Notes on Battista Piasio [Part 1] – Nicolaus Lucarus’ funeral oration…

54 thoughts on “Notes on Battista Piasio [Part 1] – Nicolaus Lucarus’ funeral oration…”

1. Mark Knowles on August 28, 2018 at 11:09 am said:

   Nick: It is certainly worth exploring who and which texts influenced the author. Within my frame of reference it would be foolish to dismiss Battista Piasio as a potential influence especially given that he was based it appears for much of his life in Cremona close to Milan.

   I increasingly think that there may well be some interesting stuff in the Library of Pavia and texts there may have influenced the author. The question of the extent to which the author was influenced by specifics individuals directly or rather through specific texts is unclear.
2. Rene Zandbergen on August 28, 2018 at 2:38 pm said:

   15 April 1460?
   The day Leonardo turned 8.
   A single day in the middle of the 15th Century with two Voynich connections.

   That just goes to show that coincidences abound, and the phrase: “that surely cannot be a coincidence” should be struck from any even half serious Voynich argument 🙂
3. Peter M on August 28, 2018 at 8:58 pm said:

   @Nick
   You write “There are many mistakes in the Latin”

   Since you have certainly hit the black. That certainly applies to today’s Latin. But how was that 600 years ago? He would be a scholar, could he afford so many mistakes at all to be taken seriously by others? Or is that just the spelling of a region?

   Although I do not see any connection of the person to the VM, I think that this is a major cause of the decryption of the VM Textes, and not even the code where it was used.
4. Mark Knowles on September 3, 2018 at 12:14 pm said:

   Rene: Sadly, I feel your reasoning is flawed. Of course coincidences abound. In fact it would be vanishingly improbable if there were no coincidences.

   The phrase “that surely cannot be a coincidence” seems perfectly sound in the right context.

   I think this kind of superficial thinking plagues Voynich research. Probabilistic statements are of great value and methodologically should be core to research on this subject. As I previously repeated, thinking in terms of formal deductive logic is frequently inappropriate to this discipline. Whilst it might seem tedious I think methodology is of central importance hence my focus on it.

   Just because one can find coincidences where there is no relationship it does not mean that possible coincidences should be ignored or discounted.

   In fact in so far as constructing your own theories, where you seem to have theories, you are precisely relying on possible coincidences. In your speculative theory of the 9 rosette foldout you rely on the possible coincidence that there are circles and the planets are circular (oblate spheroids, but that is irrelevant here) and the possible coincidence that the number of planets plus the moon and the sun are about 9. You have suggested the * s are stars in the centre of the central rosette based on the possible coincidence of their loose similarity in shape with other representations of stars although these * bound all over the Rosettes page. I could go on. In fact your whole theory is based on series of what could easily be coincidences. That’s not a problem in my book this is part of the necessary process of constructing theories.

   Nick hasn’t formally proved his theory about Averlino, but that does not mean it is worthless. You could argue that his theory is just a collection of coincidences. Despite my disagreeing with aspects of his thinking I don’t fault him on that basis.

   Certainly my own theory of the 9 rosettes page which has not yet been presented in full, though I hope to do so soon, could be described as a set of possible coincidences. I, however, rely on the notion that I believe that overall it is unlikely to be a coincidence even if specific features in isolation could be seen in those terms.

   In the limit probabilities of statements being true tend to 1 or 0 as research progresses, but to cut it off and claim results are invalid until that point is reached is foolish and leads research to stagnate in a morass. The question comes down to one of likihood of a statement being true not certainty.

   You are right when you say that coincidences are everywhere, so one needs to be careful before coming to a conclusion on the basis of a possible coincidence. But it is deeply misguided to reject these possible relationships altogether.

   I am sorry, but flaws in the methodological thinking I often find here has me tearing my hair out.

   Whether the laying of the first stone and the suggested start of Averlino’s writings are related or not I don’t know (nor care to be honest), but on that basis one could certainly explore the question of whether they was a relationship from further evidence. If one adopted your approach one would immediately reject the possibility as a coincidence and not look further. On the face of it the connection seems somewhat tenuous, but I know very little on the subject.

   I think we all need to be smarter in how we assess and develop theories.
   Of course we cannot precisely quantify probabilities in this context. Though if possible we should try to at least estimate bounds on the probability of an occurrence.

   More to come…
5. john sanders on September 3, 2018 at 1:21 pm said:

   Mark: Why do you think that Nick dumped Tony after all the effort he put into so confidently promoting him as the Voynich dream maker, going so far as offering us almost irrefutable proof. The backdown, from what I can determine was the flimsy excuse based on results (one retracted) of the radio carbon testing which claimed to have pushed his own time criteria a couple of years over the date range. I didn’t buy that for a minute and now that he appears to be drifting back to his original view, one might wonder what could have changed his view. I think I know but will hold my counsel in the interim for favour of a more enlightened opinion.
6. nickpelling on September 3, 2018 at 1:33 pm said:

   john sanders: it’s not generally considered good etiquette to promote conspiracy theories about a blogger on his/her own blog. 😉

   Antonio Averlino’s authorship remains a very sensible historical hypothesis: it sits in the middle of a vast field surrounded by the corpses of thousands of other not-quite-so-sensible hypotheses. The stench of death is strong there, and getting stronger each year.
7. john sanders on September 3, 2018 at 1:42 pm said:

   Nick: I’ve always tried to be a without fear or favour sort of personage and you’ll be well aware that etiquette must also be judged on it’s like merits.
8. nickpelling on September 3, 2018 at 2:01 pm said:

   john sanders: good luck with your quest to live a life without those tightly-enclosing walls of etiquette.
9. Mark Knowles on September 3, 2018 at 2:33 pm said:

   Nick & John Sanders: I would be inclined to agree with Nick that “Averlino’s authorship remains a very sensible historical hypothesis”. It is certainly not a nonsensical hypothesis in my opinion. As I have made clear it is a hypothesis that I disagree with in many specifics, though Nick’s theory has clearly had a significant influence on my own. It seems to me that in this regard Nick’s line of research has merit even if his research priorities are not my own.
10. Mark Knowles on September 3, 2018 at 3:57 pm said:

    A further point on methodology. I have read it said that one should focus on one’s own theory rather than comparing it with other theories. I disagree with this.

    I believe that it is perfectly sound for theories to compete to see which is best, so it makes sense to expose the flaws of other theories and so search for the theory that best explains the evidence. This process when applied should lead to better and better theories.
11. Mark Knowles on September 3, 2018 at 4:03 pm said:

    Of course, I should add that the practical problem even when applying the kind of approach I suggest is one of accurately estimating probabilities; this is deadly difficult in many instances and so in practice I think it is fair to say on occasions we all make some rather poor estimates.
12. Peter on September 3, 2018 at 4:45 pm said:

    @Nick
    I still do not know where I mean now, let’s say thesis “Homeland of the VM author” to place.
    I’m sure she’ll make some thinking, and praise a discourse.
    Best you answer me right there where I should place the first post.
13. nickpelling on September 3, 2018 at 4:48 pm said:

    Peter: place your pin in the map wherever you please. 😉
14. Rene Zandbergen on September 3, 2018 at 5:28 pm said:

    Mark! I didn’t see that coming 😀

    So, coincidences abound. We both agree.
    There’s even a perfectly good reason for that.

    I wish I had a gold ducat for each time that someone got hooked on a Voynich idea because of the thought “this can’t be a coincidence”.

    A better argument than that is needed, and I would be surprised if you disagree.
15. Peter on September 3, 2018 at 5:58 pm said:

    Thank you Nick, have found a nice place. There are about 15 posts, the pictures I can only put by link. And keep an eye on Google English.
16. john sanders on September 3, 2018 at 10:46 pm said:

    Now we’ve got the old pot back on the boil & simmering nicely; usually takes a little shake up and etiquette can go to blazes.
17. Rene Zandbergen on September 4, 2018 at 8:42 am said:

    As a fine example of synchronicity, I was just thinking the other day of writing a short ‘trivia’ item, which I just did this morning:

    http://www.voynich.nu/extra/trivia.html#tr12

    With apologies to Nick for the OT. I will start behaving again…
18. nickpelling on September 4, 2018 at 10:54 am said:

    Rene: don’t worry, you already emailed me from the future to say not to take that link too seriously. 😉
19. john sanders on September 4, 2018 at 1:17 pm said:

    Has anyone ever heard anything, historically or legend based regarding an actual Voynich ‘curse’ per se; perhaps from the time of Wilfred’s aquisition of the Manuscript, or its alleged mystical past. Of course most of the medieval Euro folk were heavily into that sort of caper, as were the old Nahuatls and the tribes of northern India along with the Turkics and even the Pakis &c. Most of them still are it seems, which is somewhat of a contradictory caution in our own convenient science based logic. This one’s for Nick, seeing he came up with the term ‘curse’ in the first place.
20. Mark Knowles on September 4, 2018 at 3:42 pm said:

    Rene: Regarding your Time Travel example, I know your point was not made wholly seriously. However I think this illustrates woolly thinking.

    This could lead some to think that any hypothesis is as good as any other which is obviously not the case given that evidence can be found to support any hypothesis.

    Whilst I am not quite sure precisely what you mean by “evidence” in this context I broadly speaking agree that one can find some evidence, in so far as that term can be informally defined, consistent with any hypothesis.

    The key question in practice is the size of the body of evidence and the overall strength of the evidence.

    The scientific and other evidence against the kind of time travel you describe is very great which means there would have to be hugely strong evidence from Voynich research to overturn such a well grounded scientific idea.

    Without other evidence the possible coincidence of dates connected to Leonardo Da Vinci would also require large evidence to overturn the known theory of the physical mechanisms through which objects interact. As mechanisms such as psychic links are not empirically supported. Whilst mechanisms such as quantum entanglement might seem to be used to justify such bizarre connections clearly this is highly unlikely in this context.

    In short, there would need to be a valid mechanism which ecplains how this possible coincidence arose.

    As a hypothetical, if it was discovered that Averlino was a close friend of the Da Vinci family and fond of their son then there would appear to be a mechanism by which those two events were connected, though far from certain that this was not incidental.

    Of course as has been discussed there are an (uncountably?) infinite number of possible coincidences.

    Technically what simultaneous occurences one could use the term “coincidence” to describe is not clear. Is there a scenario where any two events could have a property of coincidentalness, I think so it just depends how one defines the common property; however some are clearly more tenuous than others.
    In conclusion, I think we should try to think about all these questions more carefully in the way we conduct and analyse Voynich research.
21. Peter on September 4, 2018 at 3:43 pm said:

    Since Nick has already quite what the curse.
    The curse of Voynich is that ignorance creates a theory. 😉
22. Rene Zandbergen on September 5, 2018 at 6:28 am said:

    Mark, I don’t know what nerve I struck.
    I did not suggest that any hypothesis is as good as any other. In fact this is so obviously wrong, that I don’t see how this could even be implied by what I wrote.
    If evidence could be found to support *any* hypothesis, this implies that there are different qualities in hypotheses, and one can still find evidence for any of them.

    Of course pinpointing to details in the drawings and explaining them is not real evidence. That’s the whole point.

    The ‘quality’ of any hypothesis relies on the level of speculation vs. (real) evidence that supports it, but also what is there to contradict it. To come back to the date of 15 April in Nick’s post. One of the supporting arguments for Edith Sherwood’s identification of Leonardo da Vinci as the author of the MS was that she argues that a detail in one of the zodiac drawings should be interpreted as this date. Now this is not evidence but speculation.

    The various ‘fake’ hypotheses rely entirely on speculation. At the same time there is a large body of evidence that the MS is genuinely old (pre- Dee/Kelly).

    Also, one and the same hypothesis may not be convincing on day 1, and much more convincing on day 2, simply because of the availability of more evidence.
    A typical example is the recent discussion by Koen Gheuens of the Gemini illustration. When he first wrote, many months ago, that the crossing arms of the Gemini were a relevant detail for explaining the image, there was not a lot of supporting evidence. I for one was not convinced.

    However, now that he collected more supporting evidence, it is quite credible that this is the case.

    The argument that something simply cannot be a coincidence has no particular value, because it *can* be. This is not the same as saying that it *is*.

    Your questions about coincidences may not be possible to answer, but it is worth reading up on synchronicity, (even though that is not the same).
23. nickpelling on September 5, 2018 at 8:36 am said:

    Rene: I am, of course, currently writing up my follow-on research into Koen’s Gemini hypothesis, which I think looks every bit as strong as he thinks it is (if not stronger).
24. Mark Knowles on September 5, 2018 at 12:31 pm said:

    Rene: It is not that you struck a particular nerve rather the cumulative effect of what I see as the advocacy of flawed methodological approaches advocated by you and some others.

    It is results from my own look at the methodological basis for my own “map” analysis and ways I can ensure it is as rigourous and precise as possible with that framework. This is fundamentally probabilistic or as you might say based on speculation and yet I think the total body of cumulative evidence I have is strong even if a specific detail could be dismissed as speculation. Partly this conclusion is based on comparison with other possible solutions geographic and non-geographic, which I think is a perfectly valid thing to do.

    I know you did not state that any hypothesis is as good as any other, but by suggesting an argument is weak on the basis of evidence being found to support any hypothesis is not a good reason for rejecting a hypothesis and I think this could easily be used as an excuse to do so.

    There are indeed different qualities of hypothesis and one has to ask by which means one can distinguish or even rank hypotheses in order of their plausiblility on the basis of arguments presented.

    Why is this not “real evidence”? It could be it all depends on how well they are explained. This to me is again very flawed thinking. Also how does one distinguish between “real evidence” and other evidence? So for example one could point to the “castle” on one of my main focuses, the 9 rosette page and assert it has “swallow-tailed battlements” on the basis of a detail in the drawing. This it is an extremely likely hypothesis, but is it based on the kind of “real evidence” you point to?

    Again the distinction between “real evidence” and “speculation” is somewhat arbitrary it seems to me. I have not studied Edith Sherwoods arguments, but the question becomes how many other dates the drawing could be interpreted as providing i.e. how arbitrary is her specific date identification. Then it would seem the amount of evidence that contradicts her hypothesis is important as well as other evidence that supports her hypothesis.

    The boolean distinction between fake hypotheses and real hypotheses is arbitrary as all hypotheses lie on a spectrum. Unless you mean false hypotheses by fake hypothesis. A hypothesis can be good based on the available evidence even if subsequent evidence shows it to be false.

    Restricting oneself to only considering hypotheses as strong as in the case of the dating of the manuscript greatly limits one. Caution is good, but not so much that it prevents one from developing new hypotheses. The fear of being wrong should not stop one from building theories. I fear that if everyone exhibited your level of caution nobody would be developing ideas as they might turn out to be incorrect and so virtually bringing Voynich research to a stop.

    I agree with you that body of evidence and strength of individual piece of evidence is key.

    I cannot comment on Koen as I have not studied it and cannot justify time spent so doing.

    Of course the argument that it cannot be a coincidence has value. How likely is it that it can be coincidence depends on the specifics of the case?

    If I was googling on the internet and I found a reference to a “Rene Zandbergen” in connection to the Voynich and I said that it can’t be a coincidence that it refers to you and not a different “Rene Zandbergen”; that would not seem unreasonable though it is possible that it is a coincidence. The idea that they are one and the same is speculation. However I think it is extremely unlikely even without additional evidence, which may not be available in this specific example, that they are two different people. As Rene Zanbergen is to the best of my knowledge a fairly uncommon name unlike John Smith, Johannes Schmidt? or Mohammed Khan, so it would seem the likihood of two being involved in the narrow Voynich world seems rather implausible.

    I am not sure I am really asking questions about coincidences. I think I am suggesting that we view Voynich questions through the lens of probability not certainty and deductive logic. I am suggesting the paradigm through which we analyses questions changes.

    When you talk about “synchronicity” I don’t know if you are referring to the idea of Carl Jung or whether you are thinking of something else. I should say that it is possible that two events could have a common cauae even if one event is not really caused by the other.
25. nickpelling on September 5, 2018 at 1:43 pm said:

    Mark: what (I think) Rene is referring to is the difference between consistency (i.e. that two ideas are consistent with one another) and causality (i.e. that idea A directly led to idea B). Almost all Voynich theories and explanations are heavy on (supposed) consistency but woefully weak on causality: which is why they are so badly plagued by coincidences.
26. Mark Knowles on September 6, 2018 at 3:06 pm said:

    Nick: I can’t say what Rene precisely meant.

    I don’t want to be tedious going on and on about methodology, but I think it is so important, especially in my research. I guess it would be nice to have agreed on methodological standards.

    It is very important to me to be rigourous and get as close as possible to an objective analysis of a theory. However it would certainly help to have a definite almost universally accepted valid methodology. This is not merely an academic discussion as it really is important to my work regarding the 9 rosette foldout amongst other areas.

    Consistency certainly appears to be a weak criteria for checking the validity of a statement.

    One thing can be consistent with one another and not particularly probable so that form if consistency is not particularly valuable.

    What you know of me is consistent with the idea that my favourite colour is blue.
    It is also consistent with my favourite colour being red.
    It is also consistent with me not having a favourite colour.
    (My favourite colour is yellow, which admittedly sounds rather stupid, but that is the truth.)

    However inconsistency presents a problem and is certainly a useful measure for rejecting a hypothesis.

    Nevertheless a high level of many consistencies with a hypothesis could be a promising sign.

    By causality I think you do not mean historic causality, but implication; is that correct? Causality is usually seen in the context of time. So cause and effect does not seem to be the correct paradigm unless you think in terms of two features having the same cause, even so this does not seem to be the most useful way of thinking about it.

    To me implication or likihood seem better terms in this situation where implication is viewed in probabilistic terms.

    So to take some examples:

    1) That my father’s surname is Knowles is consistent with my surname being Knowles. Of course it is possible that his surname is not Knowles e.g. I may have changed my name or been adopted etc. However I believe it is more than mere consistency we are talking about here it is highly probable that it is the case. Though to me causation hardly seems to be the right term to describe such a connection.

    2) Purely as a hypothetical, if:

    A = The Castle in the top left rosette represents the Sforzesco castle
    B = The City is Milan
    C = The manuscript is dated to after 1450

    (I am not saying that I agree or disagree with these statements.)

    Statement A and Statement (B & C) are certainly consistent, but whether they are causal depends on what you meam by causal.

    I would argue that it is far and away most likely the case that:

    A -> (B&C)
    (B&C) -> A

    It would seem that all other statements are quite inconsistent though possibly true.

    Such as the pairs of statements:

    A and ~(B&C)

    ~A and (B&C)

    Now these statements are probabilistic implications, but highly likely. So for example the city could represent the whole of the Duchy of Milan or the whole of Christendom or the whole world itself even if the drawing represents the Sforza castle. Similarly the drawing could represent the previous castle then destroyed. But these scenarios, whilst possible, seem unlikely.

    3) You might argue that with regard to Averlino little books it is “not a coincidence” that the description of Averlino’s little books fits so well with the contents of the Voynich. I don’t know about that, however from my perspective that is your strongest case, though I haven’t researched if there are numerous books by numerous authors of that time which could also fit that description. In principle the idea of these two things not being a coincidence demonstrating that they are related is not a problem for me methodologically speaking in argument, merely the degree to which they could be said to be a coincidence is the question I would be concerned by i.e. how strong the parallels are and how uncommon those parallels are elsewhere. Clearly these could be said to be consistent, but I don’t think causality would be the best way in which to think about this more so the likihood of this relationship and other connected factors being a coincidence or not i.e. the probability of the deduction being valid.
27. D.N.O'Donovan on September 6, 2018 at 5:25 pm said:

    Mark.
    Some interesting and courageous comments there.

    Nick,
    re:
    “… heavy on (supposed) consistency ….”

    The great lack – as I see it – is rather a seeming inability to keep focused on the object – the physical object of Beinecke Ms 408.

    As you know I think the problem isn’t one of history, but of provenancing. This is why – just for example – if your ‘Averlino’ idea had occurred to me, I should have tested it immediately. I think I should have found a competent appraiser of late medieval architectural drawings and asked for a signed letter from the specialist if they should be able to identify any detail showing a clear resemblance to something in the extant works of Averlino.

    Should the result have been negative then surely the thing to do is to drop that hypothesis, given that absence of support from the primary source makes the scenario irrelevant.

    Or am I too simple a soul?
28. nickpelling on September 6, 2018 at 6:21 pm said:

    Diane: probably yes.
29. Mark Knowles on September 6, 2018 at 7:29 pm said:

    Diane: Nice to hear from you again. I am not sure if what I have written is interesting and the word “courageous” could be seen as sign that what I have written is wildly wrong. The truth is that I am aiming at neither of these. but rather moving towards a framework for rigorously analysing my own theories and presenting my arguments. Generally I am quite unhappy about the methodological approaches sometimes applied or advocated for in Voynich research based on my experience. I will explain more…
30. nickpelling on September 6, 2018 at 10:05 pm said:

    Mark: you simply cannot disprove the countless unsound, foolish, broken, and crazy methodologies out there by proposing your own single methodology, however passionately you may feel about it or however insistently you put it forward. I spent a long time explaining why it makes no sense to look at the Voynich Manuscript as anything but the product of the mid-fifteenth century, to try to help eliminate some of the nuttier theories out there: but even with the radiocarbon dating, there is no shortage of crazy explanations out there.

    Oh, and when I talk about historical causality, it is exactly temporal causality that I have in mind: one thing preceding another. Which is easy to talk about, but hard to actually prove.
31. Mark Knowles on September 7, 2018 at 7:48 am said:

    Nick: I freely confess I am not someone who has studied historiography and therefore is not an expert of the historical method.

    But when Rene makes comments about the invalidity of the use of the phrase “not a coincidence” or in the past amongst others arguments criticises what he describes as circular reasoning (which is in somethings I have replied to elsewhere) in the context of Voynich research I am very unhappy and I regard these as methodology unsound points.

    If we can’t agree on method then how can we possibly agree on conclusion based on method.

    To reiterate I think that probabilistic thinking instead of deductive reasoning is key. That is not to say that one cannot make deductions, but rather that it is Ok for them to be couched in probabilistic terms. One can often conceive a scenario where that deduction is not correct, however I think the question is whether it is at all likely that that is the case i.e. not whether it is possible but probable.

    My map theory is very much based in probabilistic terms. I think it unreasonable to say that one cannot “prove” deductions conclusively therefore they are invalid. I also think that cummulative probability is key. Also if in numerous cases one can say “that cannot be a coincidence” then if even if in one case one can dispute it the cummulative effect is what matters.

    I will explain more of the context for my methodological considerations.

    I have split my analysis of the 9 rosette page into two separate and distinct parts:

    Is it a real map?

    Where it is a map of?

    Based on thorough research I have no doubt that it is a map, so I am less troubled by discussing methodological questions regarding this argument.

    It seems to the second question is more complex and of course more interesting and that to me is where methodological considerations become crucial.

    More to come…
32. Mark Knowles on September 7, 2018 at 8:24 am said:

    Nick: It seems that Rene’s “not a coincidence” argument denies probabilistic thinking as valid as all probabilistic arguments could be described in those terms. This could explain why Rene has so few theories as if one allows oneself to construct an argument based purely on formal logic then one limits oneself so much. In fact the only argument that Rene consistently presents as solid is the one demonstrating that the Voynich is not a modetn hoax; if that is the current limit of what we can hope to say about the Voynich then we are in real trouble.

    More to come…
33. john sanders on September 7, 2018 at 9:31 am said:

    Diane: I hear what you’re saying about Averlino, though frankly I would not see the need to go to all the trouble. Perhaps had Fzorzesco been completed and we had something to compare its unseen potential magnificance with, of course. St. Basils might have some rough similarities with Filarete’s late arcitectural themes but that is debatable. From my perspective as a military buff, the merlons of Moscow are merely decorative effect rather than defensive in the Milan style of that early fifteenth century era. Of course it might be said, that, to my knowledge, the only Italians to get within cooee of the Kremlin, were members of Italo Gariboldi’s Eighth Army in 1942. NB. Filarete equates to virtuous and lover of beauty; There is nothing resembling beauty or virtue in Ms 408 that effects my senses in that manner. Nice to hear from you Diane; have you been in contact with old ‘non doubting’ Thomas lately?…
34. Mark Knowles on September 7, 2018 at 10:47 am said:

    Nick: Regarding some other “map” theories it is not methodological considerations that I find problematic. Take for example:

    1) Gerard Cheshire’s Theory

    He starts his argument by saying that the bottom left rosette obviously represents a Volcanic eruption. This is very far from obvious and really needs justifying which he does not do.

    2) Diane’s Theory (Sorry for bring you up Diane, but I believe it is a good example.)

    She identifies the bottom left rosette as representing the “great sea”, I have read. In this drawing the blue and white wavy areas are said to represent land and the blank area to represent sea. It is standard in maps of that time for blue and white wavy lines to represent water. It is also makes little sense with the rest of the map for blank areas to represent sea and blue and white wavy areas to represent land. So this is not a methodological problem rather it seems to me a consistency problem.

    I should say that I do believe it is a valid use of time to compare my theory to those of others although it has been suggested otherwise before.
35. Mark Knowles on September 7, 2018 at 1:53 pm said:

    Working from the assumption that it is a real map. (This assumption is based on a justification from a separate argument.)

    Therefore the map could potentially represent any area across the world. The question is then isolating which area. In fact it could indeed represent the whole world or part of it.

    Now technically there are an infinite set of possible areas it could represent, but the question becomes which areas are more probable.

    For example, that it represents all or part of Papua New Guinea seems to be something of extremely low probability.

    A notion I think is useful is that of a geographical area which best fits the contents of the page.

    An example of how this might in a theoretical sense be arrived at is by listing all the cities, towns, villages and settlements that could correspond with the “city” in the top right rosette. Then one could list them in terms of how one might score them on the basis of their commonalities with the drawing. In practice one applies a kind of branch and bound approach where one rejects groups of candidates without inspecting them in more detail when one feels it is not worth further effort exploring those map hypotheses and so bit by bit narrowing down the number of possible candidates.

    So to start with I would reject the notion that the “city” is anywhere outside of the European sphere of influence. There are a number of reasons to believe the manuscript is associated with European culture. I would reject the idea that it is a village or smaller settlement as the size and the spacing of the two main buildings seem inconsistent with this. Now if one believes the zig-zag shape on the “castle” represent swallow-tailed battlements, which looks to be most likely as there do not appear to be similar looking structures on equivalent buildings of that time, then the overwhelming probability, though not certainty, is that we are talking about somewhere in Northern Italy. (I has speculated before about Genovese or Venetian forts in the Mediterranean, such as Rhodes. However the likihood of that is small and the visuals don’t fit)

    Then listing all the towns and cities in Northern Italy and looking for parallels would seem to be the next step.

    It is reasonable as Nick Pelling has suggested that the town city is roughly circular. (Nick argues on that basis that it must be Milan given it was one of only a very few cities regarded as being circular. I think Baghdad and Jerusalem being the others. However I am not happy to make that jump yet.)

    I think then one can construct a spreadsheet with columns listing the features of the drawing of the “city” and the rows listing the town and cities. For each location one can score how many features there are in common between the drawing and the actual place.

    One should then be able to arrive at a list with something like the top 5 candidates. Then one could go into more detailed comparisons of each of those.

    This should give some vague idea of my methodological approach.

    More to come…
36. Mark Knowles on September 7, 2018 at 4:18 pm said:

    I think when talking about the solution space of all possible maps that the 9 rosette map could represent we are really looking for the solution of best fit i.e. the optimal solution subject to the similarities of all the features of the page with places in the real world.

    Having implemented algorithms for solving Vehicle routing problems I see a parallel here. The very simplest form of this kind of problem is what is termed the travelling salesman problem. This problem is about finding the quickest route round a set of points. The more complex variations of this problem are about finding the quickest route around a set of point subject to a variety of constraints, such as time window, vehicle capacities, job duration etc. The quality of a solution is evaluated subject to what is termed an objective function i.e. it is given a score.

    Now clearly we are not trying to find the quickest route, but I do view each “map” solution as being something that could be given a score and therefore there being an optimal solution. Obviously the criteria/constraints are the extent to which a geographic identification matches the corresponding drawing on the page. An important point for me here is that a solution can normally best be evaluated as a whole, so whilst a small part might not seem to fit very well the whole might fit well.
37. Peter on September 7, 2018 at 5:58 pm said:

    @Mark
    It is dangerous to look for a city just because it may be round. In the link you can see the principle of many cities in the Middle Ages. “The example is not a real city”.
    But it also does not seem to be a smaller town, as a rule they did not have a city wall but a refuge.
    An important clue is that where looks like a city gate, gate tower with two round towers and a porch. These are certainly only in larger cities.
    I think you should look for the place based on the city gate.

    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2133168140239162&set=gm.1744636175646176&type=3&theater&ifg=1
38. Mark Knowles on September 7, 2018 at 5:59 pm said:

    Another example of my thinking:

    If the page is a map and the top right rosette represents Milan then I am about as certain as you can be that the causeway from the top right to top centre represents the land between Lake Maggiore and Lake Como, if you list all the alternative hypotheses for the causeway then none of them are at all plausible. In addition this fits neatly with the probable bearings.

    Similarly for the causeway from the top centre to the top left I went through all the possible hypotheses for this causeway given my previous two identifications and by far and away the most likely candidate was the land between Lake Zurich and Constance.
39. Mark Knowles on September 7, 2018 at 6:57 pm said:

    Peter: Thanks for pointing that out. The circular wall aspect is just one of many aspects that one can look for. Ultimately as I have said in practice one has to look at all features and on that basis decide which is the best fit it is a mistake to look at an initial detail in isolation I think.

    For your information I identify the city as Milan, as Nick does. (In fact my identification resulted from looking at Nick’s identification.) However like you I am a little more cautious than Nick about the circular city argument. Nevertheless I think it is worth taking that visual aspect with some degree of serious consideration.
40. Rene Zandbergen on September 9, 2018 at 6:21 am said:

    Of all the preceding contributions, the most useful statement I found is Nick’s:
    ” it is exactly temporal causality that I have in mind: one thing preceding another. Which is easy to talk about, but hard to actually prove.”

    There is actually no shortage of information that helps to date the creation of the Voynich MS, but sorting them on a temporal scale is far from straightforward. To start with the strongest evidence: the creation of the parchment lies between 1405 and 1438 with 95% confidence. So there is a probability of 5% that it is outside this range, and since that probability is a formal probability, the actual probability could be higher due to effects not taken into account in the formal mathematical calculation.

    More importantly, the process of creation of the MS may well have taken up to 30 years. This is considering all the preparation, planning, defining the writing system, possibly creating drafts. etc.
    And we don’t know if the parchment was acquired at the start of this process, in the course of it, or at the end.
    Thus, the time range for the creation of the MS is quite large.

    There are a number of more absolute dependencies, some of which are trivial, but worth pointing out. I am not aiming for completeness.
    – The parchment was acquired before it was written on.
    – Examples / models used by the author existed before the MS.

    There are others related to the text, but since we can’t read it, we can ignore them.

    The second point is quite interesting, because we have more and more cases of illustrations that could have been examples, but of course these could also be later copies of similar examples.
    Just to mention one such case: the human with a crossbow for Sagittarius appears throughout the 15th Century. This cannot be used for accurate dating. The C14 dating coincides with this time frame, and not much more can be said.

    It is a fair assumption that the handwriting on the verso of f116 was applied during the final stages of the MS creation. This again is more of an ‘absolute’ measure: most of the MS creation occurred before it.
    It is a very strong argument against all theories that place the creation of the MS in the 16th Century or later.
41. Rene Zandbergen on September 9, 2018 at 7:45 am said:

    For the remainder of the discussion, I feel tempted to make an initial list of “cardinal Voynich sins” (to be completed as necessary). The only good part is that the people committing them tend to dupe only themselves.

    For starters:

    1. Presenting a theory and arguing that it is true until it is disproven by someone else.
    (Fortunately, not much of that going on here).

    2. Forgetting that assumptions may in fact be wrong.
    (Happening a lot. Ignoring that things may be coincidental is just one example of this).

    3. Taking speculation too seriously.
    (For example: giving it the same value as evidence, or considering it logical deduction. Plenty of examples, I am afraid).

    4. Forgetting that a theory/hypothesis is subordinate to evidence.
    (Seems closely related to nr.3, but could be considered a separate error that may result from 3. People who become too convinced of their own theory will start accepting / rejecting evidence on the basis of whether it fits the theory or not. In reality, the evidence should be used to continually test the theory.

    5. Text-specific: attempting to translate / analyse the text without having any knowledge of earlier work done in that area.
    (Not much of that here, though the example of the Italian diplomatic ciphers could fit in here).

    6. Ignoring the advice of experts / authorities [u]when they are speaking in their field of expertise[/u].
    (Does not apply when they are speaking outside of it, or when it is not clear that their field of expertise is actually relevant. Again, not too much of that happending here)
42. Mark Knowles on September 9, 2018 at 8:22 am said:

    Rene: Understood, but there is much more that could potentially be said about the Voynich other than its dating.

    If arguments pertaining to “temporal causality” are the only tenable ones then we will never be able to say more than a very little about the Voynich. I think we need to have a broader methodological toolkit.
43. nickpelling on September 9, 2018 at 9:30 am said:

    Rene: it is possible to do good art historical detective work based on relatively small drawing details – you remember Jens Sensfelder’s 2003 crossbow article well – and I have high hopes that the Gemini/marriage lead will be no less productive, particularly in terms of temporal ordering.

    As you know (and allude to above) 95% statistical confidence isn’t the same as 95% probability in any normal sense of the word – rather, it’s a measure of the confidence in the result based on a load of aggregated data and assumptions. I have no doubt it’s reasonably close but… the radiocarbon guys are always happier with precise confirmation from the historians, because it’s not as historically precise as it is scientifically precise, if you know what I mean. 🙂
44. Rene Zandbergen on September 9, 2018 at 9:47 am said:

    Nick, on the other hand, the radio-carbon people aren’t working in their own vacuum, and test the results against other information whenever possible. You will also remember this from Greg Hodgins’ presentation in Villa Mondragone. There is some level of confidence there.

    In a qualitative sense, the further one moves away from the C14 time range, the smaller the probability. Post-1450 cannot be excluded, but post-1500 I daresay can.

    From my perspective, we are still in the middle of collecting evidence for the pin-poiting of time, place and culprit(s), but we are also in a far better position than the likes of Friedman and D’Imperio in the 1960’s and 70’s.
45. Mark Knowles on September 9, 2018 at 11:19 am said:

    Rene: When you say “We are still in the middle of collecting evidence for the pin-poiting of time, place and culprit(s), ” However I feel your efforts are focused on time rather than place and culprit(s) for which we have as a result of carbon dating an already useful framework.
46. Rene Zandbergen on September 9, 2018 at 12:41 pm said:

    Mark,

    what makes you think that? I am not writing much about my on-going work and thoughts. The place is certainly much more complicated, because there is likely not to be just one single ‘place’ that is relevant.
47. Mark Knowles on September 9, 2018 at 1:24 pm said:

    Rene,

    It just seems to be a topic you focus on, but maybe that is just, because you are keeping your other research under wraps.

    My ‘map’ theory strongly implies that there is likely not to be just one single ‘place’ that is relevant as I have discussed previously.
48. Peter on September 9, 2018 at 3:16 pm said:

    I tried to bring the clues that I have under one roof. As Rene has already written, 95% are under 1500. It is almost impossible to find anything over 1500.
    Sure it could be someone who is old-fashioned, but even then it is difficult to come with the then life expectancy over 1500.

    Here is a speculation:
    I wrote that the administration of South Tyrol went about 1365 from the diocese of Chur to the Habsburgs.
    Around 1400, the bishop of Chur moved to the bishopric of Bressanone. So far, these are facts.

    It may be that the VM author was a little angry that he not only paid the church but now also the Habsburgs taxes. Maybe that’s why he put a prism cap and the crown under the naked women.

    But as I said, that’s pure speculation.

    And another speculation:
    On some side we see something like a mermaid. This is from the story “Jonas and the whale” and we also see the animals
    Quote:
    and should not I have pity on Nineveh, that great city, which are more than sixscore persons that can not discern between their right hand and their left hand, and so much cattle? ”

    And the bush was a Ricinus, of all people. Maybe the city in the rosette is “the city without life”
    But here too pure speculation.

    The question, how far can I from the way where I see, without which the book becomes a calculator.
49. M R Knowles on October 7, 2020 at 5:24 pm said:

    Nick: Do you know the following?

    “Secrets of Nature: Astrology and Alchemy in Early Modern Europe” by Newman and Grafton
50. M R Knowles on October 7, 2020 at 7:34 pm said:

    Leon Battista Alberti writes about Francesco Barbavara in his dialogue in which Piero Alberti, his uncle, recounts his patron’s kindness. I have the impression that Piero Alberti had some interests in Astrology and Astronomy, though I am not sure how much. I don’t believe Leon Battista had much involvement with the characters of the Milanese court.
51. nickpelling on October 7, 2020 at 9:10 pm said:

    Mark: I’ve known about the title for a while, but the price (~£50+ on bookfinder) has been a little beyond my relatively modest bibliomane budget. All the same, there’s a £32 copy from Sweden listed right now so… I’m tempted. :-/
52. nickpelling on October 7, 2020 at 9:13 pm said:

    Mark: Alberti was a Florentine through and through, so asking him about Milan would be like asking an Arsenal fan about Man United. :-p
53. M R Knowles on October 8, 2020 at 9:29 pm said:

    Nick: I downloaded it for free without even realising that it was a paid for book. I think it is also on archive.org Anyway I haven’t studied it in any detail.

    What I was wondering is something very rudimentary. In the days before the internet if I wanted to buy a book I would go to a bookshop. In medieval times how would someone purchase a manuscript/codex? Would there be some kind of market in a major city? Did people travel to sell their manuscripts? i.e. they come to visit your town/village to sell their wares. Were manuscripts copied on demand? Was there a large second-hand market for manuscripts? Did libraries buy and sell many manuscripts? Did people read manuscripts a lot in libraries? Was it easy to get permission to read a manuscript in a library? Are there other ways someone might get access to the “knowledge” in a manuscript?

    If the “author” had lots of money how would he acquire his collection and what would he be able to lay his hands on?
54. M R Knowles on October 8, 2020 at 9:38 pm said:

    Could one request a manuscript from someone who would hunt for a copy on one’s behalf?

    Copying a manuscript would be a time consuming process I would think even with a few people working on it.

    I guess I am wondering how our author(s) encountered the sources that influenced the contents of the Voynich manuscript.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.