If Voynichese isn’t meaningless (and good luck to those who believe it is, that’s a fight you’ll have to fight without me), what language(s) is/are its plaintext written in?
Thinking about this recently, what struck me was how unsystematic (and unsatisfactory) most Voynich language presentations are. For example, discussions of Currier A and Currier B (the two major Voynichese language ‘styles’) typically seem to start too far along, by assuming what the relationship between A and B is before they even begin. So… how about we discuss what that relationship is, and what evidence we have?
Big questions about Currier A and Currier B
The specific differences between Currier A and B form a topic I’ve gone over many times, such as in this 2013 post and more recently in this 2019 post. And the idea that somehow the A ‘system’ evolved into/from the B ‘system’ is something that many researchers have discussed, e.g. Tim Rayhel [Glen Claston] had very strong views on this. Similarly, Rene Zandbergen has perhaps worked hardest to establish that there’s more of a technical spectrum between A and B. Rene has also noted that in some ways B seems to be a more verbose version of A: yet at the same time it is abundantly true that the two also behave in sharply different ways.
So I thought it might help to ask the most important questions about A and B in a more systematic way:
- Did A precede B, or did B precede A?
- Are A and B encoding/enciphering two different plaintext languages, or a single plaintext language?
- If they encode/encipher a single plaintext language, how can we map between A text & B text?
- Do A pages exhibit internal evolution? If so, can we order A pages according to that evolution?
- Do B pages exhibit internal evolution? If so, can we order B pages according to that evolution?
- Might the differences between groups of A pages simply be down to their different topics / contents?
- Might the differences between groups of B pages simply be down to their different topics / contents?
- Even though Q13 is Currier B, do language differences separate Q13A pages from Q13B pages?
- Even though Q20 is Currier B, do language differences separate Q20A pages from Q20B pages?
- If A and B encipher different languages, was the enciphering system designed primarily for A or for B?
- If A and B encipher a single language, are all the differences just down to scribal choice?
- In A and B pages, is there any way to tell whether or not the first letter of a line is real or fake?
To try to explore these difficult (yet fundamental) questions, I’ll now look at a couple of specific behaviours that sharply differ between A and B, to see what those differences seem to tell us about these questions.
The two different daiin behaviours
If you pick out a normal-looking A page (say, f21v, which has a small amount of text accompanying a herbal drawing), you’ll see not only lots of “daiin” instances (six on f21v, two of which are a “daiin daiin” adjacent pair), but also odaiin, chodaiin, todaiin, cholchaiin, sheaiin and kchochaiin. These -aiin instances are located all over the page, as you would expect of words in a normal text.
But if you then go to a normal-looking B page (say, f103v, which is far more text-heavy than f21v) we see eight instances of daiin, six of which are on the left-hand edge (and none of which is on the first line of a paragraph).
Personally, I find these two different behaviours (one text-like, the other LAAFU-like) very hard to reconcile with the oft-floated idea that A and B are two sides of a single coin. This B-behaviour seems to imply that “aiin” (which, as Currier pointed out, is a common B word) is being modified with a “d-” line-initial prefix on B pages, thus making “daiin” an even rarer word in B pages than it might at first appear.
Or maybe there’s some other exotic LAAFU explanation I haven’t yet grasped here. (But I don’t think so.)
The two different -ed- behaviours
Rene Zandbergen’s observation that -ed- is rare in A pages (particularly Herbal A pages) but extremely common in B pages is also very hard to square with the idea that A and B are basically the same thing. I’d certainly agree that in early Herbal A pages, the two instances in the Takahashi transcription (f8r and f11r) both seem like scribal errors in the original rather than systematic -ed- examples.
Things get a little more complicated as you look further in to other A pages: f27v, f51r and f52r look like they have genuine -ed- instances (though the one on f56r looks like to me a scribal slip), while f65v has four -ed- instances. The astronomy section (A) has many more -ed- instances, as does the zodiac section (A), though the pharma section (A) is closer to the density of the Herbal A section.
So, if you were to use the ed-density to try to trace out the evolution of the A pages, I suspect you’d probably conclude that the order they were constructed in was: Herbal A, Pharma A, Astro A, Zodiac A. And then you’d probably conclude that the B pages (which have extraordinarily heavy ed-density throughout) were written after the A pages.
Evolution of a system
To my eyes, the changing way that -ed- appears in the A pages suggests that what we are glimpsing here is the evolution of a system, where new features are gradually introduced and diffused into practice. I further believe that this also implies the A pages were constructed before the B pages. Yet the huge step change in -ed- usage between A and B pages suggests to me that something quite different is going on in B pages.
Similarly, the vastly different ways that daiin appears in A and B pages (position-independent in A, position-dependent in B) also suggests to me that something very different is going on in B pages.
So, what is going on in B pages? Though this margin is far too small for me to come to a definitive conclusion, it currently seems to me to be in some way a combination of things. While the system itself definitely seems to have step-changed from A to B (which I think the daiin A/B behaviour argues for), I can’t yet rule out the possibility that this change in system may well have been driven by a change in plaintext language in B pages.
If you know of any Voynichese behaviours that you think help to illuminate, illustrate, or answer any questions on the list above, please leave a comment below, thanks!
Yeah, I’ll write you something. And so, of course, I will advise you. I looked at that page 21r. And I can write to you all here that there is no one anywhere. dain, daiiin, or what the hell you see there. You probably can’t see your friends. On page 21r it says: 8am. And several times. (friends as I have already written to you all, the number 8 is P or F). If you continue like this, you will not decipher the manuscript in a hundred years. So what every student should know and know.
So first of all he should look well at the text of the manuscript. Second, it should correctly identify the characters in the handwriting. Third, the whole Eva alphabet would be a book. Fourth, he should know how it was written in Bohemia in the Middle Ages. (I will give a very simple example. For example, characters are written in the manuscript. Several of the same in a row. ccc. I will write to you that these are sleds. 2 c – means a letter with a hook = No. So that character reads as = č or š. (number 3 = c, g, s, l).
So what is important for scientists and students from all over the world we know.
properly see and then also know how to write and encrypt. Then you can also move forward, for example.
If a scientist and a student needed help. So don’t be afraid. And he’ll write me too. I will write him the correct characters of page 21 r. There is little text and so it is no problem. To be able to understand the scientist. So my life is based on helping everyone in need.
Comment 10: 57. The translator misspelled a few words. And so again. The EVA alphabet is only partially bad.
Characters = cc. mean the letter = č. ( š ).
I do think there might be more than one thing going on with the differences.
The research I’ve done on the images is showing me that – thematically (I stress the word because I don’t mean stylistically; I’ve been considering the document’s images through the lens of literary narrative and intention) – it shares many commonalities with The Book of the Holy Trinity – an ostensibly alchemical book written between 1414 and1420 during the Council of Constance. A fascinating book that might be alchemical only on the surface – various academics think it had other agenda/s entirely, from trying to convince Emperor Sigismund to mount another crusade, to subversively siding with the Hussites, to acting as a method of transsubstantiation just by reading the book!
Having recently identified the 7 stigmata in the midst of five Ovidian tales (two tales first identified by G. Koen) in the balneological section of the VMS, I found it very interesting that the author of The Holy Trinity, a supposed Franciscan monk, possibly Fraticelli, named Ullmann, said he organized the entire book/system around the seven stigmata.
And he definitely has some kind of code going on in the book, with an alphabet organized in a grid by sevens, a spiral code reminiscent of the top right rosette, and another 4-fold organizing system based on the four elements (or 4 evangelists). The book is strongly Sophia/Marianist – our women – and concentrates as well on the blood of Christ as the quintessence or water of life a la Rupescissa, another motif I had already identified in the VMS, but first mentioned I believe by Brumbaugh. There are many more similarities I find exciting, too numerous to mention here.
So three things strike me about this text in reference to the VMS coding: 1) although the illustrations elaborate on a coded system, the text in this book is not coded, though it is highly allegorical, which begs the question, what was he coding?; 2) Ullman switches between Middle High German and Latin throughout, for no apparent reason, though, IIRC, one language is used mostly for alchemy, the other for more usual narrative; and 3) he intersperses the text with numerous passages of repetetive nonsense words, which I suggest the VMS might also be accused of doing.
It’s never been translated into English so I’ve had to rely on journal articles about it, but I really do think it’s worth examining by someone who can read it.
And so, in answer to your question, could more than one thing be going on with the coding in terms of the A/B language/code shifts, I say yes! Very likely. The entire illustrative text has one very important theme, noted time and again not just by me – hybridity. Heads can be flower heads, the crown of thorns, Aries, birds, fire. Roots can be feet, foot stigmata, Pisces, fish, water – and even, in a few identifiable cases, an emblem of the Holy Roman Empire or the Cilli coat of arms. It reminds me of Medea cutting up that old man’s body parts, throwing them all into a cauldron, to rebirth him anew.
The original text might be written in two languages in just such a way as this, and the scribes/encoders took on the languages they were most familiar with or better at writing. In addition, we do notice the text get more fluid and tighter later in the text, so add familiarity with the coding system to the mix.
I suppose a cryptographer could just concentrate on one hand. What would be really exciting for me to see is someone familiar with both languages apply Eva to pages of this already polyglot text complete with nonsense passages and see what patterns emerge.
Barbara Curtis: you say “nonsense words”, I hear “cipher mystery”. Sounds like there’s something worth looking at there… 🙂
Barbara – it’s interesting that you should be reviving Adam Morris’ idea about the ‘Book of the Holy Trinity’ with ideas about alchemy (specialists in the latter deny any similarity between European alchemical imagery and the VMS, though).
I’m not sure how deeply Adam went into that thought in 2007-9, but that’s when he was writing to me about it. Nick mentions the idea in one of his posts, and you may be able to save yourself some research-time if you can start by reading Adam’s efforts. Nick might, I suppose, still have some of the correspondence though after so long, perhaps not. Failing that, you might find Adam discussing his progress in exploring the same theoretical mix of Reusner+alchemy if you search back-posts at Rich Santacoloma’s Voynich mailinglist.
I’m not sure if the ‘Council of Constance’ idea was first imagined by Rene Zandbergen or whether he just took it up with enthusiasm, but he’s been re-introducing the idea for about 20 years so he might also save you some superfluous legwork too.
Those ideas may never get beyond being ideas, but you might be lucky and discover some objective evidence to support them. I do wish you the best of luck for 2021.
That post of Nick’s , btw, is:
http://ciphermysteries.com/2009/06/17/hieronymus-reusner-the-voynich-manuscript
Barbara – I had reason to look at the Fraticelli – mainly in connection with the Sicilian John of Montecorvino and later the semi-autonomous groups in Italy who became nominally part of the third order of St. Francis, so happy to help with that element if you like. My email contact is given at my blog ‘Voynich revisionist’.
Regards
Josef Z. Prof….. I’d say that if Eliska Habsbirk undertook the task of compiling her manuscript singlehandedly in 1470 as you affirm, then she acted contrary to Capt. Prescott Currier’s generally accepted contention of there having been multiple scribes. This was outlined in his celebrated brief of 1973 where ‘B’ factor participation ranged from between three to a dozen. You might care to give your own thoughts on how such numbers could have come together in such a determined effort. Is it that 12 year old Eliska had playmates over to lend a hand, or is it just possible that her long lost manuscript was re-located and copied by members of the Boole clan between say 1900 and 1915. They would include Mary Snr. Mary Jr., Maggie, Alice, Lucy and Lily, plus their loyal men folk in Edward, Charles, Geoffrey, Julius, Jorge, Sebastian and Leonard, sans Wilfrid (too dumb). That gives a thirteen count, which makes sense given that mother Mary probably set the dastardly plot beforehand with her botanical? examplar for the rest to follow….NB seems that JKP has taken on my familial conspiracy lead but, choosing to stick with Rene/Greg’s C14 misguided agenda for now.
Nick,
If Quires 13 and 20 are bound as quires, and each is in a single ‘language’ so why imagine/suppose each to consist of two quires?
I expect you’ve laid out your thinking elsewhere, but in this post you’ve uses suc terms such as ‘Q20b’ as they were self-evident.
As you know, I take both similarities to, and differences from a western Christian European ‘norm’ as equally valuable ‘tells’.
John, I think I, if it wasnt apparent, appreciate your ability to think outside the box on this. Nicks reliance on his modernist friends seems to be leading him astray on it. I am somehow convinced that this is actually an old document. One thing that might point to this is Kircher’s (the last man to “know” everthing) peculiar tangential remark in his reply to Moretus relating to the VMs regarding “foot lengths”. Does anyone know what this is about? I could be waaaay off about this. Something I missed? I dont think Kircher knew anything about the VMs and was simply trying to be slick. He could have. I was mistrustful, like I think Rich SantaColoma was, in reading his correspondence for the first time. It could be about some other document. I dont think it is though.
Matt: according to Hoyle, Kircher was not refering to the standard English linear scale of measurement in his 1669 letter to Moretus but, more likely the Latin ‘pede’ designating feet as for walking, or else in context of an Italian mountain ‘pede’ or peak from memory. Will endeavour to confirm this all too convenient explanation in the full translation letter if it ever arrives.
Matt, John et.al.,
That letter from Moretus is dated 1639.
Philip Neal’s transcription and translation (which should be duly credited when being made use of) can be read at:
http://philipneal.net/voynichsources/
The sentence about comparative measures appears to have no connection to remarks in that letter about the Voynich manuscript.
The sentence reads, in the Latin:
De Mensuris diversorum pedum, quas ipse haud dubie auide exspectat, cum ex Sicilia alijsque locis responsum necdum acceperim, modo sileo; ubi eas recepero, vna cum fusioribus litteris R[everentiae] V [estrae] propediem transmittam.
which Neal translates as:
“As for the measurements of different foot lengths which you were no doubt eagerly awaiting, I will say nothing for now, since I have not yet received replies from Sicily and elsewhere. When I receive them, I shall send them to your reverence at once with a longer letter.”
The sense is obviously an interest in comparative measures as (e.g.) the ancient as against contemporary lengths designated as ‘a foot’.
I feel fairly sure that anyone interested in that topic will find information easily enough, and for the 17thC there may be something in one of Kircher’s books – maybe even a copy of his follow-up letter to Moretus.
I can’t quite see see how the 1639 letter can be relevant for anyone adopting a ‘modern forgery’ storyline for the Voynich manuscript, since they’d have to grant the manuscript existed by no later (at least) than the 1630s.
Now there’s a point relating specifically to weights and measures, having nought to do with dubious communications between the aforesaid learned gentlemen. Apart from page numbers, marginals and post publishing additions, I can find but one sure reference to a measurement scale in the original manuscript. Can anyone improve on the most unpopular example insitu f80r?
John sanders. You ask about different fonts. And you say that some lieutenant Preston was very surprised and that the manuscript was written by several scribes. So, in my opinion, everything is different. As a person (scribe) ages, so does his handwriting. At the beginning of the manuscript is a very nice and neat font. Eliška was young and wrote like she did at school, she tried very hard to make the font neat. But as she got older, of course, the style of the letters changed. (therefore it seems to some as if the manuscript was written by more scribes). You have to read the text (just like me) and then you find out that the manuscript is the work of one scribe (Eliška). When she was old, she didn’t pay that attention to her writing. Sometimes she scratched like a cat.
Diane: you’re probably right but, my information derives from any earlier post from an equally respected authority who insists that Moretus’ correspondence directed to Kircher was October 1637 and his reply dated March 1639, of which you would be aware I’m sure. As for your final attempt to disclaim VM a ‘modern forgery’, suggesting compilation no later that 1630, sorry that doesn’t wash with me though you’re certainly getting closer to the truth in my opinion; with respect as usual.
Diane: as far as Q13A/B and Q20A/B go, I’ve blogged far too many times about them already to recap every time the topic comes up.
John sanders.
Colleague. You write above. Id say that if Eliska Habsbirk ….. etc. So it’s a lot next door and of course wrong. It is correct = Eliška von Rosenberg. (Elizabeth of Rosenberg). (Eliška z Rožmberka).
No no no Boule !!!
Nick – fair enough. Thanks for the reply.
John – My opinion is that the present manuscript was produced during the early decades of the fifteenth century and very probably under the auspices of an Italian, but was put together – as so many western medieval mss are – from older texts and sources.
What I was saying was that if someone thinks the manuscript, its images and its written text are all modern creations, then they can hardly draw in Moretus – can they? – as evidence for that idea. You can’t argue the Voynich manuscript was not invented until in the first half of the twentieth century, and then call as witness someone who lived in the seventeenth.
Like so many theorists, those espousing the ‘modern forgery’ idea fail to ground their imaginations in demonstrable fact; to treat with due consideration the opinions of qualified and experienced specialists in manuscript studies, or to set their ‘idea’ against a reasonable and verifiable historical background.
So many Voynich theories exist, and can only exist, in a sort of bubble from which all external realities, such as radiocarbon 14 dating, the opinion of K.P. Kraus’ representative, and that of specialists such as Erwin Panofsky are excluded. And that’s without even beginning to talk about XRF and pigments. The ‘modern forgery’ story, like the ‘Christopher Columbus’ story, are forms of historical-fantasy and a great read at that level.
The question isn’t whether you ‘see’ an armadillo; it’s whether whoever first drew that image *meant* it for an armadillo, and if (as the Wilfrid-dun-it lot would have it), the Voyniches created the ms, you then have to explain how they could be so stupid and to copy a picture of a new world animal for a manuscript which both insisted had been made in Europe before 1492?
Please don’t bother inventing a ‘theory patch’ for that. The whole ‘modern fake’ narrative is fascinating to watch as it evolves; it just has nothing to do with Beinecke MS 408.
Diane,
I mentioned the Kircher correspondence (so well translated as you say by Philip Neal) as a means of expessing the same idea as Rich SantaColoma, that it is merely *presumed* they are talking to each other about MS408. It has come to be generally accepted that they are. Yales opinion here is somewhat uncertain. I wrote an overly long letter to them, regarding my annoyance at the overly prominent placement of the wishes of E L Voynich regarding the MS on their facsimile, and they replied I should check the VMs mailing list, which happens to be run by Rich. Essentially a form letter, but as far as I am concerned this is where it stands regarding Yales opinion of what it might be, perhaps a modern hoax. I prefer CipherMysteries and consider it the true heir of the original list by Jim G. Jim R., and everyone else, with its well documented history. If one were to press me on what I think 408 is now, I would have to say the work of an eccentric, perhaps “outsider art” from the 1400s as suggested in the past by Dennis Stallings , though Lisa Fagin Davis’s finding of five scribes would speak against that.
Diane,
I mentioned the Kircher correspondence (so well translated as you say by Philip Neal) as a means of expessing the same idea as Rich SantaColoma, that it is merely *presumed* they are talking to each other about MS408. It has come to be generally accepted that they are. Yales opinion here is somewhat uncertain. I wrote an overly long letter to them, regarding my annoyance at the overly prominent placement of the wishes of E L Voynich regarding the MS on their facsimile, and they replied I should check the VMs mailing list, which happens to be run by Rich. Essentially a form letter, but as far as I am concerned this is where it stands regarding Yales opinion of what it might be, perhaps a modern hoax. I prefer CipherMysteries and consider it the true heir of the original list by Jim G. Jim R., and everyone else, with its well documented history. If one were to press me on what I think 408 is now, I would have to say the work of an eccentric, perhaps “outsider art” from the 1400s as suggested in the past by Dennis Stallings , though Lisa Fagin Davis’s finding of five scribes would speak against that, and it could be quite the conpiracy.
Matt,
I appreciate your explaining your position. I can see that you have adopted, unexamined, many of those ‘givens’ whose only basis lies in Wilfrid Voynich’s own unthking assumptions – such as that the manuscript’s content must all have been first created at the time the manuscript was made, and that this imagined ‘author’ must be imagined existing in a time and place that permitted greater originality than the historical records would appear to support; that is not only a freedom to invent some form of cipher so far unknown in Latin Europe during the thirteenth, fourteenth or fifteenth centuries, but an ability to invent a wholly original approach to such things as the human figure or a calendar (of whatever type).
It isn’t Lisa Fagin Davis who first cast doubt on the ‘author’ idea – I’ve been saying precisely the same since 2008, and ‘counting scribes’ has been an intermittent element in Voynich writings since at least 2006, when Pelling noted several different scribal hands. What’s nice about Fagin Davis’ confirming that the manuscript is no autograph is that people who won’t respond to evidence, or to reason will sometimes accept the same information from some high-profile specialist of whom they have already heard, though the evidence and reasoning is precisely the same as they’ve been refusing to acknowledge, year after year.
It’s a source of quiet pleasure that so far, I’ve been on the right side of those few pronouncements – I was among the handful who knew the work was not a monograph; knew that it had been produced before 1440, that it is the work of several different draughtsmen-as-copyists… and so on.
We do need specialists for that reason. My great hope is that we shall one day receive, thanks to them, a full chemical description of the manuscript’s pigments. That should settle a few more important questions.
@Josef Zlatoděj Prof.
Your theory about writing with the same hand where simply gets older is limp.
They do not look at the hue of the ink. This would then also have to be decades old, and that is not the case.
Think about it.
Peter.
Nothing laments for Peter. The manuscript is written gradually. It’s written like a diary. In which the Rožmberk family is the most written. You must read the text. And then you’ll find out. What’s lame? So that’s all ants write. And, of course, scientists from all over the world. It’s been lame for a good hundred years. Damn, you have to read the text. And not fantasizing. This should be clear to anyone who uses the brain. Read the text and not come up with any questionable theories.
They keep contradicting each other. If it was written little by little, the hue of the ink would change, not just the contrast.
But here you should already know how the ink is made and how it behaves over time.
If you know that, then your theory is not possible.
Maybe you should refresh your basic knowledge about colours. Preferably with finger paints and a window.
As for the text, you always write the same thing, but never give a better and longer example.
They have learned nothing and are still in the same place as years ago.
Topic closed.
Translated with http://www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
Peter – why do you think that the ink’s “hue” would alter?
Surely, so long as the (iron-gall) ink was made to the same recipe, the density would appear much the same to the naked eye – within the usual range from very deep brown to russet brown.
PS Could you clarify which group of people you mean by ‘they’.
Josef Zlatoděj Prof.
I’d love to read the text. When are you planning to publish your translation?
The discussion here moved a bit away from the Currier A/B topic. Yet, can be someone is interested in my opinion about the theory of two different languages/dialects used in the VMS. If it comes to the plaintext language quest, it seems everyone has own preferences (from Chinese to Slovenian and Nahuatl) but nearby all are convinced, that there couldn’t be a one_to_one relation between vords and words. That’s comprehensible, otherwise the scope of the used language would limit to a few hundred words only. The coded text wouldn’t be very literate, more a way of speaking/writing of a kid using frequently the same words or writing again and again in similar words about the same topic throughout the script. But if it’s not like this, not a one_to_one relation between vords and words, rather one_to_many, so I don’t see a reason to count same vords at different pages, sections or even at the same page. In this case you count together different items which have “accidental” the same form of appearance. Don’t see how that can lead to any conclusions about two or more plaintext languages/dialects. I think there is one language beneath the code, the language of a primary collection of texts but used by the medieval scribes/coder for their short notes and messages as well.
Darius: the point of the post was to try to get people to think about what evidence the text itself offers for different hypotheses about the relationship between Currier A and Currier B.
I can therefore only suggest restating your views on this relationship in terms of the evidence that led you to those views. As my first year Philosophy tutor liked to point, Truth isn’t a beauty contest. 😉
Peter :-)) you can’t teach me. You know very little. As for the ink. So a few years ago. There was a pretty long discussion about ink here on the blog. The discussion ended when I wrote that the ink was made of oak. (so that you can understand that, you can write on parchment only and only in oak ink). So wake up man.
Diane. I can write to you all what everyone has been looking for for a hundred years. Specifically, what is written on the last page of the manuscript (116). Where are the three pictures. I would write to you why a woman (Elizabeth of Rosenberg) is drawn there. This means the meaning of 3 pictures.
This is what Eliška wrote when she was 38 years old. She was born 1466 (+ 38) = 1504.
She died in 1507.
Is any scientist interested in finally learning the truth?
I can also write to you all why a goat is drawn there. (cozlo)
Diane
Unlike mineral-based ink, Oak-apple ink undergoes a process of growth and maturation. This gives the colour. It changes even if you stick to the recipe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oak_apple
This can be seen in books that have been kept for decades.
The brightness tends to come from the water. It becomes darker with evaporation and lighter with dilution.
http://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/de/stabs/Klosterarchiv-Kartaus-L/18r
@Darius
You can also draw conclusions about hand A and B on the basis of these.
It is probably the same ink and different hands in a comparably short period of time.
As far as you look at the evaporation and dilution. The hue does not change in the VM, as far as I can see.
Certainly, as in mer, there is no guarantee, but it is an indication.
Peter, you just know what is written on wikipedia. That’s a hell of a lot, man. I can write you that no German will ever translate the manuscript. So what can he do? He can just read something on wikipedia. You’re grumbling about ink here. That’s very little. You have to read the text and then you find out you’re talking. Learn and then you will surely be smarter.
@Diane
PS Could you clarify which group of people you mean by “you”?
Here “they” stands for the polite form in direct address to Josef Zlatoděj.
In German there is a form of politeness when you don’t know someone personally.
Addendum:
Sie = Persönlich / You = Personal
sie = Gruppe oder Objekt / they = group or object.
The difference is that the personal form of address is written in capital letters.
I think the translator put it back.
@Joseph
It is quite possible that a German will never translate it.
Never mind, I’m Swiss. 🙂
Peter – just to get technical. We usually speak, in English, of the ‘oak-gall’ rather than ‘oak apple’ when speaking about this sort of ink. ‘Oak apple’ is a popular name, but ‘oak-gall’ is more correct, since the galls are caused by a wasp and aren’t (like apples) any natural product of the tree, itself.
It isn’t only time and evaporation that causes changes in the ink’s apparent density. It is not rare to find a page inscribed all at the same time where some is darker and some lighter. It has more to do with the proportion of iron to oak-galls in the mixture. Iron-gall inks are found very widely; they didn’t originate in Europe and occur as far to the east as Persia, into which the galls were imported if not found locally.
It didn’t take long before people worked out that the more iron, the more corrosive a mixture would be, over time. So the proportion of iron tends to reduce for that reason too, and inks to be made in a lighter tone. This was also the case if the writing was to be done on paper. So variations in density (or ‘hue’ if you like) are not simply defined as a result of differently-dated inscription. Also, just to be technical again, ‘hue’ is normally used to describe colours, not the tones. I expect this may well be different in other languages, and again we may be seeing translation-glitches in the way your words are rendered into English.
Nick is quite right to remind us – including me – that the point of his post was about the relationship of Currier A to Currier B ‘languages’ and so this discussion of inks is probably a bit far off topic. Interesting, all the same.
Not to put the mockers on anyone in particular regarding their chosing to avoid the post topic ie., A & B authorship, gender, scribe numbers and such courtesy of Prescott Currier, but, perhaps we might consider getting back on track and leave the gall bladder hues for ron. I’ve already said my piece apropos potential authors, in keeping with the captain’s uncertain take on his own offerings. When he was last on stage with respected Voynichero associates, Brig. J. Tiltson, Bill Freidman in ’74, I got the feeling that neither he nor his buddies had made up their minds on the subject; indeed I got a distinct feeling that they collectively decided to leave the tricky stuff to Mary D’Imperio and be done with it. I seem to recall that in the 90s, from his comfy log cabin in Damasiscotta Maine, the aging cryptographer told an interviewer that he no longer held any worthwhile views on the manuscript.
Diane
I have the feeling we are talking past each other, or the translator is tripping us up.
Of course I can’t tell the age from the shade, nor when it was applied.
It is possible that I can still use the same ink after a year. But what if the ink is simply no longer usable after several years? A new one is needed.
Chemistry:
Iron with acid / reaction black
Iron with oxygen reaction reddish brown.
If the vinegar is strong enough, the oxygen cannot react fast enough (black). If the vinegar is too watery, the whole thing turns reddish (rust content). In both cases, combustion occurs.
That is part of the preparation.
Now the question is, can you get the same ink twice in the same way? When do I need a new ink and how can I tell?
Translated with http://www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
The question: What does the ink have to do with the hands?
Actually, I have never really dealt with the hands A+B. But I do see some differences.
Example f104v + f105r
Looking at these pages (with some distance) I see ink differences in contrast, but also differences in the hand. This changes back and forth.
On f104v in the upper third, it looks as if the writing line is drawn upwards, while at the bottom the hand is drawn downwards.
Is this the difference between A+B?
ink, ink, ink and ink. That’s a hell of a little. Ink is ink, it’s obvious to everyone. It is important to know the characters. Find out the speech. Find out the cipher. And then do the translation. Every child sees the handwriting in ink. It is no problem to produce ink. Both in the Middle Ages and today. Every scientist should pay attention to the text. Otherwise, it will freeze and hibernate for another hundred years.
@Nick, ok, let’s put all beauties out of the consideration and deal with truth alone…
You said that “observation that -ed- is rare in A pages but extremely common in B pages is also very hard to square with the idea that A and B are basically the same thing”. Naturally, A and B can be different things, however this “same” and “different” might be defined, but, in my opinion, nothing justifies the conclusion as regards two different languages or basic narratives or slangs etc., beyond the fact that two different texts have almost always two different wordings. So, my view is, we can’t extract “many truths” out of the fact that some vords are over-represented in some sections and under-represented in others.
I give a concrete example, ok? For that, accept for the moment my idea how the vords were built. We take the occurrences of daiin + the “derivates” odaiin, chodaiin, todaiin, etc. on page 21v. In my theory the plaintext language is in fact Aramaic so we read right to left and have niiad, niiado, niiadoch,… instead. We make a simple substitution from EVA to my alphabet so we get closer to Aramaic transliteration n->k,q or ch; i->h; a->m or n; d->r. We will then examine vords of this form: k(q,ch)hhm(n)r+… but the final vord is mostly not one but a concatenation of different Aramaic words (written as vowelless ketav lettering). So, we have here:
row 1, 3rd vord (from the right!): kh hn rh -> kah hen ra’ah (… thus if (it) appears/presents oneself/faces…)
row 2, 1st vord: q h hm r -> qe’ he’ hem ra’a’ (…what is vomited up like if who crushed…)
row 4, 4th vord: kh hn r’ -> koh hen rea’ (…so whose aim/thought…)
row 4, 7th vord: kh hn rbd d’ -> koh hen rabad dea’ (…so who bespread/deck/hide knowledge…)
and so on. Besides, in the 3rd row second vord (from the right!) and 4th row 3rd vord I don’t recognize a’s but another glyph open at the bottom (I don’t think this was careless writing) so we had here one other string to be examined.
This is at least a potential “mapping” (naturally, I think it’s more). In that case, what can we derive from the fact that we have some parts of sentences as Voynichese strings on one page and not the other regarding manner of writing? Not much, as long the text is unknown.
I hope this clarifies my point of view about the two potential different “things”. There are so many ways to explain these different vord frequencies within the same language or manner of writing assumption – I don’t think something justifies Currier’s idea. I analysed until now only a small part of the VMS applying my method but, on the pages analysed so far, I can’t see indications for any language or style change. What I see is something different (assuming the Aramaic idea). Within the same page there are sometimes misspelled words, always at the same place – the last sentence. Are these additions made by the scribes to an older text, who were not native speakers, who followed the sound?
If you ask, how I know how to slice a vord in a particular place – it’s a long story…
By the way, regarding the page 21v – my translation so far reveals a text, which ironically deals with our topic in a general form. It deals, among others, with the question how to recognize and how to evidence a hardcore, an irrevocable truth. How to “produce” proofs and evidences, the stone-hard “seeds of the truth”. Seeds we can see depicted as red points in the calyx of the plant blossom (could be blue lithosperum officinale, which produces stone-hard nutlets). It’s then a sermon to scholars or mages (in modern terms to scientists, researchers, discoverers or simply people who intend to achieve something of value).
@Peter M “different hands in a comparably short period of time” – it’s exactly what I think. But inks, materials, graphology is not my field – interesting definitely. It would be enough for me to tackle the script from the perspective of cryptography and lexicography.
Darius: there are infinitely many plausible-feeling interpretations of Voynichese that can be constructed for a single phrase, or line, or paragraph, or page. However, the minute you try to extend that interpretation to the next bifolio, or the next section, or the next Currier ‘Language’, it all comes crashing down.
It isn’t just that some Voynichese words appear very differently in A and B, it’s more that the way letter adjacency – something much deeper than words – changes between them. This is awkward to anyone trying to claim that A and B are the same. If they are the same, why do we see such huge low-level differences?
Perhaps if you also had a look at a page from Quire 20 (say, f103r), you would see that an interpretation style that works for Currier A doesn’t really work for Currier B.
Perhaps one should look at the whole thing from a simple side.
Let’s distinguish between the plant pages and the recipe section. The plants are more a description, whereas the recipe section is more of a process.
It is, will, has, comes ……
Whereas in the recipe section there is more of a process.
So take, give, mix, chop, cook……
Now, however, the differences also apply to the hand and these in the individual sections.
How would the whole thing behave if a person wrote it in the 1st person singular (I will, You shall….)?
and the second person passes it on for a group. ( You shall, we shall….)
What would the effect be from the text? The actual explanation remains the same.
As I said, I have never dealt with the different hands.
But it is certain that one can deduce something from it, because there are two or more persons.
If two do the same thing, it is still not the same.
Translated with http://www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
John,
Thanks for that tidbit, that is, in all deference and true respect to my cryppie friends, pretty amusing.
DN,
Very interesting. So you think the manuscript was at some point recontextualized, Im guessing with a European look? I think my problem with nearly all VMs theories is they hinge on very little, asking others to finish the rest for their otherwise “flawless” theories. Ive never heard any theory that has formed into any kind of cohesive whole. We need one. I think those that have done work on the manuscript in any form are valuable though, and I do not think anyone has been so influential, as you do as to be able to misdirect studies. Its not impossible, though you have been there to set them straight, yes?
Currier language is bad. The language is very good – Czech. In the text of the manuscript it is written on many pages: I write in Czech. And or – Czech words. So don’t look for another language. Every scientist and ant should understand that.
Hey Prof.,
I have seen you around. I know that you believe its about or by Elisabeth of Rosenberg, and perhaps you think written in Gematria somehow. What exactly do you think it is? If you could summarize. I am not familiar with your ideas. I believe it could be a modern hoax sometimes, othertimes I am just not sure and have many theories.
Matt
Hi Matt. Wondering how I know that? I worked on the manuscript for many years. I translated the whole manuscript. It is written at the beginning of the manuscript. My name is Eliška z Růže (rosenberg) and I was born in 1466. All this is written in Czech. Like the whole manuscript. So it’s not just my theory. But it is the final solution. The manuscript largely describes the history of the Rosenberg family. It is the richest aristocratic family in the Middle Ages in Bohemia. The family had many castles. The text is written in the Czech language and is encrypted = Kabbalistic numerical system gematria. Jewish substitution cipher. Very complex cipher. Each letter (character) has its own numeric value. This is not a scam, as Richi Santa Coloma has been trying to prove for several years. And others. Because they realized that the manuscript, when written in the Czech language, they would never be able to decipher it. Therefore, in order for a scientist to be in the game, he launched a theory of modern deception. The key is written on the last page (116). There are also three pictures = Key, Author, Meaning. Last time I wrote to scientists that I could help them. This is done by writing to them what is written in the text of page 116. Scientists are probably afraid and afraid to write me. To write to them what scientists have been looking for for a good hundred years. Why are they afraid? That they won’t be the first to decipher the text of the manuscript? I can write this to everyone. The first will not be. I’m the first. Of course, I don’t want to rise above the scientists. I like all scientists and amateurs. That is why I have been trying to help them for many years.
The manuscript is written in the Czech language! One hundred percent. No scientist in the United States, England, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Russia, Switzerland, etc. will ever be able to decipher the text of MS-408. I know the work of almost all scientists who have been working on the text for many years. But it is misery.
Page 103r – yes, I see some differences to the plant pages: gallows can be found at the beginning of vords (for me it’s beginning, I read right to left), there are some double c’s with an elevated curl between them, which are not connected by a stroke – this is not widespread in the plant section, but can be found e.g. on the first page, many 89 at the beginning of vords (89 stands in my theory for YHWH but can be part of a word as well then 89… -> yr,,,).
But within the mapping according to my alphabet – regarding the content I only can argue that way – it’s similar easy or difficult to transliterate into Aramaic as other pages. But in fact, the content is a huge surprise… it seems these are addresses or teachings to children! I have checked only a limited part of this page but already the first row gives an impression:
YHWH
סָמַר camar {saw-mar’}
שְׁנַת sh@nath {shen-awth’}
‘ow {o}
כֹּהֵן kohen {ko-hane’}
אֲרַע ara’ {ar-ah’}
עָשָׂה asah {aw-saw’}
אֶדֶר ‘eder {eh’-der}
אִלֵּךְ ‘illek {il-lake’}
אֵי ‘ay {ah’ee}
יָרַד yarad {yaw-rad’}
עַבְדָּא abda’ {ab-daw’}
סָחַב cachab {saw-khab’}
בָּעוּ ba’u {baw-o”}
יֶלֶד yeled {yeh’-led}
בּוֹא bow’ {bo}
בָּעוּ ba’u {baw-o”}
ידע yada’ {yaw-dah’}
אִלֵּךְ ‘illek {il-lake’}
אֵב ‘eb {abe}
יָאַל ya’al {yaw-al’}
אבה ‘abah {aw-baw’}
ידע yada’ {yaw-dah’}
דַּל dal {dal}
יָדַד yadad {yaw-dad’}
דְּהַב d@hab {deh-hab’}
אֵי ‘ay {ah’ee}
יָרִיב yariyb {yaw-rebe’}
אֵל ‘el {ale}
סָמָר camar {saw-mar’}
דּאה da’ah {daw-aw’}
עָלַל alal {aw-lal’}
“YHWH stands up to sleep and ministers as a chief ruler (of the) world to produce (make) glory (magnificence). These which are send down as servants of YHWH drag as request the children (descendants) to be introduced (to bring near) in prayer, to inform (to cause to know) these green shoots (young) to begin to know (to seek, seeking to learn to know) of the poor, golden friend (loving-one) which contends (is an opponent) against the bristling (rough, shaggy) one darting through the air thrusting forth (in wickedness)…”
I took out the Aramaic transliteration…
Page 103r – yes, I see some differences to the plant pages: gallows can be found at the beginning of vords (for me it’s beginning, I read right to left), there are some double c’s with an elevated curl between them, which are not connected by a stroke – this is not widespread in the plant section, but can be found e.g. on the first page, many 89 at the beginning of vords (89 stands in my theory for YHWH but can be part of a word as well then 89… -> yr,,,).
But within the mapping according to my alphabet – regarding the content I only can argue that way – it’s similar easy or difficult to transliterate into Aramaic as other pages. But in fact, the content is a huge surprise… it seems these are addresses or teachings to children! I have checked only a limited part of this page but already the first row gives an impression:
“YHWH stands up to sleep and ministers as a chief ruler (of the) world to produce (make) glory (magnificence). These which are send down as servants of YHWH drag as request the children (descendants) to be introduced (to bring near) in prayer, to inform (to cause to know) these green shoots (young) to begin to know (to seek, seeking to learn to know) of the poor, golden friend (loving-one) which contends (is an opponent) against the bristling (rough, shaggy) one darting through the air thrusting forth (in wickedness)…”
Hints and simple explanations.
Sometimes it happens that (for example) books written in English also contain Latin texts. But you also see this in French, German, Spanish and even Czech books. They all have something in common. The Latin is similar everywhere and easy to read.
Now I have a Romance text on the VM page. You don’t just learn this way of writing, you only learn it on the spot.
But I also see German text in the VM. More precisely, text from the southern region. Where can I find Romansh and German spelling in the same place. That only works south of the Alps.
The whole thing is only confirmed by the dovetail crenellations, with two of three crowns saying the same thing. If I now take the overall picture of all the plants, I am somewhere between Milan and Trieste.
Now we could narrow it down a bit more. Why do I see no or few double consonants in the VM text? Because that is simply how it is written in this region.
Why should I now believe that a third language is hiding here? Now it needs a bit more than just a guess.
@Joseph
Please, please, please, don’t try to help me.
Translated with http://www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
Peter, I’m not teaching you. I only teach scientists. You are an amateur and therefore an ant. The battlements? battlements? and Swallow tail ?. So there are a lot of them in Europe. In Prague, you also have the swallow. (V). The battlements are in a lot of castles. You know, so does that symbol (V). on that battlement? Looks like you still have a lot to learn. So learn, and don’t be angry.
Boy, take your skis. Or sledge and go slide down the hill. Voynich is beyond your capabilities.
Joseph, Joseph, Joseph, sure there are many such battlements in Europe. But unfortunately none before 1500 north of the Alps.
These in the Czech Republic were also only built around 1560. The architect is also known. It was a Swiss from the Ticino. He rebuilt all the Rosenberg castles. It was finished around 1580.
Your theories are funny, but have the life expectancy of a mayfly.
I got the architect’s name wrong by a few years. Not much, but here you can read it for yourself.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldassare_Maggi
@Peter :-)You’d better go sledding. Jepice. Take, for example, what he had built at Prague Castle – Vladislav Jagelonský. Eliška tells him in the manuscript – Jagol. Peter Learn and then it will certainly be good.
Peter. See what is written above the castle. Right above him. There are these characters – OAM (oam). = 714.
(7 = o, z), (1 = a, i, j, q, y), (4 = d, m, t). = (oam = zit) = ( žít) Czech. In English it means = to live. And then the name of the castle is written in a circle. And that’s Rosenberg. So don’t make waves here. Students from Switzerland.
Thank you Joseph, I have just read it.
Prague Castle burnt down completely in 1541 and rebuilt by Emperor Rudolf II (Habsburg/Swiss) and declared his residence.
You Czechs may be strong in ice hockey, but you’d better leave the Voynich research to the professionals. 🙂
Peter M.You young boy student. Don’t train me. And you really know, you only know what you read on the wiki. And that’s damn little. Find out what the word (oam) means. Don’t pull Rudolf into the manuscript at all. The manuscript has nothing to do with Rudolf. The handwriting has only that with Austria. That Eliška lived there at Hardeg Castle. As she writes in the manuscript. At that time there was Governor (Upper Austria) Rosenberg. Learn the history of Hardeg Castle. (George of Podebrady – King of Bohemia. His sons, etc. Heidrich Hardegg + Elizabeth von (fon) Rosenberg). Heindrich Hardegg and Goat Castle. , where Jan Hus also lived.
@ Peter M, you wrote: “why do I see no or few double consonants in the VM text?” Why do you think, there are only few double consonants in the text? I think e.g., c⎻c (the connected c’s) are double consonants which stand for dd/ll and with the curl above the stroke for more bb/vv/ww. But that’s not all for what they stand. Within a vord they stand for two consonants immediately following each other, even if they belong to two different words like in “dal lo” (not weak/poor) – l⏜l written as c⎻c likewise. These “hidden” concatenations are, in my view, one of the major reasons the script haven been already deciphered for long. Most decrypters considered them as one letter belonging to the same word!
@Darius, I am not sure if I have understood your examples correctly.
What is your theory, if the words stand alone, would they lose the desired effect for you?
What if short words become even shorter?
The whole thing is a longer thought process, and always in the right time, so much clarifies itself.
Remember, every language is possible….but not Czech.
@ Peter M, no, the words can stand alone, surely, so word=vord in different representations but mostly vords are concatenations of 2, 3 or 4 plaintext words.
Regarding density: when you increase the density of your code, when you make your coded strings shorter (e.g. merging two letters into one), so you have then length(wordlater) < length(wordformer), you increase the amount of information packed in the shorter word. It’s because your short word can be a new representation of 2 or more of former different, unambiguous words.
My idea is, and I’m not alone with it, the plaintext language is Aramaic. And this language consists of extremely short words. The longest word I have found in the lexica was in fact the name of the Babylonian king:
נְבוּכַדְנֶאצַּר N@buwkadne'tstsar{neb-oo-kad-nets-tsar'}
You can’t find words like German “Wotzusammensetzung” or similar. When you write these words as ketav (the vowelless “written” Aramaic), the most words are 2-3 letters long. I think there is no space for further shortening of words here. This would mean that we have a very dense data representation in the VMS anyway. E.g. I translated the entire page 17v of the plant section (23 lines, one of the longer texts in this section) and the translation in English is 3 till 4 DIN-A4 pages long. Extrapolated to the whole manuscript I think we can expect 700-800 DIN-A4 pages or a book in a normal print format and char size of 1500 pages of plaintext in English. We have here an enormous treasure to raise and a work for years to decrypt all!
And regarding Aramaic: nobody leaves our Latin, European homeland easily, particularly not after decades of “Latin“-research in VMS, I can comprehend. And not to speak about such awesome languages like Slovenian or Czech… but that never led to a longer, concrete transliteration/translation according to a consistent and applicable approach.
Darius,
Aramaic was read and written within medieval Europe – but more to the point; is this mention of Aramaic the end-result of someone’s detailed study of Voynichese, or is it just speculation? If the former, can you tell me where I can read that statistical/linguistic study? If the latter, it really doesn’t matter whether the notion is being entertained by one person or by a thousand. ‘Truth by numbers’ is a concept of politics and propaganda. Doesn’t apply in this case imo.
Peter M
About our professor. I have been following him for many years without interfering. At first he signed himself as Boyfriend, then he became Champollion, and finally he became Josef Zlatoděj, and even a professor. Where he is a professor, what he is a professor, he is modestly silent. But otherwise he does not bother to call all or by his choice ants and speak words with common meaning and meaninglessness, such as: Learn and watch, when you watch you will see, when you see you will understand and when you understand, you will know. Besides his comments here , you can also look at his blog: https://zlatodejblog.blogspot.com/ .If you see anything different from what I said, please comment. Finally, perhaps our Grande Professore knows exactly how long he will live and is waiting for the last moment to give the full translation and the way he did it. Until then, let the ants suffer, and maybe after that. It doesn’t sound noble, but everyone stays in history with what they did. Therefore, do not waste your time with him.
Jesus Mary. Another ant. Who ‘s watching me! :-))) So watch and not be angry. You can also learn on Facebook, Youtube and Wordpres. That’s enough and so learn.
Otherwise, the ant who writes here about the characters (cc). So it reads = č. (š ).
Otherwise, I can bet with every scientist and ant on 5,000 Euros that I am right.
So study and learn.
Otherwise, if someone didn’t know. Why do I call an amateur an “Ant” and ask John Pelling. He will surely tell you. (you work hard as ants to decrypt VM text). The word ant was first used by = John. In my opinion, this is a very concise and reasonable comparison. Doesn’t it work for someone? Instead, study the manuscript so you don’t waste time. students. (The only one who bothered the ant was the blue eye and so was Mark. That’s what I call a bee. a hardworking bee).
@OutsiTer
I have known Joseph for a long time, certainly over 10 years.
If you go through the archives here at Nick, you will read that this is not the first time we have met.
Just think of it as a final exam with questions about the Voynich manuscript.
Joseph is the only one who has to repeat the course every year.
@ D.N. you are right, naturally, I’m convinced, that the European VMS scribes could read and write Aramaic outstandingly, but the question is which kind of Aramaic is the potential plaintext language and which was still written in medieval Europe. I think we have here a pre-masoretic text… but this is a separate topic.
Peter M – I love you too. Students.
At hand A+B.
Someone must have started the book.
If I assume that page 1 is a kind of guide to the themes, then he must have been the first and everything that follows the result of the previous one. No matter which hand.
For the differences I see 2 possibilities.
School Latin meets local Romansh.
2. since a simplification of grammar emerged around 1400 (cuum became cum), I also see the possibility of old school and new spelling. Father and son.
By the way, when I look at the normal letters in the VM, I would rather guess a male than a female hand.
This is due to fine motor skills. 20 years of needle and thread versus hammer and chisel. I think this affects the wrist which makes the writing look finer. To me it seems rather choppy and uneven. Just a thought.
Translated with http://www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
@Peter M you are right, the first page shows what the manuscript is about: the first words are: “in the beginning was the word”…
@Prof I like your funny posts, but do you have any specimen in whatever language (daj nam vzorek). As for now, I believe only that you are able to produce gold out of the air.
I’m enjoying the well natured debate that this thread offers, especially to and fro rallies between longtime friendly combatants Joseph the Pro. and Peter M. the decidedly un Hunish Swiss chemist, solely on personal differences unrelated to Currier multi scribe issues. I tend agree more or less (mostly less) with A & B off thread contributors Diane and Darius in their mutual support for merits of the long dead Aromaitic VM derivation possibilties which makes perfect ‘scents’..don’t it?
Darius. Sample ??? I can give it to you. But show me. What you write somewhere. Let me take a picture of you. Are you a Scientist? Or an ant? Give the link. What I write is very easy to find on the network.
Otherwise to the text on the first page. There are several numbers written in red. These are 3758. What do those numbers mean? These numbers mean the number 1.
@John Sanders
I don’t know where you come up with chemist. I have had a lot to do with doctors and professors, but I am actually a process engineer. That means if they know what they want in the lab, I see how to make it on a large scale. In the field of pharmaceutical and medical technology.
Since you’re still alive, I’m sure I did everything right.
I only have the title of lecturer, but at least I have a degree.
With 30 years of experience abroad (internationally) and 3 heart attacks, I am now retired.
The interesting thing about the VM, especially section Q13 has something to do with what is done. It’s a few hundred years older, but it’s exactly in my field.
That is briefly about me. And who are you?
Translated with http://www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
@Prof if you assume Hebrew calendar is used (15 Tishri 3758), then why aren’t you a fan of the plaintext Aramaic idea? I will give you some text to read, let me finish something.
This will contribute to the thread, john sanders, as it’s a good A(supposed)-sample. I believe you misinterpret my narration.
@Darius.
The number 3758 is written there (painted) because it is the first page of the text. In this way, the author of the manuscript shows that he knows Jewish encryption. It means the 1st year of our era. In the text of the manuscript, however, the following is written on many pages: I write in Czech. (and or = Czech words). The manuscript is written in the Czech language and is of course encrypted = Kabbalistic Numerology System. Each character (letter) has its own numeric value. Very complicated cipher.
Example: number 1 = a, i, j, q, y. number 2 = b, r, k. number 3 = c, g, s, l. number 4 = d, m, t. number 5 = e, h, n.etc.
Eight numbers (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) cover the entire alphabet.
If you look at the beginning of the manuscript, page 2. The author also drew it for you there. The root of a symbolic plant is made up of the letters = C, G, S, L.
Why ? The root is the base of the plant. Without a root, no plant can emerge.
Purport: The basis of every word is = letter. No word can be formed without a letter.
If the text of the manuscript wrote that the text was in Aramaic, I would find out. But it’s not there. The whole manuscript is written in the Czech language.
@ Prof I guess, I understand now your most important claims. The figures in the green bubbles are kids in the abdomen of the wife of Jan II. z Rožmberka ( zvaný Pokojný ) – called the Tranquil. How he could be tranquil having 10 kids? And the famous rosette with the swallowtails is nothing else as a fish-head? Ok, let me reconsider all…
Looking at your twitter account, you have links to very professional made videos, like the Voynich video “w kraju štiky”, very nice!
Nick said that the page 21v is a typical Currier-A page because of the “dain”s and the “daiin daiin”s, so I translated this page to see if we have something special here. If you like to read this page, look at my website (article “seeds of truth”). Is a sermon to priests/scholars/teachers. I know, ant-teachers don’t need sermons, take it simply as a literature genre. The longest chapter is the Aramaic transliteration with all the different meanings of the words. If you intend never to translate something from Voynich into Aramaic and then English so jump to the next one with the plain text.
@Darius, you are a very young scientist. So you will have plenty of time to find out what the Voynich manuscript means. I read what you write on your blog. Where you have a very nice galaxy. Do you see a galaxy in the manuscript ??? I didn’t find it in the manuscript. So why do you have her there? Andromeda. The manuscript says nothing about the galaxy at all. It’s all suspicious. Are you an astronomer?
It’s good that you read what I wrote about the manuscript. Specifically, the rosette where the author is drawn. Elisabeth. Fish. Do you know what the symbol – Fish ??? This is very important. If you understand this, you will have a chance to move forward in your research. So study. You certainly have enough time. You are young and full of vigor. I wish you good luck.
@Prof you are utterly right regarding the importance of the fish! “Fish” is the third word of the text in the spiral…
But the rosette as such is a scenery, a stage for a play, which will begin in a few seconds ahead. The actors are still not visible but the requisites are prepared, like the 5 lamps, which burn (you see only 3 flame tongues, 2 are covered) and wait to be grasped by 5 wise women. As first somebody will appear on the swallowtails and start to call and shout… but if you want to hear the whole story listen to Bach BWV 140 (you can find a video with English subtitles if you don’t understand German). I described this rosette in an article on my website.
The galaxy (not Andromeda) is only a symbol for the biggest cipher mystery we still need to resolve. But this is not a Voynich/Currier A/B theme but I can explain elsewhere.
@ Darius. I know it’s not General Curier’s topic. A and B. The work of this soldier is very strange and misleading. A and B are bad. C would be good. And this -C is very important for research. C – means = Czech language. You write that you finally see the fish as well. That’s a great finding. The fish in that rosette is laughing at you. And also waving. This is Eliška from Rožmberk. When you work harder. And take a good look at the upper rosettes. This is how you will see Eliška’s body. Well dressed, of course.
“Galaxies”, as various experts and researchers, aliens and others write. Of course, it is not a galaxy. It’s not even a mystery as you write here. In our country, there are also ants scientists who see the galaxy and then write delusions and big nonsense about the manuscript. You can also find it on the net. How do you know what the image means? Think more.
Otherwise, there are many fish in the manuscript. Why ? because it is a symbol that shows what the author is doing.
Darius, see the last page of the manuscript (116). Where are the three pictures. And write what is written there in Aramaic. If you are not able to translate it into Aramaic, try the language – C. Not the language A and B, but as I advise you, the language C. Then you will find out what is written there. It’s not that complicated.
Prof, the last page 116v – I don’t know if this is what you expect to hear…
The last page is, naturally, a colophon. Not long ago I was hearing an interview with an “expert” who said, VMS hasn’t any colophon – “I can’t see anything, I can’t read anything so it must be nothing there” was the striking logic. The alphabet/code used here is different to the rest of VMS. You see a couple of new glyphs, only 2-3 of the usual Voynich glyphs. But 2 vords in the last line (the most left two) are written in standard Voynichese. I’ll tell you what these 2 vords are in my transliteration/translation. And these vords, which should be identified deliberately earlier as the rest, explain a lot about the motivation behind the creation of the VMS. I’ll not introduce a second key as long as the first one hasn’t even been examined properly by a few capable people. And still not everything here is quite clear to me so I don’t want to speculate too much.
Ok, these 2 vords read: “the words of the (ram/pillar/chief/which are foolish/goat/to be known/to be instructed/of know how/to praise) brought to be burned/scorched”. Unfortunately, the second word can be read in many different ways and we don’t have more context:
אַיִל ‘ayil {ah’-yil}
1) ram
1a) ram (as food)
1b) ram (as sacrifice)
1c) ram (skin dyed red, for tabernacle)
2) pillar, door post, jambs, pilaster
3) strong man, leader, chief
4) mighty tree, terebinth
יָאַל ya’al {yaw-al’}
1) to be foolish, become fools, act foolishly, show wicked folly
1a) (Niphal)
1a1) to show wicked folly
1a2) to become fools
יָעֵל ya’el {yaw-ale’}
1) mountain goat
יְדַא y@da’ {yed-aw’}
1) (Aphel) to praise, give thanks
ידע yada’ {yaw-dah’}
1) to know
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to know
1a1a) to know, learn to know
1a1b) to perceive
1a1c) to perceive and see, find out and discern
1a1d) to discriminate, distinguish
1a1e) to know by experience
1a1f) to recognise, admit, acknowledge, confess
1a1g) to consider
1a2) to know, be acquainted with
1a3) to know (a person carnally)
1a4) to know how, be skilful in
1a5) to have knowledge, be wise
1b) (Niphal)
1b1) to be made known, be or become known, be revealed
1b2) to make oneself known
1b3) to be perceived
1b4) to be instructed
1c) (Piel) to cause to know
1d) (Poal) to cause to know
1e) (Pual)
1e1) to be known
1e2) known, one known, acquaintance (participle)
1f) (Hiphil) to make known, declare
1g) (Hophal) to be made known
1h) (Hithpael) to make oneself known, reveal oneself
יְדַע y@da’ {yed-ah’}
1) to know
1a) (P’al) to know
1b) (Aphel) to let someone know, communicate, inform, cause to know
You have these ambiguities in abjads, which in longer texts are resolved by the context and narrative continuation. But what we see to the left, is a picture of a goat/ram (not a lamb), because horn is visible. But the other words are clear and we see why somebody built a team of talented, educated scribes – to preserve these words in coded form for the future – but the future is cross-grained and clueless. That’s all about 116v (…so far).
John Sanders –
You speak of my “support for merits of the long dead Aromaitic VM derivation”.
I am not sure what you might mean by ‘aromaitic’ but if it’s a typo for ‘aromatic’ then I must correct the apparent misunderstanding.
In explaining *one* detail in the ‘leaf-and-root’ section, I referred to that plant’s having no known medicinal use, though its root was used in perfumery – and then went on to cite the medieval and pre-medieval texts and so forth, with additional background on the trade in that substance, and specific recipes (again taken from the historical and archaeological evidence) – all this simply to show that its inclusion in a section of a manuscript dated to the early fifteenth century was neither unreasonable nor contrary to the historical context and evidence. I had reason to refer again to scented materials, traded from east to west, when treating *one* of the plant-pictures.
There was another Voynich writer, active at that time (c.2013) who became very excited about the first item and blew it up into one of those ‘this-explains-the-whole-manuscript’ sort of theories, just as he had earlier taken my mention of the Armenians’ early role in trade from south-east Asia into the Mediterranean (chiefly in ceramics), and developed another – this time Armenian theory of the ‘this-explains-the-whole-manuscript’ type, and ran with it. He did produce some very interesting discussions in regard to the second, and has been taken seriously by some very serious codicologists, though not ones directly associated with the Vms.
I think his name may have been Thomas Spande, but in any case I remember him as a very civil, as well as an extremely enthusiastic Voynich writer, one of the handful who never omitted to mention the sources of his inspiration or his information.
I recall that, in a more parasitic way, some other person(s?) produced an ‘aromatic/perfume’ storyline *as if* sprung like Athena, parentless, from his/her/their own mind but since these more leech-like Voynicheros began from a ‘lifted’ idea and tried to run with it, though lacking any underpinning preliminary research, they soon ran out of steam.
Plagiarists often have that problem because the begin from another person’s insights or conclusions and have no idea of how that opinion came to be formed in the first place.
It’s that sort of atrophy, not the objective merits of Voynich research, which see worthwhile new insights forgotten where, if properly treated, would have been built from rather than being overlaid by ever-weaker efforts at imitation, or assertions that some new theory must necessarily supersede all earlier opinion.
or have I quite misunderstood your ‘Aromaitic’?
Diane: Guess you didn’t twigg to my little jestful wordplay on Aromaitic & ‘scents’ to the detremrnt of a certain pre Phoenecian language form. Nevertheless your most interesting post was taken on board and is being evaluated for comment directly. Yes I do recall Thomas Spande, a most enthusiastic and well behaved gentleman, American perhaps and of very genial disposition, ala our pal Joseph Zlatodej Prof.
He invited me into his deep conversatations as if I were a highly esteemed peer and always keen to discuss unpopular subjects like stored buffalo calf hides, lost Himalayan cultures, Wilfrid’s Soho bookshop, 19th century patent obstetric devices eg., f80r &c. My last communication with Thomas was about mid October 2018 and I collect telling him somewhat tongue-in-cheek that the so called Voynich mystery was no longer. S’truth it’s a while between drinks and sort of miss the old codger.
@ Diane, I got the “Aromaitic” for “Aramaitic”, might be I’m wrong – but how can something be dead, which still didn’t come into life? Ok, many people made claims about Hebrew/Aramaic as plaintext language in the past (you will know more than I do as I’m not good in research history 😉). From my perspective, one serious investigation was the study of Bradley Hauer and Grzegorz Kondrak, University of Alberta, published April, 2016. Described is an attempt of computational language recognition of VMS plaintext language made by them by means of three different methods. They assessed the decomposition pattern method as the most reliable, by which Hebrew was identified among 380 investigated languages as the closest pattern match by far.
So even without any concrete transliteration/translation attempts there were concrete clues about Aromaitic underlyings. And now we go even further…
Darius. And other scientists, like Diane, and a lot of other very learned scientists and, of course, ants. Today I will write to you all what is written on the last page of manuscript 116. Where are the three pictures. As I wrote to you years ago, the first picture is a drawing – keys. So it scientifically means = Key = instructions.
The second image is = Goat. It is very difficult to explain it to you scientifically. But I’ll try. (old language, Czech.
That means = goat. English = Magic. That’s why a goat is drawn there. (coslo. Koslo ….). Magic = Key.
The next picture is = woman. The woman is the author of the manuscript. The woman’s name is = Eliška from Rožmberk. The Rosenberg family was founded by Vítek of Prčice and Plantenberg. Eliška writes in the text of the manuscript, for example. That he comes from the Vítek family. (in the text of the manuscript = S Vítka …. substitution = Cvitka). The word CVITKA = means KVITKA. English = flowers. That is why there are many plants and flowers in the manuscript.
The second important ancestor of the family. It’s FOCO of Rosenberg. VOCO von Rosenberg. FOCO = VOKO = English = eye. And Eliška even writes in the text of the manuscript that she comes from the VOKA family. (English = eye).
Every scientist looks at a picture of a woman. On her breast. There he will see the letter E. That means Eliška.
That this is magic. That’s what John Pelling has already written to you all. Which he even showed you. What is written in our National Library. (Dr. Zíbrt. Archaeological monuments of the 14th century. Spells and lines of ancient Bohemia).
Spell = +++++++. (crosses).
The upper sentence.
JE PSA ZUP HONA 66 ER 38 UZ 8.
This means: in English = I am writing a substitution. my era is 66. (1466). Age 38. I’m eighth.
Eliška wrote it when she was 38 years old. That means in 1504.
+ AN ZILI COEZ PISARA 8 + DELCO 8 + i COUZLU 3+ POUDA 8+ HLAV + DIV i 6 + TOVI 6+ VI 6+ ALISA + DIF JI + OKO ROS SLAV AC FON PZA CO NAM CASTY ZILO.
I will translate it into English. Word by word.
I live. who. scribe. 8. + The work is 8+. Magic 3. + Says 8. Head. + Girls is 6 + It knows 6+ knows 6+ Alisa + Girl I + Eye of the Rose. fame as he. He writes what lived in our caste.
So that the scientist is able to understand what the number 8 means.
Eliška was born as 8 in a row. And so he writes about himself in the text of the manuscript. Like the eighth.
_______________________________________________
Alisa = Ališka = Eliška = Elis = Lisa = Sisi. etc.
Magic 3 = Substitution 3. I’ve already written that to you. It’s at the beginning of the manuscript. Root of a symbolic plant = 4 letters, C, G, S, L.
There are 3 flowers.
Meaning = substitution of number 3.
The scientist should understand that all characters in the text of the manuscript have their numerical value. All !!!
Prof, goat is a symbol for heretical material (see baphomet images)…
Ohhh Joseph, Joseph, Joseph, you’re giving me whiplash from shaking my head.
1. crosses are found all over Europe, not only in the Czech Republic.
2. the languages on 116v are German and a Romance dialect. No Czech or Hebrew. Of any kind whatsoever. The Alemannic is written similar to my dialect.
3. it does not have to be a curse, it can also be a salvation saying. Such are still used with us today. But mostly only for small children. Here is one: (Heilä, heilä säge, drü tag räge, drü tag schnee, dän tuets au nümme weh. / then blow 3 times on Wehwechen).
4. when you pronounce a saying, you have to dissolve it afterwards. That’s exactly what he does.
Here it is more of a salvation saying, because the saying ends with “exalted Mary”.
Translated with http://www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
@Prof, sorry for not having found Eliska so far in the manuscript and 116v – well, it’s not the right time for that, but hey, there are 115r/v other pages here.
Prof, Peter M…
What about the first page or the swallowtail-battlement rosette? There is a spiral text in the middle. Why it’s a spiral? There were dozens of posts about this spiral in Voynich-blogs, but I couldn’t see any reasonable assumption. Any answer to this unfair question?
@Darius
With the f116v page, I am talking about facts. Here it is clearly written in German and in a kind of Romansh (Kitchen Latin).
On the other pages it is assumptions. Here, interpretation and experience are decisive.
Why spiral? Some possibilities. He simply didn’t feel like writing in circles any more, so he decided on a spiral.
Or, he wanted to write everything in the wall where he actually started……shit the text is simply too long, or the wall too short.
Why did he write and encode a book in the first place and not just paint or play a flute?
Do you really want an answer?
Translated with http://www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
@Peter, as for 116v – a reason more for me to bypass, as the most is already done…
And the spiral – I see, you think this was more or less accidental and circumstance driven. But, it’s only here a spiral, is there any second in the script? I don’t know about a second one.
I think medieval people were very determined, focused and detail-obsessed. For Dadaistic and unmotivated style and wish-wash there was not enough time, money and unfaithfulness. So, I think this spiral is something very concrete. What about something very common in this time – a letter missive sent through a messenger or herald to a particular group or town? As usual on this foldout, the messenger himself is not depicted but his scroll being unfurled to be read.
Prof didn’t comment – busy with a curriculum for the next ant-class? But how to teach ants a historical look at historical material? However, modern look at old stuff together with well-informed, skilful irony – always a good sell in VMS blogs. I would re-check in museums if J-Joy’s glasses are still in place.
@Darius
All I can say about the spiral is that it is there. But not why.
There can be an intention behind it, but not necessarily.
At the moment it doesn’t help me, but that can change if a new and important clue emerges.
But for now it’s just philosophy.
@Peter more theology than philosophy…
Did you listen to BWV 140 as I recommended? There is a nice performance from Trogau (in Appenzell?). And after His coming to Jerusalem or immediate before – what would be the next logical step? …to send a messenger who tells the good tidings to whole Zion. I think, that’s the whole story as for the inner image of this rosette: the Second Coming and sending of this message to the cities of Juda.
I guess, there won’t be any understanding of this script without the Old Testament. And, my belief is, all this isn’t Greco-Roman Christianity but the earlier, unknown Hebrew Christianity of the “poor” in the sign of the “fish” (Prof!), then before 70 CE, and before the Greek New Testament!
@ Darius. A spiral? Peter writes here that it’s German. So let it translate. Of course I know what is written there. But Peter is smart so he can write to everyone what is written there. Otherwise, I can write to you that everything is different than Peter writes.
I mean before Mark!
@Darius
No, I have not heard of BWV. It’s Trogen, 5 km north of Gais. It’s quite possible that you’ve found something there. When the monastery of St.Gallen burnt down around 1400, many books were moved to the surrounding monasteries.
You are thinking of theology, which is also pure interpretation.
I could also claim that it is about the landslide of 1348, north of Venice. The stars stand for the 17 or so villages buried by the mountain, and the spiral symbolises the earthquake.
What is seen as a volcano at the back could also be the hellhole where the mountain top broke off.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1348_Friuli_earthquake
It is also just a view, but has nothing to do with theology here. It could also be an event.
But I also see a possible reasoning here between hand A+B.
For example, near the earthquake area, a kind of Romansh is still spoken by 600,000 people today. 20KM further north there are still 1500 in a different dialect. Both are neither Italian nor Latin. What I know is that around the year 1300, the language still spoken by 1500 people today was one of the literary languages.
That is also the reason why I classify this Romansh from page 116v.
@Joseph
I only wrote that on page 116v there is some writing in German. I did not write anything about the spiral in German.
Please don’t confuse everything.
Translated with http://www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
So to be clear. :-))) So the stars are there. That it is = a gold fish. (and that’s Eliška). Next – the volcano is drawn there because it points to the author. And so Eliška. You must read the text. And not making up nonsense.
Maybe you’re right. But I know a few things about fish.
15 pieces, breaded and frozen, all in one pack.
I know many brands, but Eliska is not one of them.
Sorry, are these Czech fish fingers?
@Prof you write I shall better decrypt the first VMS pages. I started to decrypt the first page, but it’s a long text, plaintext will be ~4 pages long, the paper containing lexicography etc. will be 100 pages long. And, if I move then to 2r and won’t find Eliska so I will destroy the key witness for your theory… so I better jump over. BTW, the first line of the VMS I decrypted a few months ago. It’s described in my paper “Inception”. But I have a new page I finished to translate, it’s 5v – I hope I won’t disappoint nobody’s expectations. You can find it on my website directly below the galaxy, which I understood was the only thing, you were really impressed about. The translation is in the paper “And his leaf shall not wither”. It’s a verse from the bible and the plant tries to reflect the text. Go to chapter 2 for the plaintext. After you read it, I had a question for you, if it doesn’t bother.
I put it here because 5v is a Currier-A page reg. the wording.
@Darius. Your translation is incorrect. You don’t know the letters at all. Which are written in the manuscript. I’ll show you the word. Which you have there 3. That word is: OCO2.
number 2. (Kabbalistic numerological system Gematrie).
Letters (characters) of number 2 = B, R, K.
Letters (characters) of number 3 = C, G, S, L.
Substitution of number 2. and substitution of number 3.
= O.S.O.B.
The word “O.S.O.B.” means a human being.
The word is Czech.
You translate it = II.W.P.H. and that’s very bad. Please take a good look at the characters. It’s that simple.
o.c.o.2. = o.s.o.b.
Do you know the Jewish code? Very complicated encryption!
When you read the word from right to left. So you will read the word = R.O.S.O. That means = Roses.
You will also read the word = B.O.L.O. This word in the current Czech language means = B.Y.L.O. (English = was).
As I wrote to everyone many years ago, the manuscript is read from both sides. That means from left to right. And also from right to left.
Is it difficult to understand?
@ Darius.Ty you can’t break anything. You can just learn. How much diopter do you have? When you can’t read the letters correctly? The basis of success is also to correctly see the characters written in the manuscript.
@Prof you are an attentive reader, correct? You see every mistake in orthography.
And, you read then the Czech plaintext from left to right and right to left? Bravo!
Is it the same plaintext in both directions?
So every sentence is like this: KOBYLA MA MALY BOK? Ok!
But my question is: how long do you already now, that scribe 1 ( Currier-A scribe) was a dyslexic in Czech? When he reads the Czech plaintext he reads osob instead of osoba or roso instead of ruze? I‘m just wondering…
Actually, it is simple to understand. If you look at the star sign Pisces on 70v2, the text explains how to catch two fish with one worm.
This suggests that the VM text was written in fisherman’s Latin. This is a language that everyone knows, but does not exist.
Petri Heil
Dear Peti, Which segment of text on that folio do you think “explains how to catch two fish with one worm”?
“Not very clever, but enough sense to be serious.” – Old saying.
Hi Diane
You will find the answer in the top right-hand corner. But for that you need the knowledge of fishing lore and the knowledge that there are worms everywhere.
It’s a theory like many others you can read here.
Actually, the VM was written by an Eskimo. It was intended as a Christmas present for Captain Ahab, who came to Europe from the North Pole with Father Christmas.
It’s only the first of March, but wait until 1 April. Then it will get really interesting.
By the way: Petri Heil is the fishermen’s greeting.
It consists of (Petri) Petrus the fisherman and (Heil) is a blessing. It has something to do with the Bible.
Correction:
I did not write Father Christmas, but Saint Nicholas, he really live
@Joseph
I actually got around to doing some more research on Eliska.
Elisabeth is considered the progenitor of the Counts of Hardegg. This is due to the fact that they received the title (Count / Countess) only later by Emperor Frederick III.
Her children:
Bernhard, Heinrich, Georg-Friedrich, Maria-Magdalena, Elisabeth, and another daughter ( no desire to search for the name ).
Now I know everything exactly. Eliska was born in southern Bohemia on what is now the Austrian border. But this is a German-speaking region. It is therefore very unlikely that she spoke Czech. Czech only came to this area later.
Since the residence (castle) is still standing today, and the family exists, it is quite possible that something can be found about her in the archives.
https://regiowiki.at/wiki/Heinrich_Pr%C3%BCschenk#cite_note-6
Everything does not look Czech.
Translated with http://www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
Peter- are you sure that Bohemian aristocrats were monolingual? When Baron Rozmital (1426-1480) travelled through Europe, he seems to have had no difficulty communicating and in one case, if I recall, it is mentioned that when he entered the room (it was either in France or in Italy), the ladies switched languages as a matter of courtesy. It makes sense, of course, because the nobility never knew when by war or by marriage they might be required to rule a country with a different vernacular tongue. It may be that most Germans were less cosmopolitan, but I don’t see that it should be presumed.
In case you’re interested, the account of the Baron’s travels has been published.
Malcolm Letz, The Travels of Leo of Rozmital Through Germany, Flanders, England, France, Spain, Portugal, and Italy, 1465-1467.
Published for the Hakluyt Society at the University Press. My copy is 1955 but I see another imprint is advertised online dated 1957.
@Diane
South Bohemia was, and still is, German-speaking.
In the 13th century there was a German-Slavic intermixture in the north.
The Slavic language came in the 6th century.
According to legend, the first one was the Czech national saint (Cech, on Mount Rip, North Bohemia).
The Slavs spread as far as the Mediterranean. With the centuries came language divergence. North and South Slavonic.
Later, the northern language got its name Czech after its national saint Cech.
To be more precise, one would have to read the correspondence in the archives.
It is also certain that after the First World War and the collapse of the Habsburg lands, the German language was suppressed and the Slavic language became more widespread.
All the chronicles I have read so far were in German. Unfortunately, I have to say that the letters also had to do with the emperors. They were almost always written in German.
Translated with http://www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
@Diane
The actual question “are you sure that Bohemian aristocrats were monolingual?”
No. Surely they learned Latin, and, or French or other languages like others.
As an aside, it’s rumoured that Queen Victoria , last of the Hanoverian line was raised in virtual seclusion by her concerned Kraut speaking mum who feared that she might otherwise be subjected to contamination mit uncouth British royals of the day. The young future Queen (& Empress) as a consequence spoke only her mum’s native German around the house until she left it, upon coming of age to take over the reigns of power in her own right. So the story goes that even at the very height of her rule over much of humanity, Her Soverein Highness relied upon proper English translaters in order to govern her loyal subjects…
John,
https://www.goethe.de/ins/gb/en/kul/ser/arc/vll/21618144.html
Nick,
I keep checking in to see how the ‘A’ and ‘B’ research is going. Have you any posts in the pipeline – it’s been a while.
Matt,
Just noticed an earlier comment of yours. Sorry not to have seen it till now. You say “So you think the manuscript was at some point recontextualized, Im guessing with a European look? ”
I should say that my approach isn’t theory-driven at all. I notice something that raises a question, often something not even previously noticed let alone explained – and I set about finding how that thing came to be as it is on the page. It might be a thematic question such as “where and when did the battlement sort of head-dress originate which we see in figures in the ‘bathy-‘ sections?” By establishing temporal and geographic range for that type of head-dress we get one clue about where and when the images were firs given form (i.e. first enunciated). It might be a more general question such as “what calendrical or other star-referencing systems might employ doubled months or, perhaps, alternative skies for some months?” My aim is always to understand what is actually there on the page, and set it against its appropriate historical context.
I don’t work from theories and if, at any stage, I want to use a metaphor or a drop of guess-work, I make the difference clear. After I’ve gone into a thing as well as I’m able given the limits imposed by the fact that I’ve neither omnicompetent nor master of all languages past and medieval, then I draw conclusions from the evidence gained and share those conclusions. Each separate research question is like one piece of a jig-saw. Only after having amassed a substantial number of separate pieces does any overall picture emerge.
This process doesn’t usually take too long. I had fully expected to be able to write a report on the drawings in Beinecke MS 408 within 6 weeks to a month.
Thirteen years later, I can say that the internal evidence shows, for much of it, a Hellenstic origin. We know pretty well that our present manscript-as-artefact was made in the early years of the fifteenth century and that until the sudden invention of a ‘Germanic-central European’ storyline, the consensus of informed opinion had always been that the manuscript looked like something produced in what was then effectively a region of mutual cultural exchange encompassing France, England, Mallorca, some Italian city-states etc. It’s often difficult to explain this interaction to Voynich theorists, many of whom impose modern ideas of nationality and national borders on the medieval world.
There are certainly some images in the manuscript which speak in ‘Mediterranean’ visual dialect and at this stage I am of the opinion that what we have is the result of mutual co-operation between Sephardi Jews and Genoese, but that’s a conclusion not a theory. A Voynich theory is something you start with; a conclusion is something you end up with from the evidence discovered during research. And all conclusions are only as good as the range balance and depth of evidence *to date*.
However, the end of Hellenistic culture, as a living polytheist culture, is dated to about the 6thC AD in the east, and to the date for the fall of Antioch in the west.
For reasons I won’t go into here, it’s my opinion that the older material had been retained in the eastern sphere (in which I include everything east of the Bosporus) until the early fourteenth century at earliest, but no later than 1350 AD.
To the community/communities to whom we owe the older matter I attribute various customs and avoidances whose trace remains with quite remarkable clarity in our present manuscript. A particularly interesting detail among those now on the reverse of the Voynich map is drawn in a style characteristic of Latin (i.e. western Christian) drawings for the world’s four quarters and for the ‘East’ includes a very fair representation of a Nestorian ‘Church of the East’ preacher, his garment and the emblem which to western eyes resembles a fleur-de-lys very nicely pointing us to the ‘Mongol century’.
Not having a theory, and not having to wrestle with the horrors and frustration of the written text, makes my sort of work relatively pleasant if far less easy than most of those opining about the pictures might imagine.
Regards
Prof posted a few weeks ago, one should start decoding with the first page f1r. Ok, I made up for this using my alphabet and method – have still to prepare and publish the documents (3 or 4 of them) including lexicography, transliteration, translation, footnotes, conclusion… but I can post one passage translation beforehand without any comments. It’s the 3rd, the longest of the four, and the topic here are advices to remnant fellows of a community/communion, which apparently is about to leave the devastated Jerusalem after the abolition of the Great Jewish rebellion. Lamentations with a moving description of the destroyed Second Temple cover a range. More information, explanations, remarks etc. then to be found in the documents, we will publish in next weeks. And, we give our interpretation of the mysterious red weirdos.
Here is the text (next post) – we are then 70 CE in Jerusalem. f1r is also a Currier-B page – indeed, we can find here some rarely used words, which are then combined/concatenated to uncommon vords and some combinations of double c’s with a glyph above, which weren’t used in e. g. the plant section texts.
f1r, 3rd passage (synonyms separated by /, some needed add. prepositions or alternative spelling in brackets):
lay aside to pay heed to a lost thing/something lost for ever
seeking/desiring an enemy
or else requesting/desiring a dark cloud
if you please, become a priest/serve as a priest,
make yourself a servant, a witness (of) God’s knowledge to pass on
the tree/stick crashed into ruins/being desolated
the weakening/growing faint mountain-fastness/stronghold (Masada) above
mist until now (stayed) rebellious
meanwhile the same enemy/foe
assemble/gather one to another to gird (oneself for the battle)
disheartening might (striking with awe) commands/treats as a slave,
or if the darkness requested/desired
a companion rather/otherwise to ruin/destroy/devastate
consent to/accepting fear/terror, the same/who
fall upon/attack otherwise crying shrilly
to be startled (by) enemy requesting
to bring friends/companions/fellows so far
to be summoned – crying for help
Father’s words fix/appoint the judgment!
servants/worshippers (of God/of Israel) make hot fire/flames (ignite the flames)
(on) mountain ridge/top to give a signal for war (or march)/alarm of battle
above as far as
one side/part (of land) to another to pass on
lessening bitterness helps to bring forth/to bear
discernment/understanding/wisdom (of God)
where otherwise darkness
desiring/seeking good pleasure shows wicked folly (of) mind/thinking
brother, kneel in reverence (or sink down to one’s knees) only
to be near with the Father!
prostrate yourself/lay prostrate one to another (all of you) only
like as to put a mantle on/be-mantle , without
pressure, even as to give a banquet (or feast)
skirt (of robe) without to be restrained/to fail
also to minister as a priest/serve as a priest – friend!
rule not over the earth/world
together with the cordage/chain of council/counsel/assembly opinion
don’t burden (make yourself not a burden) the rising
weave appointing/designating the highest,
priestly garment one to another (all priestly garments) (are) worthless/of nought
but to teach
the youth/children the discernment/understanding/wisdom (of) the Most High
until now the same bad/evil/wicked (ethically)/malignant
nation/people/compatriots gathering in troops (or crowds)/penetrating/invading with
a spirit of a dead one request/desire
to be cowed even as
a wanderer/refugee one to another (all of us)
(of) the brought wicked/malignant havoc/violence/destruction/devastation!
this indeed dark experience
to heap up, to destroy/devastate
these thick upper beams/planks,
to carry/lead away, to deal wrongly with the pillars/jambs/pilasters (of) the inner part,
to crush/shatter the floor ground,
fragments apart from the devise (of)
highest priest’s ephod (priestly garment) above…
wail heart, again and again/continuously,
(about) that how the chamber/guardroom
altar without miraculous signs, the fire-pot/brazier
like as disgorged is broken in pieces/broken asunder
priests burned up (as) enemy
are saved (experienced salvation), finished not (didn’t finish) passing away
how to grieve the devouring/wrath/arrogance experiences,
grieving to make oneself odious/to abhor ?
familiar converse/circle/council (with) which belong to necromancer – not!
(which) set bounds for whether to say/speak/tell/avow –
nonad/nine times not!
though to be satisfied attain to/bring in/gather fortune
meet by appointment/assemble together with the loving-ones/friends
one to another (all of you) those who behold (can see)
meet by appointment/assemble together with the loving-ones/friends
in truth/faithfulness and to be weak/be darkened/fail
withstand/stand/endure (with) strength/rest up to the time that
the knowledge/predestination (of God)
circumstance/condition be glorious
Zdravím Zlatoději, před časem jsem to taky zkoušel. Tenkrát jsem použil přepis jednoho textu na Tvém blogu a podle toho rozpoznával znaky v psaném textu. Přelouskal jsem nějak text na foliu 1v. Písmenka z prvních čtyřech řádků se mi povedlo poskládat tak, že to i nějaký smysl v duchu, který o tom píšeš dávalo (třeba nečesky pán Jan na konci jednoho z řádků). Zbytek , druhý odstavec, ale zarputile odolával, spíše se mi zdálo, že je to nějaké LOREM IPSUM. Psal jsi tenkrát něco o kolotoči, jestli si dobře pamatuji. To už jsem nezvládl. Pak jsem měl jiné starosti, pak mi zkolaboval pevný disk, pak zmizel tvůj blog. Teď jsem to zase po čase zkoušel a je to, tvými slovy, velká bída. Nevybavuji si třeba hned první znak v prvním řádku (1v). Vybavuji si M, – qMccq na začátku druhého řádku, Vybavuji si taky, že jsou v textu některé znaky navíc. Jsem asi moc líný mravenec a ještě s nezálohovanou mravenčí prací a tak jsem se rozhodl požádat Tebe
Mám tedy toto:
.o..q oca8 am oe oeMoccq ocar oPcar aie
qMccq ocar orocq 8oco e.o8q o.o8ar oco8q
8ao.oq o.co ..cq ocq 8.occcq oMcq .oMoco8q 8ae
8oe oco.co 8air 8aie Sooccq oco .08q
Taky mám nějakou dioptrii, takže něco možná i v tom velkém rozlišení vidím špatně.
Nenapsal bys to, prosím, správně? Nebo napiš, prosím, ten text z folia 21r, který jsi kdysi nabízel, že napíšeš, že je to málo textu. Možná by to i bylo lepší, jde mi v této fázi vlastně jen o to rozpoznat správně některé psané znaky a na 21r bych jich pro mé účely mohlo být možná až dost. Tak předem dík!
A few comments about the content of the discussion on this forum.
I come from northern Bohemia, from the countryside below the Ore Mountains (in Czech they are called Krušné hory, in German Erzgebirge, the inhabitants who lived there until the end of WWII called them Arzbarche). The border mountains around the Czech Republic were called Sudety in Czech, Sudetenland in German. Until World War II, it was common for Czech-German communities living under the mountains to speak a mixture of the two languages with specific innovations. German is no longer spoken anywhere in the Czech Republic. The German-speaking inhabitants of the borderlands were expelled after World War II, the old settlers died out.
If we proceed with Zlatoděj’s theory about Eliška, Eliška was a woman who had a Czech-German speaking father and a Polish speaking mother, she did not go to school as we know it today. She probably knew some Latin words. In fact, at that time, something like the written Czech language was just emerging. If she learned to read and write, it is very likely that she wrote down what she heard phonetically. If I transcribe into Czech what I hear from an Englishman, I bet the Englishman won’t recognize it. And I’ve seen my grandparents’ letters written in a similar vein. Add to that the fact that medieval Czech was something distinctly different from modern honesty. When you add in the various abbreviations and slang, it’s probably a really big nut to crack. It’s maybe something like Navajo code. Maybe something like the slang of the frontiersmen when they colonized America. If Zlatoděj is right, the language of the manuscript could be something along those lines.
Hi Franto. I will write something for you in the blog. It will be page 1v. Where does Eliška write when she was born.