?
As for copying, I do not see much evidence of repeated copying though I think some images date from an earlier and some later periods. Overall I identify three main phases or chronological layers: the oldest Hellenistic; the next I date to about the 1st-2ndC AD; the third and effectively the last major changes and additions dating to around 1350 AD. And then, of course, we have the remarkably faithful copies which were made in the early fifteenth century. The question which troubles me about your translations is that so far as I know, Aramaic had long ceased by that time to be a liturgical language even among the Nestorians, who had used Syriac. Of course I may be mistaken about that but I think you have to show that there are reasonable historical grounds for believing that by the fifteenth century anyone save Rabbinical Jews understood or wrote biblical Aramaic.
Thanks for saying you can accept the evidence and reasoning behind the analysis of folio 67v-1. I must say I find it a bit uncomfortable when people say they find it ‘convincing’ because I see our sort of work as akin to the work of a translator or interpreter.
I’m responsible for relaying faithfully the intention of the original, and so long as I show I’m not relying on imagination, the audience can accept or not. What I admit makes me cross is when others pretend to have done the work, or repeat a mangled and garbled version to suit their personal ambitions.
I wish Wilfrid had never seen the manuscript, or that he had managed to sell it to the British Museum immediately. Had it been first noticed in recent years, or been placed in sober hands before Wilfrid began his public sales-pitch, I think we’d have understood the work without all the misdirection, fuss and theorising which has marked Voynich studies since the 1920s.
There were specialists in Aramaic in England by that time, too. 🙂
to steal a tiny piece of The Somerton Man show… a few lines about the old Voynich
Nick, you hit here (102v) on an eschatological text (Judgment Day, day of calamity). The last say (last line) has, as usual, the self-opinionated medieval scribe 😊. The symbolism is very rough as following: trees are nations, branches are tribes, leaves are “children” of the nations, indiscriminate foliage is then mankind as such. That is known from Hebrew scriptures, where the nation of Israel is often depicted as a fig tree and that’s already the essence of the symbolism in this section (however, trees are not really depicted, a bit on 101v). The text is naturally full of details (you can find the upper passage transliterated/translated in the last paper on my website).
Diane, regarding Aramaic scripts, we know e. g. from Eusebius and Origenes, that some Christian Aramaic scriptures were extant at their times and the Quelle-theory suggests it as well. But, there are so many topics here, one could dig in. For the moment I’ll stay with the code and the plaintext decryption to generate some more samples. I’m fairly convinced that in this script text and image are complementary. Around many of the images are short notes, which should help to interpret in case there are doubts about the image. The scribes (encryptors) tried to hide and mislead, but only as far as the code hasn’t been broken. For the “key-holders” everything should be clear and transparent – they help, where they can, to understand. After my holiday break, I could examine what 67v text really says acc. to my code/key. I guess, surprises can’t be ruled out.