Every few years, I get around to posting a list of Voynich challenges – things about the Voynich Manuscript that we would like to know or to find out.
Looking back at my 2001 list of Voynich Challenges, I seem to have been flailing around at every codicological nuance going: yes, there are hundreds of interesting angles to consider – but how many stand any chance of yielding something substantial? With the benefit of just a little hindsight, I’d say… realistically, almost none of them (unfortunately).
Stepping onwards to my 2004 list of Voynich research tasks, which was instead mainly focused on a particularly narrow research question – whether Wilfrid Voynich lost any pages of the VMs. (Having myself consulted the UPenn archives in 2006, I’m certain the answer is a resounding ‘no’.)
Also in 2004, the release of the (generally excellent) MrSID scans by the Beinecke Library (even though it carried out test scans in 2002) was also an important landmark for study of the VMs, because it allowed anybody to look closely at the primary evidence on their own PC without having to trek to New Haven. Many old questions (particularly about colour) that had bounced around on the original VMs mailing list for years were suddenly able to be answered reasonably definitively.
Hurling our nuclear-powered DeLorean fast-forward to June 2009, what things do we now want to know? And moreover, even if we do find them out, does any of them stand any chance of helping us?
For all the determined work over the years that has been put into trawling the post-1600 archives (particularly Kircher’s correspondence), I can’t help but think that there can be precious little left to find of significant value. It has been a nice, well-defined project – but can I suggest we put it behind us now? The presence of 15th century handwriting (on f116v) and 15th century quire numbers surely makes this avenue no more than a fascinating diversion, no more useful than a forensic dissection of (say) Petrus Beckx’s life. Ultimately, “what happened to the VMs after 1600?” is surely one of the many convenient (but wrong) questions to be asking.
But what, then, are the right questions to be asking? In my opinion, the seven most fruitful historical research challenges currently awaiting significant attack are the following…
(1) Understanding the ownership marginalia on f1r, f17r, f66r and f116v, in particular what caused the text on them to end up so confused and apparently unreadable – even their original language(s) (Latin, French, German, Occitan or Voynichese?) is/are far from certain. Whatever details turn up from this research (dates, names, places, languages, etc) may well open the door onto a whole new set of archival resources not previously considered. Alas, delayering these marks is just beyond the reach of the Beinecke’s scans – so unless our Austrian TV documentary friends have already deftly covered this precise angle (and I’m sure they are aware of this issue), I think this would be a fantastic, relatively self-contained codicological / palaeographic research project for someone to take on. Do you know a Yale codicologist looking for a neat term project?
(2) Palaeographically matching the VMs’ quire numbering scheme – abbreviated longhand Roman ordinals (but with Arabic digits for the most part). Again, this should be a self-contained palaeographic research project, one that a determined solo investigator could carry out (say) just using the British Library’s resources. Again, if this suggests links to documents with reasonably well-defined provenances or authorship, it may well open up an entirely new archival research angle to pursue.
(3) Examining the “aiiv” groups for steganography, both in Currier A and in Currier B. I’ve made a very specific prediction, based on carefully observing the VMs at first hand – that in the Herbal-A pages, the “scribal flourish” was added specifically to hide an earlier (less subtle) attempt at steganography, based on dots. A multi-spectral scan of some of these “aiiv” groups might well make reveal the details of this construction, and (with luck) cast some light on the writing phases the author went through. Definitively demonstrating the presence of steganography should also powerfully refute a large number of the theories that have floated around the VMs for years.
(4) Reconstructing the original bifolio nesting of the VMs. Glen Claston and I have attempted to do this from tiny codicological clues, but this is in danger of stalling for want of applicable data. But what kind of data that could be collected non-destructively be useful? Ideally, it would be good if we could perform some kind of DNA matching (to work out which bifolios came from the same animal skin), as this would give a very strong likelihood of connecting groups of pages together – and with that in place, many more subtle symmetries and handwriting matches might become useful. Would different animal skins autofluoresce subtly differently? I think there’s a fascinating research project waiting in there for someone who comes at this from just the right angle.
(5) Documenting and analyzing the VMs’ binding stations. If the VMs happens to go in for restoration at any point (which the Beinecke curators have mentioned at various points as being quite likely), I think it would be extremely revealing if the binding stations and various sewing holes on each bifolio were carefully documented. These might well help us to work out how the various early bindings worked, which in turn should help us reconstruct what early owners did to the manuscript, and (with luck) what the original ‘alpha’ state of the manuscript was.
(6) Carefully differentiating between Currier-A and Currier-B, building up specific Markov-like models for the two “languages”, and working out (from their specific differences) how A was transformed into B. This may not sound like much, but an awful lot of cryptological machinery would need to rest on top of this to make any kind of break into the system.
(7) Making explicit Glen Claston’s notion of script & language evolution over the various writing phases. This would involve a combination both of palaeography and statistical analysis, to understand how Voynichese developed, both as a writing system and a cryptographics system. There’s a great idea in there, but it has yet to be expressed in a really detailed, substantial way.
In retrospect, a lot of the art historical things that preoccupied many Voynich researchers (myself included) back in 2002-2005 such as comparisons with existing drawings, the albarelli, etc now seem somewhat secondary to me. This is because we have a solid date range to work with: the Voynich Mauscript (a) was made after 1450 (because of the presence of parallel hatching in the nine-rosette page), and (b) was made before 1500 (because of the presence of two 15th century hands, in the quire numbers and on f116v).
Some people (particularly those whose pet theories don’t mesh with this 1450-1500 time frame) try to undermine this starting point, but (frankly) the evidence is there for everyone to see – and I think it’s time we moved on past this, so as to take Voynich research as a whole up to the next level. Though researchers have put in a terrific amount of diffuse secondary research over the years, collectively our most productive task now is to forensically dissect the primary evidence, so as to wring out every last iota of historical inference – only then should we go back to the archives.
Will these seven basic challenges still all be open in 2012, a hundred years after Wilfrid Voynich claimed discovery of his eponymous manuscript in a Jesuit trunk? I sincerely hope not – but who is going to step forward to tackle them?
Hi Nick,
when people first started to discuss the Voynich MS on the internet (early 1990’s) the wish list consisted of mainly 3 items (not necessarily in this order):
1) having a high-quality reproduction of the MS
2) having a complete transcription of the MS text
3) having a scientific dating of the vellum, pigments etc
We are close to having all this now – the reproduction probably being much, much
better than anyone ever dared to hope. For (3), we still need to wait some unknown amount of time and we don’t know how accurate/reliable it will be.
At the time, I think people realised that having these things would not necessarily be enough to solve the mystery, and this may turn out to be right.
The same may be in store for any new wish list like your present one.
Expanding on the ‘Kircher correspondence’ as referring to ‘any 16th-17th century
correspondence’, I’m not ready to give up on that yet. If we think of the value of evidence as the product of its usefulness and the likelyhood of actually finding it, then it still has some value. How, when and through whom the MS got to Prague is something for which I feel that evidence may still be found, and it might tell us something new.
Quite practically also, it is more satisfying to “find something” even when it barely helps, than to “not find that breakthrough”.
Cheers, René
Hi René,
I’d certainly agree that 16th century correspondence may well have a lot of fascinating surprises for us, if we just happened to be looking at the right archive. But the point I’m trying to make here is that until we have collectively done justice to the codicology and the palaeography, the chances of our looking at exactly the right archive will remain excessively small.
The common theme running through my 2009 list of Voynich challenges is about re-framing our lack of knowledge about key areas of the VMs as actionable research projects. I would genuinely be delighted if researchers tackled any of them (and would be happy to contribute practical support) – and I think all of them are do-able.
What would be on your list? Never mind what you would do yourself, what would you have others do? 🙂
Cheers, ….Nick Pelling….
I think that these lists are a great idea, and I cannot fathom why any codicologist would wait more time than what it takes to grab his hat, coat and get out the door, to start examining these questions. The only explanation I can see is that the VMS is simply not yet well enough known for people to stumble over pages such as this blog and become acquainted with the very questions we are asking both ourselves and others. However, I sincerely doubt that this is the case: most people with a profession (or studying to have a profession) that has anything to do with ciphers or renaissance manuscripts will definitely have come across the VMS by now.
So why don’t these people act? Either they are simply not interested, or they believe that their efforts to answer the questions will be in vain. The latter can again be split up into two groups: those that for some reason still believe that the entire thing is a hoax, and those that are not well enough informed to deem whether their skills are sufficient or their wisdom adequate to get workin’!
Can it really be, that all that is needed is an appetizer? A document with the goal of making people interested? I think that the websites and books* already out there do a fantastic job, so what is missing?
Enjoying your blog as always,
Christopher.
* – I just finished The Curse a couple of days ago while waiting for a flight at Heathrow. What a great read! I suggest that anyone with as much as a slight interest in 15th century Italy, codicology, ciphers or even Italian architecture buy and read it.
Hi Christopher,
I just don’t know – why wouldn’t a codicologist want to tackle the Mount Everest of manuscripts? As long as you take it one step at a time, it should be a safe ascent. 🙂
Thanks for the praise about The Curse – I didn’t get everything in it 100% right, but I think I was at least trying to answer the right kind of questions. 🙂 If only everyone else was doing broadly the same… 🙁
Cheers, ….Nick Pelling….
My ‘challenge list’…
I would prioritise things that are ‘doable’ and/or more likely to bring some result. The second part,
inevitably, is related to one’s particular take on the MS.
A problem in this is, that it is entirely possible that an answer may come from a completely
unexpected direction. In fact, I’m essentially expecting this 🙂
The order in the following is not meant to indicate priority.
Nick’s (1): marginalia: this needs to be studied in some depth by a trained paleographer,
who has experience in German and Italian handwriting from several centuries.
I’ve spoken to two relevant experts who gave some opinions that can definitely be extended
upon. This is nothing for amateurs like me…
Nick’s (6): absolutely, but whoever does it has to keep a wider view than anything that has
been done in this area so far. Ideally no assumptions should be made at the start.
Examples of assumptions that should not be made are:
– the text is meaningful
– this is a cipher system
– the text relates to the pictures
Previously made observations should be taken into account, but previously drawn conclusions
should be forgotten.
I also would like someone with a background in Arabic and other near Eastern langauges
to take a serious interst in the MS. The whole idea of someone transcribing something like that
has been barely explored.
There are now techniques for computer analysis of handwriting that could be applied to the
Voynich MS. If one looks at what is the state of our knowledge (including theories) in this
area, it is lagging behind.
Last but not least: continued study of the environment of Rudolf II and following years.
Ever since the Barschius letter was found, new bits and pieces of information have surfaced,
and there are still more in the pipeline. So far, nothing that take us back further in
time, but I think that it is possible.
Cheers, Rene
Hi Rene,
“Ever since the Barschius letter was found, new bits and pieces of information have surfaced,
and there are still more in the pipeline.”
Where should I go for the most comprehensive synopsis of these surfaced bits of information?
Thanks,
Christopher
Hello all.
A minor addition I would make to Nick’s list would be a 2-part request for a bit of additional imaging work to be done on the manuscript itself.
A) I would have a series of UV and IR wavelength images done of the 2 pages (1R and 116V) that we know have faded text on them to reveal any remaining details. Surely technology that is 90 years removed from Wilfred Voynich’s 1st images and subsequent chemical erasure could provide a good image if anything at all remains there to be seen.
B) I would also carefully redo the MrSID images of the 9 Rosette folio, several of the Zodiac folios and both 67R2 and 67V2. The folds and creases on these pages have bothered me since they were released — hiding details of several labels and text strings. The creases on 9 Rosette hide this as well, including portions of the diagonal structures depending off 3 of the corner Rosettes.
During their visits to Yale, both Nick and Dana Scott transcribed a bit of the hidden material on the 9 Rosette folio. This helped some (thanks again, guys!), but a detailed scan would still be immensely better.
I understand that Yale may be reluctant to put much effort into this due to the condition of the vellum or the awkwardness of doing a flat scan of something like the Rosette folio. My view is that its not going to get any better than it is right now and waiting longer may result in additioal details being permanently lost — I’m told that one of the gutters has already partially disintegrated.
On the topic of Athanasius Kircher, I’ve noted that a new book is listed on Amazon for a mid-September release called: Athanasius Kircher’s Theatre of the World. The author is listed as Joselyn Godwin, author of an earlier favorite of mine called Athanasius Kircher: A Renaissance Man and the Quest for Lost Knowledge.
I doubt if there will be any “smoking guns” unveiled RE: voynichology, but Godwin is a very capable author and the scholarship of his earlier works is excellent.
Thanks,
Ernest
PS: Nick — I must have slept through the discussions about the 1450 starting point for the Voynich window “because of the presence of parallel hatching in the nine-rosette page”.
Can you point me to where these took place?
Hi Ernest,
As far as f1r, f17r, f66r, f116v and all the other curious marginalia go, more (and better kinds of) scans are without doubt a must. But they need to be integrated within a research programme with very specific aims, much as I described in the post.
I’d say that there are many places where I would particularly like to see multispectral or Raman scans: not only the nine-rosette page, but also f57v, some Herbal-A aiiv family letters, etc. Again, these need to be integrated within la-di-da-di-da. 🙂
Incidentally, I think Glen Claston’s suggestion that the fold on the nine-rosette disintegrated when the ms was rebound has a great deal to commend it. But that’s another story!
Joscelyn Godwin’s books are always worth a read, even if I/you don’t always agree with his iconological spin: I have a review of his in the pipeline *sigh*.
Finally: as far as Voynich dating goes, I’ve only published partial stuff on the blog – I’ll try to get round to finishing the rather more comprehensive post I’ve had in draft for the last six months. 😮
Cheers, ….Nick Pelling….
Hi Christopher,
My guess is that Rene is too close to the action to say: i.e., that the Austrian TV documentary makers whom he has been advising have had their own team of diligent archive raiders combing over all the relevant document streams, and have probably uncovered several fragments to fill in the VMs’ post-1600 history (or, perhaps more likely, have found out more about the various members of the VMs’ dramatis personae.
Of course, it’s the pre-1600 (if not the pre-1500) history I’m more concerned with… but each to their own, I suppose. 🙂
Cheers, ….Nick Pelling….
To Christopher Hagedorn:
the best collection of information about the “Prague circle” is at Philip
Neal’s Voynich page: http://voynichcentral.com/users/philipneal/
behind the first two links. The material of my old web site (also linked from there)
is partly superseded. The next publication by Smolka and myself will provide some
interesting new details. I don’t remember now if I mentioned this here or in the
mailing list…
Rene
Hi Rene,
I don’t know about the list, but you certainly mentioned it in a comment here in March. You said there “a couple of months”, so I presume this is due out (in German, at least) fairly soon?
Cheers, ….Nick Pelling….
Hi Nick,
it should be fairly soon indeed. I haven’t heard any news since then…
By the way, there has not been any systematic combing of archives, at least to my
knowledge 🙂
Rene
My wish-list, of course, would start with “ditch assumptions; re-start/re-boot”.
However, about the marginalia at the top of 17r, I see that Marco Ponzi recently offered a transcription that looks ok to me (and incidentally here’s a recognisable abbreviation with diacritic!)
He writes it as:
“malhor allor luc[oru]m her[bam] vullamina?” – “grind laurel of the woods with herb valerian”???
But in context, perhaps the “grind” refers to erasure?
On which topic, I’ve been reading some fascinating stuff about the chemistry of inks, pigments and fluids for erasing text – in relation to manuscripts written in Arabic, mostly, although I expect the same would be known to scribes in Islam regardless.
What if “grinding” was a colloquialism for erasing? Of course in some cases it might be literal, when pumice-stone was used. I’d be more interested to know if the whole isn’t a colloquial way of saying “replace x with y” – because then I could try finding out why the replacement was desirable? What’s wrong with wild laurel? one asks.
And is “laurel of the woods” the same as spurge laurel.
(nicely illustrated, in the Dioscoridan-Arabic style at
thedigitalwalters org/Data/WaltersManuscripts/W750/data/W.750/sap/W750_000005_sap . jpg
Diane:
I think that a satisfactory reading is something that is at least OK from the perspective of grammar. Not relying on massive abbreviations is also a plus.
Let alone that if it is “h” in “malhor” then it is hardly “h” in “her”, and vice versa.