If you’ve previously looked at the final page of the Voynich Manuscript (f116v), you probably know exactly what I’m talking about here: the strange marginalia / pen-trials / whatever that aren’t Voynichese, but aren’t obviously anything else either. The middle two lines of “michitonese” are interspersed with crosses, making them resemble a prayer or protective charm (when reading these out, you’re supposed to make the sign of the cross when you see a ‘+’). The two michitonese words I’m going to focus on today look like “ahia maria“, which is what “Saint Mary” would sound like in Greek. But is that what they really say?
Parsing the page
To my mind, the initial challenge is working out not how to read the page (Lord knows we don’t need yet more speculative michitonese decipherments), but rather how to parse the page. Knowing that crosses are a structural feature of prayers and charms is a helpful start, but I suspect that differences in inks and letter shapes are also key things to bear in mind.
I discussed this page in The Curse of The Voynich (2006), and proposed that what we are often seeing here is a page whose writing had faded so much by the time that a later (in fact, probably much later) owner looked at it that they felt compelled to emend it before it disappeared completely from sight.
Along those same line, I’ve previously wondered whether the first two words of the pair of lines (which have been immortalised as “michiton oladabas”) might originally have read “nichil obstat”, before fading almost to nothing and being emended into their current state. This isn’t just a matter of ink density, as some people have suggested: for example, the ‘l’ of oladabas looks like it was written by a 15th century quill pen but the ‘n’ of michiton looks to me like it was written by a 16th century metal nib. And if you compare all three ‘a’s of oladabas, you’ll struggle to work out which is original and which is emended. (For what it’s worth, I believe the middle ‘a’ is original and the other two are emendations.)
So broadly speaking, I feel that the first thing we have to do is parse “ahia maria”, i.e. try to work out which parts of it are original and which are likely later emendations.
Multispectral scans
Though we only have (frankly shocking) quality multispectral scans of f116v that were left on the Beinecke’s file server several years ago, these are vaguely helpful here. Here’s what I was able to salvage from “Voynich_116v_WBRBB47_108_F.jpg”:
Though this is hard to make out, it suggests that the final ‘a’ of (what looks like) “ahia” wasn’t emended, but the rest of the word was. The first “ma” of “ma+ria” also seem to have been worked on.
In general, it seems that we can probably trust that the “ma+ria” part was what was originally written, but we need a bit more insight before we can come to a conclusion about the “ahia” part.
The History of Hail Mary
Given the prayer-/charm-like context, it would seem very reasonable to hypothesise that the two words might originally have read Hail Mary (in some language). But when did people start saying Hail Mary?
The Greek form (which begins Θεοτόκε Παρθένε, χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη Μαρία, ὁ Κύριος μετὰ σοῦ. ) developed independently of the Latin form “Ave Maria, gratia plena“. The latter took shape around the turn of the first Millennium, with Thomas Aquinas noting that the biblical original (“Ave, gratia plena“, from the Gospel of Luke) had had the word “Maria” inserted. The Latin form first appeared in print in 1495 in Girolamo Savonarola’s “Esposizione sopra l’Ave Maria“.
In terms of what forms of Hail Mary we might reasonably be looking to find, then, the Greek version is distinctly unpromising, while the Latin is very much limited to Ave Maria.
Yet if you search for medieval Latin charms that mention Mary, you’ll find a good number that invoke her name (e.g. “+ sancta Maria peperit +” in CUL Additional 9308, folios 49r-50r, mentioned here, footnote 155), often when hoping to ensure a good outcome from childbirth.
Additionally, “Maria Maria” appears doubled in a particular branch of Gaudendum nobis est (see MSS A-GU 30, CH-EN 1003, CH-EN 102, and Stuttgart 95, mentioned here, Table 4-6, which are from Engelberg and Lambrecht). We’ll see why this is relevant in the next section…
The Other Maria(s)
We have to be careful that we don’t let people’s prior readings over-influence our attempt to make sense of the page. The “six + marix + morix +” text on the same line is visually suspicious to me, simply because both the marix and the morix look a lot like maria, which all matches up with the rest of the line:
That is, the line could easily, when taken as a whole, be saying something like “six + maria + maria + vix + ahia + ma+ria +”, i.e. very much less than you might at first think.
Multispectrally, the morix shows signs that its ‘o’ and ‘x’ were emended, but the rest left intact:
Of course, “six” isn’t actually a Latin word, so that too is an interpretative reading of the line. Moreover, its middle “i” is shaped completely unlike the ‘i’s in any of the Mari[ax] words, so was almost certainly emended. So: if some of the original text’s a’s were later misread (and emended) as ‘x’s, might this have originally been an abbreviation for “Sancta”, and so read more like “S[anct]a + Maria + Maria + vix + Ahia + Ma+ria +”?
And again, “vix” (= hardly, scarcely, barely, only just, with difficulty, reluctantly, etc) is perhaps not a Latin word you might expect to see in a charm or prayer: its middle “i” is shaped completely unlike the ‘i’s in any of the Mari[ax] words, so also looks like an emendation. So this too is a bit of an awkward fit.
Your thoughts, Nick?
Well, I wasn’t clear on this in 2006, and to be honest I’m not much further along in 2023. It seems to me that we’re looking at this page through the wrong kind of technical lens, because we’re not really able to answer even the simplest of questions about its codicology. Multispectral imaging was a bit of a bust for f116v, though to be fair this is exactly what a lot of the literature points out for studying pages with different ink layers (you really need Raman imaging to separate out different inks).
A different approach, which I’ve proposed for a while now, would be to map the surface of f116v to see if we can detect differences in the depth of pen indentations between different codicological layers, and then pick out the earliest layer for its meaning. And in fact, in a post on BBC Futures today, this is exactly what the Factum Foundation in Madrid has been doing with the Archiox Project for the Bodleian library.
Who knows what intrepid codicologists might find hidden in the surface of the Voynich Manuscript?
In Lisa Fagin Davis’s analysis which scribe did she attribute the “michitonese” to? It would be interesting to know who she thinks wrote this page and what other pages that scribe wrote, assuming this page was only written by one scribe.
Nick. what michiton ??
It is clearly written there:
+ anoi3icon…..oPaSaba8 +
Eliška from Rožmberk writes:
+ an žíli coe…zPisára8 +
English :
I lived who is….Scribe 8.
an- is an old Czech pronoun.
number 3- is read L. ( substitution 3 = c,g,s,l ).
o – Z substitution (7 = o,z ).
n – substitution E ( 5 = e,h,n ).
b – substitution R ( 2 = b,r,k ).
And the eighth (8) was Eliška. Who was born eighth in line to John II and Anne. That’s why he writes about himself as an eighth grader.
Of course it’s magic. But the magic is precisely the substitution 3. As it is also written at the beginning of the manuscript. Page 2 Where Eliška explains it. Those are the letters in the root. ( C,G,S,L ).But I already wrote to you about that.
There is no name of Mary in text 116v. But the name Alice is there.
Nick,
Glad to see you’ve mentioned that inserting crosses into a text was quite mainstream practice and doesn’t necessarily define that marginalia as a ‘charm’.
I agree that the cross’ being the Latins’ cross suggests a Latin wrote it.
Your mention of Greek reminds me that (i) most writers attribute the introduction of the Marian cult to Syrian and/or Byzantine influence and, (ii) of how Michael of Rhodes, though Greek, wrote even his Greek prayers using the Latins’ alphabet.
I’m not suggesting he wrote any part of the Vms, or that the line is Greek.
Any of your readers who might be uncomfortable with e.g. the Catholic Encyclopaedia, might like the essay on the history of the Marian cult which the Met published in 2001 around items in its collection.
https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/virg/hd_virg.htm
Crux Quadrata, with its even arms as depicted in f116v marginalia is the Greek symbol for God. Not to be confused with the distinctive Latin Crusifix associated with the Christ and in turn the Virgin Mary.
One thing possibly against multiple “Marias” on the line is that the one actually written as “Maria” also has the extra cross in it, potentially elevating its significance above the other words. The “a” in this “Maria” is also connected to the separate “O” via a dotted line, which might be an alpha-omega reference.
Of course one can always say that the final “Maria” is the most poignant one and thus gets an extra cross. But I’d be inclined to think it is marked as the most holy word on the page this way.
My approach to VMS or other topics is different one, indeed. My first question here was: why the heck did they need for this page a second code (only two words in the last line are pure Voynichese)? A new code isn’t a cheap time investment. But, isn’t it a place in a book, where you would expect a colophon? Did they needed it to express something which was not representable in pure Voynichese? Did they need substitutes for Latin chars here, if the rest was non-Latin? But for what? What is untranslatable Latin ‘another plaintext language’ or shouldn’t be translated at all? I know something… proper names. Can be the Latin cross is a hint (but this is a pure speculation).
Don’t tell nothing about this idea. I try to help, leave this page to your consideration anyway.
Koen: to me, the real point of the post is that these are really basic codicological questions that we aren’t satisfactorily able to reach an answer on. 🙁
It is possible that page f116 is not that important, but it says a lot.
Summary from my point of view:
1. the 3 main lines have the same curvature. So it can be assumed that everything was written by the same hand. The colour of the ink says the same thing.
German and a Latin-like text + 2 VM words were written by the same hand.
The word in front of Maria looks like an “ahia”, but when I look at it a second time, I see an “altia”.
Explanation: The “h” has no correspondence with the other two “h”. Michi and me.
I assume that it is a “t” where too close to the “l” was written. “t” just above “te”.
“altus” Lat. exalted /proud “alta” in use.
In Italian “alti” masculine “altio” feminine “altia”.
In German “hochwohl geborener, or highly exalted is a normal appellation of kings and emperors. “hochwohl gebohrener, herrlicher a testimony to God.
The meaning of “sublime”, standing above all else, is quite an appropriate designation for the divine/holy Mary.
If I were to assume that Italian is involved, the Latin dialect would also be found south of the Alps. Apart from the battlements, where there were none north of the Alps before 1500.
Some of the German words are used in the Bavarian dialect. Without all these clues, it could well be found in the northern Alpine region. Without looking at the plants.
This means that Bavarian is actually also at home in Bohemia and Moravia.
That is roughly where you can read from page 116.
As an example on page f116 an example from another medical book.
At the top is the saying with the crosses. The word endings with sharp “s”. In contrast to the VM ending “x”.
On line 7, add Mary, a few Latin words and the healing spell is finished.
Strange, but almost the same as in the VM.
http://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/de/zbs/S-0386/165r/0/
P.M., you think it’s plaintext, fine, for Bavarian a suggestion:
I schau beim Küchenfenster naus
Diaf schwarzer Nebe hintam Haus
Und dunkle Woikan ziang grod auf.
Do draußn schauts echt ned guad aus
I woas dass heid no wos bassiert.
De Weid de wird heid untergeh
Des ham de Mayas eruiert
I glab des wird gwis ned so sche
(ich hoffe, Du kannst lachen)
When I look at it scientifically. And I read the word there:
P.I.S.A.R.A.
So even if I won’t be a scientist. So anyone who normally thinks. He knows and quite clearly. That it is a Czech word.
The manuscript is without diacritics. So on R. (r.) you gave a hook.
Maybe it would be better to see for you, as John Dee wrote.
Of course he knew and knew Jewish encryption. His: Soyga is very interesting. Tractatus Astrologico Magius.
This is easier, for example. For scientists, faster than the translation of MS-408. And of course it’s a more interesting reading. Mainly it is easier to decrypt.
@Darius
no problem, now in alemannisch.
Ich lueg zum Chuchifeischter ussä.
tüüf schwarzä Näbel hinderem Huus
und dunkli Wulchä ziend grad uff.
Da dussä luegts nöd grad guet us.
Ich weiss das hüüt no üppis passiert.
D’Wält wirt hüüt untergaa.
Das händ Maya’s erodiert
Ich glaub das wirt gwüss nöd schön.
hmmm, it’s not really that funny.
One interesting thing that was recently discussed by Stephen Spielberg is the idea that our recent UFO sightings might actually be time travellers from the very far future(he said 500000 years), doing backwards anthropological studies of this time period.
Just wondering if the time travel equation is a possibility, how might one even check, or for that matter track something like that?
To keep things on topic, it is incredibly curious this page is written in ordinary letters and numbers, not VMs script for the most part, and we still have nothing. There is an territory in Mexico isn’t there close to that name Michicon yes?
Hail Mary, not a Catholic here, but it couldn’t hurt, haha.
P.M., not the text, but the imagination, how it would sound when reading a Bavarian VMS.
Wasn’t it Ludwig Thoma in the 19-th century, who first put some Bavarian tongue into a written form at all?
It would certainly be interesting if the VM were written in Bavarian. It would still be a normal written form.
Thoma wrote a number of stories, and many of them were made into films.
The funny rascal stories. I have seen all of them. They’re really funny.
https://www.br.de/br-fernsehen/inhalt/film-und-serie/lausbubengeschichten-kaeutner-hansi-kraus-spielfilm-106.html
Nick. So I looked at the SOYGA book. And I can write to everyone here that the book is in the Czech language. So this mystery will not be solved by any expert from the USA, or England, Germany, Belgium, Holland, or Australia. I’m sorry of course. But nothing can be done. The stars are aligned to my frequency.
If, for example, Jim Reeds or Deborah Harkness read this comment. So let them call me and I will help them. I am very happy to help everyone. It’s my mission. To open people’s eyes. And bring them to the light of God.
Peter M.
I’m intrigued by your saying of the battlements – do you mean only forms of swallowtail merlons ? that “there were none north of the Alps before 1500”. I’d be glad if you would point me to the studies which reached that conclusion. I’m not disputing what you say; it’s what I’d expect given the usual lag between styles’ adoption in the south and their appearance north of the alps, but it’s always good to be able to read the original study and see e.g. the range over which their data were collected.
@Diane
I’ll have to see if I can find something where I have a link to it.
After the Castle Association and Architecture in the Middle Ages.
Principle:
Around 1400, castles as we know them were no longer built. Because of the cannon fire, walls were only built at an angle. In old castles, only the walls were reinforced.
Original text:
Equally undisputed, however, is the fact that throughout Europe
regional special forms have emerged, which have
p. 24: which, despite their usefulness, were only able to assert themselves within certain
within certain cultural areas: The swallowtail pinnacle (Fig. 2) is unknown in the
The swallowtail pinnacle (Fig. 2) is unknown in the German-speaking part of Switzerland.
Maschikuli are
only in the southern Alpine valleys and in the Savoyard area of influence.
Savoyard area.
Also the high, very narrow, at the lower end broadened
is only found on Swiss soil in castles in the Welschland region.
Welschland.
This did not change until about 1540, when castles began to use the dovetailed battlements as a fashionable design. In most cases, even the architect is known.
14,000 castles and ruins have been studied. There are none before 1500 north of the Alps.
@Diane
On Ninja we have created a map of where to find the dovetail pinnacles. approx. to 1450.
But maybe you can find one north of the Alps.
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1y1hxOfGDFhqo97deJVvFNi7ASspTlp9v&ll=46.13500164937821%2C10.621269882056378&z=6
Peter M., Thank you very much indeed.
I have already written up a post about the work done by Koen and his friends as it was in 2021; thanks to you it can be more up-to-date.
The map has no legend, so it’s not clear what the black dots and the blue dots mean. Perhaps the black means a description in a book and a blue dot means a book’s illustration?
It must have taken a great deal of work.
Peter M. – the legend on the Google map explains the dots. It didn’t open at first.
You have to read ‘abia’, the same b as in oladabas, there is a clearly recognisable h in michiton. Until now, no one seems to have realised that Abia is one of the less well known kings of Juda, Vulgata lib. III Regum 15
Even with “abia”, the “b” would not hit.
All 3 “b” for comparison are closed at the bottom.
But with “abia” it doesn’t look like that. The base of the end is also missing if the ink in the pen had been missing.
It would also be a strange choice of words. To conclude from a king to Mary.
@Diane
It works for me. If you click directly on the symbol on the map, the link opens.
Legend:
Castle / Ruin
Book / battlements where depicted in books. Movable.
The blue symbol, frescoes / murals where not movable,
With books, it’s one thing.
The author and the origin should be decisive. But since everything was copied back and forth, it doesn’t count as a reference for me.
That would be funny.
VM, ca 1400, has swallow-tails and is in New York.
Does NY have the battlements or not? 🙂
Abia was the nursemaid of Hyllus son of Heracles and Deianira
Abia State is a state in the South-East geopolitical zone of Nigeria
ABIA stands for the Association of British Introduction Agencies
ABIA is an appreciation of Austin-Bergstrom International Airport
Abia is primarily a female name of Arabic origin that means Great
So I guess you can take your pick is typical Voynich research style.
Funny thing about the swallow tailed battlement merlons, variously described as fish tailed or dove tailed. An Italian construction company headed up by a fellow name of Peter A. Solari, was seconded to the Kremlin in 1487 to create some for the Czar. By the time of his passing in 1493, the contract was all but completed and so the remaining crew of artisans were able to finish up and head home to Rome well before the Peter M. cut off date for “no dovetail battlements north of the Alps pre 1500”.
Oh, and it’s fun. That he had the ramparts with V built at Prague Castle. Czech King Vladislav Jagiellonian. A great friend of Eliška from Rožmberk.
To Moscow.
Behind the Kremlin, the original walls still stand. White and limestone. You can still see them today.
The battlements came much later.
What do you think? Brick wall as a defensive wall?
Then you’d better stand in front of the wall, because otherwise the bricks will blow up in your face if you get shot by a cannon.
The Kremlin was built well after 1500, and it wasn’t until its successor that it was tackled. All three architects are known.
Prague, only 1547, after the great fire of 1540.
The ascent to Prague Castle even took place after the Second World War, because of the tourists.
And all castles of the Rosenbergs, rebuilt between 1560-80. Architect known. From Ticino.
Anything else ?
See old paintings of the Kremlin.
https://de.artsdot.com/@@/AQTAWB-Apollinari-Vasnetsov-moskau-Kreml-in-die-sp%C3%A4t-XVII-Jahrhundert
Some history would probably not be bad.
The architects came for the church, not for the wall.
After the loss of Bizantium to the Turks, the
Eastern Roman Church ( Orthodox ) lost the main seat ( Haga Sophia ). The Russian Tsar wanted to create a new centre by building the church. However, the Orthodox Church remains on its old site….till today.
Architecturally, however, the spires were to be round. However, the high snow load forced the architect to change the shape. Hence the onion shape.
As I said, the battlements came much later. Before that came a few other buildings. No battlements before 1500.
anything else? Yes, yes.
Vladislav Jagiellonian – ( 1456 – 1516 ).
reign = 1471 – 1516.
new walls Benedikt Rejt – in 1456.
Benedikt Rejt – new walls of Prague Castle = 1485. (sorry)
Yes. Completely rebuilt in 1578 by Rudolf II before he moved into the castle.
Get over it. Prague Castle did not have dovetailed battlements before 1540.
In this link you can see what the Kremlin wall used to look like. Some of it has been preserved until today.
Only later were parts of the wall painted and covered with brick. The square was only given a floor around 1800 by Catherine the Great.
The oldest building that can still be seen today was completed in 1561.
Guess which one. Planned in 1493.
No dovetail battlements in Moscow before 1500.
https://pikabu.ru/story/kitaygorod_istoriya_kitaygorodskoy_kreposti_6314948
Battlements to Prague Castle.
Commissioned by Maria Theresa and designed by her Viennese court architect Nikolaus Pacassi and executed by Anselmo Martino Lurago. 1758-63.
B. Ried built the Powder Tower (Mihulka), Vladislav Hall of the Royal Palace, some interior works, but no wall.
Nevertheless interesting. In this tower Edward Kelley wanted to turn lead into gold.
@Joseph
Vladislav II was not a Czech king, but king of Bohemia. He was also not a Czech but a Pole.
He was born as the son of the Polish King Casimir IV Andrew and Elisabeth of Habsburg.
There was no Czech Empire. You should be a little more precise.
https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benedikt_Rejt
https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladislav_Jagellonsk%C3%BD
If he was Jagiellonian, so he was Lithuanian paternal side at the end of the day…
Yeah. Almost everyone knows that Vladislav Jagell was a Pole, as well as his son. That he was placed on the Czech throne is probably also clear to everyone. You can read about the fact that he had the walls built at Prague Castle in the link. Where is the builder Rejt. Who made the walls in 1485. Those walls are in the link in the picture.
Otherwise on the Czech throne = Přemyslovci. The Luxembourgers. Jagiellonians. The Habsburgs. and Jiří z Poděbrady.
@Joseph
There was no such high wall then, and certainly no dovetail battlements.
You can see that in the photo.
https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daliborka
To repeat, “No dovetail battlements north of the Alps before 1500”.
Peter, look at the link. Which I stated above. There is also a picture. Those walls and battlements. The walls were built by Rejt. And they were 8 meters high. And 3 meters wide. You can see the battlements in the picture. Read what it says (link).
@Joseph
The castle was badly damaged after the Seven Years’ War.
Maria Theresa spent 20 years rebuilding the castle. Not much is as it used to be.
Ried’s works were blown up twice and rebuilt. The battlements only came with Theresa.
Principle. If something is built in brick, then something is rotten.
And now think what you want.
Here is a list of all the architects who have ever been involved in the renovation of the castle. Quite a few since 1400.
https://deu.archinform.net/projekte/10806.htm
Venetians built some in Greece (Karystos ~1350). A Greek scribe saw and incorporated them into his picture or saw them on one another image and now? These are dead end disputes.
My nominated Voynich sketch artistist Margaret Boole was probably taking short cuts when creating the V shapes in her f116v battlements, as opposed to them being any deliberate attempt to create ‘swallow tails’ as assumed. It might not be known to the ant stamp Ninja wanabe Voynicheros, including our infuriatingly ill informed Swiss alchemist Peter M. that Maggie Boole’s famous artist husband Ted, was noted for his landscape depictions of castles ie., Lambert NJ with their typical squared battlement defences. For anyone interested, Wilfred Voynich was Ted’s brother-in-law and American travelling companion pre WW1.
Peter. what am I supposed to think? Well, I’d rather not even write that here. Anyway, it’s obvious you can’t read well. Read it again and take your time. Then it will certainly brighten up your battlements. I’m writing, take your time and read carefully and slowly. It’s also a good idea to take a good look. In the picture where are the walls made by Rejt. MIMIMIMIMI. Well, it’s from 1485. It’s written there clearly and distinctly. So why are you writing nonsense here? Do you want to argue with me again?
@Darius
Great castle. I didn’t know this one yet.
I had a quick look at it. It takes a lot of work and time to find out more.
The first fortress was built by Byzantium in 1030. What you see now is built on the old foundation walls.
It’s hard to tell anything at first sight, the Turks had occupied and expanded the fortress in 1470. It is impossible to say how much was destroyed during the conquest. Archives, records and paintings can help.
I have yet to find out when it fell into the hands of the Venetians.
Basically, most fortresses of this kind around Greece and the Black Sea were not built until the 16th century by the Venetian merchant fleet and the Dodgen to secure the trade routes.
Rhodes, for example, is an architectural disaster. Most of the battlements were built by order of Mussolini. Elsewhere, purely for the sake of appearance, around 1957.
Therefore, the first glance says nothing. Real research is called for here.
To clarify once again what the dovetails are all about.
We have the C-14 dating of the VM manuscript. So this puts the date between, let’s say 1405 – 1440.
Anyway, it doesn’t have to be that precise.
The battlements represent the political view between the emperor and the pope since about 1100. Predominantly northern Italy with a few outliers. Which has spread somewhat over time.
In which radius can the origin of the VM be around 1430, based on the pictures that can be seen in the book and the buildings where the battlements also appear. If one assumes that the author drew it as he was used to and saw it.
There are other features, but they are not important now.
@Darius
What I found out about the tower.
Not much, actually. Simply too small.
But the island already gave more.
The picture shows the lower white foundation walls. Probably Bizanz.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Bourtzi_castle_harbour_Karystos_Euboea_Greece.jpg
Venice had a trading post armed by Bizantium.
The island was conquered by the Franks (France). Bizantium recaptures it. Island is sold to Venice. (1366). 100 years Venice. 1470 conquest by the Ottomans. in the 16th century back to Venice.
Hmmmm….. what has the tower been through and since when does it look like today? I have no idea.
Peter M.
Modern cartoon depictions of castles, gothic or medieval tend to go either way with square sided versus ‘V’ format battlements. Not so ornate sketches seem to favor artistically less daunting swallow tails which are also less time consuming in their application. Makes perfect sense for background structures in landscapes that are intended for decoration purpose only and not part of the main theme eg., f116v. How does that grab you mate…like a giant tree puller I’d guess, flocken wit
Peter M.
That example from Euboea is a superb photo. Well found.
I’d guess about 99.9% of all pre-1450 manuscripts that survive today have contents composed more than a century before the manuscript itself was made. Many have contents composed hundreds of years earlier, so you needn’t feel obliged to look for precedents only through 1405-1438.
It is true that, in most cases, the images used in a Latin ms will have been re-worked to suit a contemporary taste, but one of the fascinating things about the drawings in Beinecke MS 408 is that such efforts were so few, and so superficial (e.g. attempting to use paint to cover up some of the calendar’s figures and give them more clothing).
I think there are two reasons that Voynich studies has constantly looked at the Vms using the analogy of printed books (i.e. first composition close to time of manufacture). The first is that Wilfrid started the habit off. The second is that so many of the cryptographers had no particular training in medieval art, history or literature and saw cryptology as in some sense independent of temporal factors.
Perhaps the enciphering of the written text did occur when the present ms was made, but there’s absolutely no reason to presume anything else was first composed then. We are free to follow the evidence as far back in time, and as far abroad as it requires.
Cheers
I’ll show you some words. Large parchment. Upper right rosette. Where is Eliška (fish). Here, exceptionally, Eliška also wrote the letters u.
Words manuscript upper left rosette:
uPuoS….8aeq.
I will translate: it is read from right to left.
J.e.j8….C.o.u.p.u. (that’s old Czech).
Today it would be written: J.á. 8….s.e…k.o.u.p.u.
English : I 8 take a bath.
(Eliška from Rožmberk writes that she bathes in the river. The name of the river is also written there).
Why did she write the letters U. Because she would have to write 3 PPP characters next to each other. ( or FPF, or P,F,P ).
@Diane
Of course everyone can search and judge as they wish. But you should set yourself rules.
Apart from the battlements, you can recognise 2 different languages in the book. German and a kind of Latin (Romance). Since Romansh is not classical Latin, one could assume that it is a dialect. Since it is a dialect, one can also assume that it cannot be learned in a school like Latin. Since no dialects north of the Alps are so well known, and it is not possible to learn them in a school, it is difficult to look for the origin north of the Alps. So far, the evidence is consistent. Further, why should I assume a third, unknown language?
Let’s look at the drawing of a castle that Rene has on his website.
https://www.voynich.nu/origin.html
The castle is interesting not because of the battlements but because of the Austrian (Habsburg coat of arms) in the drawing. Since the House of Habsburg was represented in this region, this is also consistent with the 2 crowns in the VM. He was not only emperor but also king of northern Italy in this area. If I go a little further north from this castle, it also coincides with the German language.
If I now add the other buildings that are visible in the VM. The steep roofs indicate that there is a lot of snow.
Now all the clues coincide here. Now it is clear to me from which region the VM comes. I can work with this.
Joseph Zee Prof.
Looks like Peter M. (for mugger) ran outa steam on the ‘V’ merlons somewhere south of the Alps mate. Reminds me of his past attacks on Murano glass and the ingenous Bouveloque Pelvimeter. More holes in his arguments than a roundel of German style Swiss cheese; no need to mention what the holes were full of!
@Sanders
I never said anything against Murano glass (Venice). I don’t see why either.
With your tongs it was clear that patents from 1900 reject your theory. Your arguments are simply worthless.
I’m not running out of arguments either, they’re just too high for you.
Somehow you remind me of a 20 watt bulb in a sports stadium.
John S. He wants to push the Habsburgs into it. Eliška also lived in Austria. At Hardegg Castle. He also writes about Hardegg Castle in the manuscript.
He will show the scientists one more word. On a large piece of parchment. The sun is drawn in the lower right. There is one word for the sun. That word is Czech.
manuscript : oPaSo8aie.
Meaning: O.p.a.l.o.f.a.j.e…. (German speaks Czech) F = V.
Meaning today : O.p.a.l.o.v.a.j.e.
English: he is sunbathing.
The sun is shining, so Eliška is sunbathing by the river.
Next to it is another word:
manuscript: o.P.a.e.8.a.e.
Meaning : z.P.i.e.f.a.j.e.
Meaning today: z.p.í.v.á.m.
English: I sing.
Eliška is by the river, where she is bathing. He also writes that he is a goldfish. She also sunbathes and sings. That map. According to what is written in the manuscript. It is at the confluence of the Vltava and Otava rivers. So there is another castle. Which was owned by the Rožmberk family. Zvíkov Castle. As it is written in the text of the manuscript.
Peter M.
There are rules in any formal study. More importantly there are standards. There are rules and standards in palaeography, codicology, linguistics, historical research, and also (though many may not realise this) in iconographic analysis.
One of the first rules is that palaeography and codicology determine when, and where a manuscript was produced.
Another is that you do not attempt to define the origin of the contents simply by where and when a manuscript was made. As I’ve said before, making that mistake would see a person claim that if a copy of the Psalter was made in fifteenth century France, the Psalms had been first composed in fifteenth century France.
In treating with the manuscript’s drawings, there are other rules. First, that dating and placing the first enunciation of a given image is a different thing from dating and placing its current form.
Secondly, that it is a major error to presume that medieval drawings can be read as if their aim, or the aim of all drawing, is to create a literal ‘portrait’ of any person or thing. This, in my experience, is the most common error among amateurs, and what lies behind every attempt to identify that tiny detail with one or another ‘castle’.
The rules I follow and the standards I try to uphold are those appropriate for analysing drawings, and the first thing to look at is style of drawing, or what I’ve termed in writing about this manuscript ‘stylistics’.
Another important rule, and another one rarely appreciated in Voynich writings, is that with a work like the Voynich manuscript, which consists of contents that display distinctly different character (in terms of drawing) between one section and another, and sometimes between elements in a single section (there are three such ‘layers’ in the Voynich map, for example, the provenance of each must be identified.
Since we do not yet know where, or when, or from what source(s) the main text of the Voynich manuscript comes, and its provenance has no necessary connection to the origin or character of the images, it is foolish to impose theories about what languages might inform Voynichese upon the drawings.
After all, no matter in what language you find a copy of the book of Psalms (for example), it does not define where or when the Psalms themselves were first composed. A fifteenth-century Flemish drawing in a Psalter only tells us that the drawing is fifteenth-century Flemish and probably (not necessarily) has a direct connection to the accompanying text. The text itself might theoretically be in Latin, or French, Italian, or even Byzantine Greek or middle English. Painters like scribes moved around.
Overall, I do not think there is any balance of evidence for Voynichese being Latin or any Germanic language. It seems this is a conflation of provenance for the body of the manuscript’s text with ideas about the marginalia, and that is a very elementary mistake. Still, the written part of the text is not my area, so I leave that to the people who have appropriate qualifications and experience in those areas, and concentrate on what I’m able to say from my own – which has its proper rules and standards.
I appreciate that the persons who collect material for inclusion at Rene’s website mean well, but I have too often found they do not seem to know the rules which obtain in formal scholarship.
Dianne: so glad you and Peter M. are finally getting your scholarly heads together and busy amassing all the good oil whence commeth the VM. No need to bother Rich Santalacoma @ VM 1910, surrepticiously for related intellegence any longer. A very Merry St. Patricks to you and the original bog Irish O’Donndubhains if that be appropriate.
@Sanders
As for the pelvimeter, it’s on your dung. I only wrote that it can’t be possible because it was only invented and patented in the 20th century.
The Murano glass was about the design. It was already used in Roman times, so it is not conclusive enough as evidence on its own. Venetian glass was mentioned in this way.
You twist everything and what you write is not trustworthy. And you don’t seem to have a good memory either. You’re angry, OK, but that your theory was based on nonsense, you only have yourself to blame.
Peter M.
Re the object imagined a medical instrument – I’ve seen measuring instruments drawn in that way, especially a type used in geometry. In English they are called dividers or, more casually, compasses. If I could add an example of such drawing here, I would.
PS – Nick, thanks for passing my previous. Wasn’t sure it would be ok.
@Diane
Of course you can say that everything could be different. If I disregard the references in the book, then it could also have been written by an Eskimo in the Jordan. After all, there was also a bishop in Greenland and pilgrimages were inn.
For example, on page 66 of the VM text, the drawing and the German text are written in the same ink. Now the author must not have been German, but he knew the language, and in dialect.
I would never rely on one clue alone.
It is not one clue, it is all the clues together where the picture is. If I don’t use this, I might as well throw it all away.
Which is not the way to look at it. It is not a psalter or a book of hours or anything else religious. Here, the church and the Bible prescribe what should be in it. You can’t compare apples and pears.
Just follow the breadcrumbs.
Example:
If Joseph writes that Eliska wrote it, then that is OK. Maybe she was once in Tyrol and saw the battlements. She certainly knew German and the dialect is also correct.
What makes it hard to believe is the date of birth (1466) and the C-14 analysis. If she was 16, then it’s already 1482. Now it’s already 50 years later. But it doesn’t explain the Romance, because it’s not school Latin.
In any case, I see no reason to point out any more clues.
Peter M.
1789 for Jean-Louis Boudelocque’s little gift to the gals, ain’t the twentieth century by my rough math my man. Are you ever gonna get your shit together and face facts?
Every scientist, historian and linguist will carefully read what I wrote. In a previous comment. When every scientist uses his brain. And he doesn’t even have to think long. Then he finds out that the words are Czech. (old Czech).
And so finally after many years. Every scientist can. And of course the one who is not a scientist. But he has an effort to find out how the manuscript is written. Finally learn more. According to those words, he finds out that the words are in the Czech language.
And so surely the scientist will no longer write any dubious thoughts. That the manuscript is written in Italian, French, German or Latin. It is bad.
Eliška does not write that it is hot like in Australia. Eliška writes that she is by the Otava River, where Zvíkov Castle is. Where she is bathing (she is a goldfish, she waves at you). and he also sings.
Diane. I looked at what you wrote about Tiron shorthand. 🙂
(detail ) Brit.Lib.Add Ms 9046 f.2v
I can tell you that everything is different. Before you write there in the article.
I will show you two words…. I.n.f…p.s.a.t…
Word – p.s.a.t. is a Czech word. In the English language it means = to write.
Word – I.n.f. is read = J.e.f. = J.E.W. (that is, a Jew).
That means = Writes a Jew.
Under that heading. It is in line 7. Several characters. Those signs are the year.
I.3.I….W. ( W = 6 ). The meaning of the year is the date of birth of Charles IV.
Year 1316. As it is written in the text of that page, of course.
So it’s not shorthand. It is a Jewish substitution. So please fix it. (I translated the whole thing so I know what is written there).
Diane. Even scientists must be constantly learning.
@Sanders
You even write it yourself. 18th century is not 15th century.
Apparently you also have problems with numbers.
Typical 20 watt bulb, not the brightest but burnt out.
Peter M-
The manuscript’s vellum can oppose the Germanist theory; the binding can too; the script’s ductus also; the drawing styles can oppose it, a decade’s detailed analytical studies of the drawings can oppose it; specialists in a number of relevant fields can oppose it – but like all other theorists the Germanists are deaf to all dissenting evidence and arguments, or at least feel obliged to try absorbing it without openly admitting it exists. Rules? You must be kidding.
When it comes down to the wire, a theorist’s study is not this manuscript, but the absorbing interest they feel in … whatever…
The many iterations of the Germanist theories have just two constants: the theory must involve German emperors; it must assert the whole contents of the manuscript an expression of German-ness. For the rest, whatever seems to work is shoved in, and whatever doesn’t is swept under the carpet.
That’s why you’re still reduced to breadcrumbs.
Oh – there is a semi-constant in that group of theories: a desperate hunt for ways to (a) argue the manuscript made post-Luther or (b) to attribute it to some European group who could be anti-Catholic.
I shouldn’t be expected if the next mutation of the Germanists’ position were a bouillabaisse of Franciscans or Dominican missionaries, Venice, Cathars as Paterenes or Bogomils, Lake Guarda, Byzantines and the Aegean islands with a token reference to Milan to get past the fact that the history of European ciphers doesn’t support the German theory either if you accept the early fifteenth century date.
Last paragraph. I first wrote, ‘It’s almost to be expected’ but then softened it to ‘I shouldn’t be surprised ..’. Read whichever you prefer.
Peter. Analysis of C-14. So she’s bad. Of course, I already wrote that to the University of Arizona Greg H.
I will explain why it is bad. At the beginning of the manuscript, Eliška writes about herself. And she writes when she was born. At the same time, on the page that is at the beginning of the manuscript. Your date. Year of your birth. She encrypted into one sybolic plant. That plant has 14 green leaves. And 12 gold leaves. There are two letter signs on one green sheet. Those letters are J.T. ( Jewish substitution number 1 = A,I,J,Q,Y ). ( Jewish substitution number 4 = D,M,T ). JT = 14. (that’s the 14 green leaves).
There are also 12 gold leaves. Eliška writes in the text of that page: The golden leaves are six and six. ( that means = 6 6 ).
Meaning: Eliška’s date of birth = 1466.
According to what is written on that page. The date of creation of the manuscript can also be determined very well. Eliška had to grow up and learn to write as well. Maybe ten years I write maybe. When she learned to write and code, she could only write handwriting.
When the date 1466 is written at the beginning of the manuscript, it is certainly very clear to every scientist that the C-14 analysis is wrong. Although on the other hand. The parchment might have been stored somewhere. He lay in some chest for some time. Before Eliška married him and started writing. That’s hard to find out.
But taking the date of creation of the manuscript according to radiocarbon analysis is wrong. is wrong.
As for those birthing forceps. Surely every scientist knows that already in the Middle Ages it was also used during childbirth = caesarean section.
Eliška could not write. There are 12 gold leaves. And for that reason. That she could not then write the year 1466. That’s why Eliška wrote – six and six.
If she had written 12, that would be the wrong year (1412). That’s why she wrote the numbers – in words. six and six
@Diane
I don’t understand why you bring Luther into play.
Apart from the fact that he does not fit into the time, he was only against the sale of indulgences. You can’t buy forgiveness from God with money. What he also criticised was the excessive veneration of Mary, so that Jesus only played a secondary role.
You can criticise the German as much as you want, but nevertheless it is there. The crowns are also there. The battlements, the Latin, the plants…. And as you say, the art style is also important and the hair and the clothes.
I see western churches in the VM, but no orthodox churches and no mosque either. So the one nymph is not carrying an Orthodox cross in her hand, no it is the Latin one. All the buildings are modelled on Western architecture. Small tower in the wall, even with bay window.
Slowly it is just too much where you try to ignore.
Don’t try to adapt the VM to your theory, adapt your theory to the VM.
Don’t think that’s all there is, there’s more.
What are you looking for? In every Bible, Psalter, history book, textbook, it says pretty much the same thing everywhere. No matter where you get it, the history of (example Spain) will not change just because the book comes from England and not from Germany. Before the printing press, copying by hand was necessary. 1000 churches but only one bible. That’s about the copy.
You can assume that the VM contains personal knowledge, so you don’t need to look for copies. That is why it is encrypted.
It would be funny to have ready-printed diaries for everyone.
Peter M.
You’ve left me stunned…Dummkopf is the only worthy retort springs to mind!
Peter M.
You’ve been kept in the dark about a number of things. First, I was invited to comment on the Voynich manuscript precisely because my work involved provenancing artefacts of various kinds and doing what is described as iconographic analysis.
If you’re received the impression that I’m an amateur with a theory, I suggest you think about how you formed that impression. I’d be sorry to think it had been the quality of what I share online.
I began explaining some of these drawings as a favour. My first paper was hosted here by Nick Pelling. The months of preliminary study needed to write that paper led me to like the manuscript, and I still do.
It actually pains me to see how badly the drawings are misused by theorists, and how certain theorists abuse the trust of people who rely on them. You really should have been told that there are arguments for and against interpreting the object as a ‘cross’ – and that the negative argument was the only one which was the conclusion of a formal analysis and evaluation of that image.
I’m no fringe-theorist. And I’ll say again, that the Germanist-theories are unsupported by the drawings in Beinecke MS 408.
Only one of the three crowns you mention has its original form and it is shameful that you are still not being told that there was a lengthy, detailed discussion published of that detail which showed plainly that it is no product of medieval Latin Christian art to 1440, and that the object held in the women’s outstretched hand was never meant as a Christian cross.
You may wonder why my name isn’t to be found in the seemingly comprehensive site over which Rene Zandbergen claims copyright. He removed my name from his site in 2017 when, finally exasperated by the degree of plagiarism, I closed Voynichimagery.
History is so often unpleasant, don’t you think?
John Sanders – Peter M. is clearly honest in his intentions. I assume we’re all wrong to some degree – else what purpose would there be in doing research? I become caustic about people who from less than honest motives maintain narratives which are demonstrably untrue, and who use less than honest means to obscure the fact that many of their constantly-repeated assertions are not true, a result of heavily biased sample selection, or of plagiarised material ‘given a twist’. Peter M. notes that designs maintained in Murano have pre-medieval origins. But has he been directed to the research which made that case? I don’t think so, because the person who explored that question doesn’t support the German theory. So he is given the ‘idea’ but not permitted to follow the argument and evidence in the original study. That’s become a hallmark of the Germanists, I’m sorry to say.
Joseph Z. Prof.
Don’t to me you too have fallen for the wallowing hard shelled Ninja turtle’s insistance that the pelvic measuring calipers be something else entirely? They can be readily identified on f80r by their delicate enveloping arms, protruding measure stick and manner in which the delivery nurse explains their purpose to the flighty slight framed pregnant nymph. That a 19th century obstetric pelvimiter might be mistaken for an imposing set of iron medieval birthing forceps…is beyond the pale.
Dear Diane,
just to be clear and factual, I removed your name from my site because, each time you changed your theory, you sent me an E-mail with the new text with which I was supposed to describe you and your work.
There also was no point in putting a link to any of your blogs, because you kept closing and hiding them, creating new ones, hiding these, etc.
John S. Ninja Turtles. Is wrong. Little kids write on ninja. And they write nonsense. Real scientists write on Nick. It’s nice here. Real researchers and educated scientists communicate here. Like you for example. Or me too. And other scientists. Nick Pelling, Diane, John Sanders, Darius, Peter M and other experienced scientists who have the necessary knowledge and professional qualifications. Which is clearly visible from the contributions here on the scientific website. So how do you write? It’s weak for a ninja. Many children who know very little write about ninja. Their research is weak. And one hundred percent useless.
But let’s get to the birthing forceps. As a scientist, I can tell you that they are not birth forceps. For the scientist to find out what the person is holding in his hand. It is important to read the text of the manuscript. I’ve been reading it normally for more than ten years. And that’s how I know it’s not birth forceps. So the pliers are wrong. The pliers can be seen there by Koen or some other kid on the ninja site. Maybe Rene and Davis can see the pincers too. I don’t know what René sees because he is retired. In the heat.
If you look at the picture John. Then you will see that one woman eats . He points to the eye. That’s important.
Let me explain:
English: Eye. (old Czech = F.o.co.). (V.o.c.o.). (Woco).
As I have already written to all scientists. Eliška’s ancestor. His name was Woco from Rožmberk. ( W.o.c.o. = W.o.k.o ) = O.ko. (English = eye).
Eliška writes in the text. That he was born. Another member of the family.
Woman holding in hand = V. ( W = Woko). Letter = V.
Eliška was as smart as a fox. And so she made the letter as two C’s.
( two c. = cc ). ( cabal. system . cc = 33. = 3+3 = 6 ).
Meaning : 6 = V,W,U,X. ( numerical value ).
So they are not birth forceps. It is important to read the text. Every scientist can surely see that the woman points to the eye. Eye.Eye.Eye.
The text is written in the Czech language. Eliška writes in the text who was born.
@Diane
That’s great if you’ve been asked to document drawings. Then you have to be able to explain why certain things are the way they are.
The German has nothing to do with Germanising, but it is there.
And all 3 crowns are identical.
The imperial crown is clear. What few people know is the second crown.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schloss_Rapperswil
And the third crown can be found in St. Stephen’s Cathedral in Vienna. It belonged to the progenitor of the Habsburgs.
For me they are clear, they hang on my doorstep, so to speak.
Now you have to ask yourself, what is the Babenberg coat of arms (Lower Austria) doing in Rapperswil and on the drawing of the Italian castle ?
Now you have to get a little smarter about history.
So it is to understand what German text in a Romance (Italian and Slavic) language area has to do with the battlements and crowns, and plants and the rest of the architectural drawings.
And the cross is just there, and it is the Latin one.
When specialists say that clothing and hair is also northern Italian, I believe that once, and it fits with the other data.
I have no intentions, I use what I see. It all fits together and I don’t need any interpretations.
Sorry….Wappen Babenberger. Today Austria.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babenberger
To put it bluntly, the coat of arms and the crown belong together like the chicken and the egg.
If you look closely, the coat of arms can also be seen here. And Rhaeto-Romanic is spoken here.
https://www.engadin.com/de/aktivitaeten-erlebnisse/schloss-tarasp
Peter – if someone only looks for German parallels, and isn’t particularly precise, then they only look at German parallels and it’s hardly surprising if they conclude that they’ve found what they’re looking for.
What one has to ask with the Germanist narratives is whether a form of crown used in Germany is *only* used in Germany, or if a kind of crossbow said by one person to be German has an alternative explanation, or whether more precise examples occur elsewhere.
The type of crown you mean (the one with the cross on top) has a history. It is found earliest in Byzantium; then was used in other parts of the Byzantine empire, including Spain, where it dropped the older side-pieces. So then, when creating a crown for his invention of a western Emperor, the crown which the Pope had made was – understandably – based on that original Byzantine christian crown. So yes it looks like the crown you mention – but not *only* that one.
Knowing the history of forms is part of the iconographic analyst’s work.
Similarly when you speak of a ‘nymph holding a Latin cross’ you cannot have been aware that it is not actually a Latin cross – look at it again. Also, though you’ll have to take my word for this if you don’t want to do the work yourself – there is absolutely no precedent, and no room in the thinking of the western Christian (or eastern Christian) iconographic traditions or the figure of a wholly unclothed female figure’s holding a cross at arm’s length. It’s not Barbara, or Magdalen. It’s not a Christian image, and not a Christian cross.
I try not to comment on the written text, because it’s not my field. But the same bad habits affect assertions about both.
I agree, and always have agreed, that there are a handful of drawings which (as I put it) ‘speak European’ and those are the ones always talked about. But they are a small proportion of the drawings. You say some buildings (presumably in the map) are ‘western architecture’. May I ask if you have ever looked at a broader range of examples than European ones? You say some have ‘steep roofs’ and that means snow… but snow doesn’t only fall in Germany, or only in Europe. So maybe it does indicate places where snow falls. Or – because it’s a drawing and not a building – it may be an habitual form of token by someone who learned to draw somewhere in Europe. If you look at medieval maps, have a look at how Arabs and Turks represent Rome, or how Latins represent Cairo or Baghdad.
Think how many words there are in the manuscript, and how many you think are some kind of German dialect. Then how many words appear to be in Old French.
They are a very small proportion of the whole.
There is no coat of arms in the manuscript. What you’ve done is to be content with what Germanists have said, and never thought to find out what they do not say. The ‘sins of omission’, one might say, are the great failing of the Germanist narratives. They can only be maintained by pretending there is no well-informed, thoroughly researched objections to that theory. Good scholarship presents you with the positive and the negative sides of a debate. Really, really bad scholarship behaves like propaganda, and is less concerned with what is true than in persuading people to believe. Wilfrid did the same. Janick and Tucker do the same. It has become a kind of habit in Voynich studies – one reason that scholars generally run a mile if you mention this manuscript.
Not because it’s problematic, but because it is riddled with theory fanatics. Not that I think you are one. I think you need to maintain a more objective and critical mindset, and check everything you read at sites maintained by someone with a theory to push.
All the best with your work.
Hi Rene. I’m glad you write too. It’s very good here. You say you removed Diane. So you might be thinking. As a true scientist, you must have discovered that there is currently a place on your blog. So instead of Diane. Write me there. Josef Zlatoděj prof and a link to the blog. Or Twitter. Or facebook.
Thank you and I wish you a lot of sunshine.
@Diane
I never claimed that the VM text is German. On the contrary, it is by no means German.
All references point to northern Venice in front. There are Tyrol, the Dolomites, Friuli, Crimea. These are also the lands that fall under the crowns. And therefore also under the coat of arms.
This is exactly where the Romance dialects are to be found. Nevertheless, it is an Italian and German-speaking area. This is what you see as the Latin-Romance on page 116.
The problem is the mixing of languages in the dialect in %.
So besides Latin, German, Italian and Slavic are also included. The linguists would have to know whether there are still remnants of Celtic.
The second problem is that there are virtually no written records in their language. This may also be due to the ban on using the dialect (ca. 1350) in order to promote Germanisation.
If you think that Arabic, Bizant and others are included, please do further research.
It was the Eskimo on a pilgrimage who wrote it. If no clues are valid for you, this answer is as good as all the others.
Good luck
Peter – I think we have a basic misunderstanding. I do not form opinions before doing research, but as a consequence of having done it.
My first phase of research into this particular manuscript was undertaken between 2008-2017, with summaries published of about a quarter of it. These were shared through Voynichimagery until 2017, after which – though I continue to investigate one and then another question, has not been open to the public.
Instead, I have been investigating publicly the reason why study of this one manuscript went off the rails as early as 1912 (or, more profoundly, from 1921).
Another aspect of that phenomenon is that Voynich studies persists a century later in the same curious and poor habits as those begun by WIlfrid.
One reason that not all, but a majority of Voynich writings become less-than-well-balanced is that a theorist faced with opposition typically resorts to talking rubbish or attempting to demean or deride the person who presents matter for which their pet theory cannot account.
In normal scholarship, one debates on the basis of relative weight and value of evidence.
You have never asked if I think the Voynich manuscript was written by Eskimos, so once more you are relying on fantasy and efforts at ridicule rather than understanding that debate is valid and a lifeblood of any serious field of study. The linguists and the cryptologists are content to debate. It is only the tinkerers who create quasi-historical narratives and who have no idea how to treat a drawing who behave in that way.
I would encourage you to leave aside such habits as suggesting that because I dispute much of the Germanist theories, my opinions are ‘lunatic fringe’ and involve Eskimos. When I first mentioned the European medieval trade-and-pilgrimage route to Egypt, I recall the effort made to suggest I must be a pyramidologist! I guess that theorists rely so heavily on imagination, and so little on ascertaining facts, that it becomes a habit.
Having a little snigger may bolster theorists’ sense of well-being, but hardly advances our understanding of Beinecke MS 408, nor improves the lamentably poor methodology generally seen in the ‘illustrated historical fiction’ sort of Voynich theory-spinning.
In fact, my conclusion was that the Voynich map received its final recension (prior to our present copy) between 1330-1350AD, and from a collaboration between Genoese and Jews. It occurred within the south-western Mediterranean, which environment is also indicated by such factors as the form of the ‘4’ shaped glyph, the inclusion of a crocodile as the November emblem, the ‘old French’ dialect for the month-names, and certain internal details within the map itself.
As I said, my opinions are not formed prior to doing the necessary investigations, but as their end result. They are not a result of cherry-picking bits to suit a theory, either.
A particular cartographer whose name I first brought to Voynich studies while explaining the map did leave Genoa to serve Venice. But what you will not find anywhere in medieval Venice is the sort of drawing filling the greater proportion of the map.
It is unfortunate that some Canadians decided to plagiarise so much of my work, but neglect to acknowledge the prior study, and also decided to leave out the most important part of my conclusions – namely that the Jewish-Genoese interaction which brought so much into that part of the lower Mediterranean had not gained it there.
When people try to create quasi-historical narratives, or invent ‘alternative’ versions as a means to plagiarise without being too plainly plagiaristic, it is not only the ethics, rules and standards of scholarship which they abandon, but any hope of presenting others – such as the linguists and cryptographers – with information on which those others can rely.
Voynich studies has a lousy reputation, partly because pushy theorists keep playing the “only-sane-boy-in-the-village” story, but more because the theoretical narratives which seem so plausible and internally-consistent can never survive scrutiny by external and objective specialists in medieval history or in iconographic analysis.
I suggest you spend more time thinking through what particular questions about the primary document you want to find answers for, and use external, independent sources in your research.
If you feel at a loss about where to start, you’ll find for each topic listed in my ‘Table of Contents’ page, under the linked post, some basic and well-respected sources to start people off who want to dig deeper into a particular question.
It’s why Voynichrevisionist has the sub-title ‘A Bibliography’.
Taxi at the door – I’m away on hols. D
@Diane
The Jews are a good subject. They have been here for so long and speak the languages and dialects just like us.
They have been persecuted forever and everything has been blamed on them.
Now it is quite possible that the VM text was written in (whatever) Judean.
History would confirm that, but yet I have found no reference to it in the VM where it would be confirmed.
Now I cannot work with it. Because now it is more of a lottery than research for me. Even if history says yes to it, for me it’s no.
Give me a hint from the VM and I’ll consider it.
I have been dealing with the plants for 10 years now. That’s how long it took to accept that they are not fantasy plants. But there are still some outliers. Here it is simply impossible to say what the artist wants to communicate.
Anyway, even though it has been 10 years, I could not find a name directly in the VM text.
I think this is due to the description itself.
In many books I have read, the plant is not in the foreground.
Mostly the sentence starts with. Now looking for a name somewhere in the text and a plant that has maybe 20 names is almost impossible.
10 years and still no progress.
Believe me, I am doing my job. Not the same as you, but thoroughly.
Of course the Eskimo is a joke as an example.
But with, I call it pseudo-science.
Just as an example.
The bishop’s see in Greenland was abandoned shortly before 1400.
Now the Eskimo was unemployed and had time for a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. As can be seen, the way led over the Alps.
As proof, one can look at the white parchment. It reminds him of ice and snow. If that were not the case, he would have used brown parchment.
Rule: An Eskimo never writes on brown parchment.
The evidence is overwhelming.
Let’s just take it as a 1 April joke where the date got lost.
So much emphasis on comparative studies! In my opinion it is wrong to think the scribes or illustrators had an “artistic freedom” to do or let as they liked to do, neither to bring in their habits and customs of regions they originated from. I think it was more like a contract for a New York architect to design a Squamish assembly hall (or Eskimo…). They got strict rules to abide for this contract work. I would not be surprised if they got a kind of lecture into these rules for the written and other composition.
Darius –
I agree with you entirely about the notion of ‘artistic freedom’ being an anachronism in treating drawings in Beinecke MS 408. Professional scribes learned to write in a variety of styles, and we have what could be called advertisements in which a scribe displays his range. What we describe as ‘artists’ were more like the old commercial graphic artists, who were so skilled that they could draw what a person wanted, in whatever style they wanted. At the same time, we can distinguish between works created in one or another part of the world, and one century or another.
Even more, we can follow the evolution and adaptation of images across centuries and through different cultural lenses.
Since locating a given image, or groups of images, is entirely a product of this ‘comparative study’ which permits us to locate a given item in a chronological and geographic ‘latitude and longitude’, and then because *meaning is context-dependent* read the image using the appropriate visual codes, that initial contextualisation by comparative studies is essential, but has scarcely ever been done, nor its necessity understood.
Since 1912, the majority of Voynich writers have continued some very basic errors first made by Wilfrid: presuming date of the final manuscript is the date for the contents’ first composition; presuming an all-Latin (western Christian) origin for everything; presuming that one need only pay attention to what can be read as compatible with some narrative while ignoring everything else etc.etc.
Differences in style and content are quite as important as perceived similarities; details for which NO counterpart is found in a proposed environment are arguable more important that those which seem to fit.
Above all, stylistics matter. After all, a cat-is-a-cat-is-a-cat. It is not what is drawn, but how it is drawn which allows us to say ‘This drawing of a cat was made in sixteenth century Japan; that one in Egypt during the second millennium BC; this one in late fifteenth century Germany..
And once you have recognised the implications of stylistics – what they tell us about where and when a given image or set of images were given form – that will assist the linguists work within an appropriate range, and let the manuscript tell us about itself, so that inventing quasi-historical tales will become unnecessary… one hopes.
@Diane
Beautifully said.
Diane, as for the general case I see it similarly. I agree with this: “presuming date of the final manuscript is (not) the date for the contents’ first composition”. You probably know, that I assume even a ~1400 years period between them.
But consider the broader comparative studies of the VMS, take e. g. the comparative palaeography (in a narrower sense as handwriting), which after all these years did not yield a credible conclusion about the hand – not about the region and very limited about the time period. Why is it so? The reason for that is, that the writing was subjected to rules, which deliberate brought it apart from the recognisable styles and methods – you can say, “they played by their own rules” or better “rules of their principals and sponsors”. I’ll write about that in my next document.
Darius – it is nice to know, after so many years, that I’m no longer the only person who attributes much of the content to so early a period.
About palaeographers – as far as I’m aware (correct me if I’m mistaken), there have been only three formally qualified palaeographers who have offered an opinion on the manuscript.
First was Salomon. The other two are Fagin-Davis and Bowern, both of whom spoke at the 2022 zoom conference. It was the first time (as far as I’ve seen) that Bowern had given an opinion about this manuscript.
Whether either of them has specialised in comparative studies, or both have focused only on western Christian hands was not entirely clear from that conference.
Diane, from what I know, the most significant assessments about VMS palaeography were made over 25 years ago.
Wasn’t it Nick who brought the humanist hand or even chancery hand back into memory by referencing Toresella and others, who (Toresella) investigated VMS in the context of herbal alchemy? However, despite being a comparative study par excellence, palaeography has failed to deliver any convincing material for comparison, if I am not mistaken.
Any normal thinking scientist. They have to think scientifically. And that is why the scientist knows that no paleographer will ever be able to decipher the manuscript. A paleographer knows very little to be successful in deciphering a manuscript. In order for any smart scientist to find out what is written in the text, he must read the text. The paleographer does not read the text and so his effort is futile and wrong. So the paleographer should devote himself to another activity. To research something else and not get involved in the manuscript. What you write. Applies to all paleoraphs. The paleographer has very little experience and has no professional prerequisites for this. To understand the text. So what can a paleographer investigate? He can’t research anything at all. But he can only write some nonsense. To be seen as a scientist in the eyes of the public. So the paleographer writes very long commentaries. But about nothing. He does not have the necessary education to decipher the text. So he always writes nonsense. But he’s trying. I know more such paleographers who write long posts, but they’re just useless nonsense about nothing. Not even a hundred paleographers will ever know what is written about in the manuscript. So the paleograph is useless.
The scientist should finally start using what’s around his neck. That is, your head and what is inside, i.e. the brain. Then the manuscript research finally moves forward.
The paleographer should rest, because the manuscript is beyond his capabilities.
Darius,
I have seen nothing written by Dr/Professor Toresella so what little I know is at second or third hand.
I gather that his area of interest is a group of western Christian medieval herbals and that his Voynich theory is (or was in the early 2000s) that the manuscript was the original creation of a sex-mad herbalist.
I find both theories untenable. First, that the western Christian herbals tradition to 1440 is well known and the stemmata well documented, as indeed John Tiltman knew, and said in his diplomatic way, more than half a century ago. It is telling, therefore, that though Toresella seems – from what others say – to have been interested in the manuscript for 20 years or so, that he has never produced a paper claiming to have located it within that very limited Latins’ herbal tradition.
What Toresella’s credentials might be as a palaeographer I have absolutely no idea.
As regards ‘alchemy’ it depends in what sense the term is meant, but when it comes to Alchemy with a capital ‘A’, people whose area of specialisation it is, and people whose area of specialisation is the history of alchemy-in-art agree there is nothing of that in the Voynich drawings.
Why Toresella is so elevated – and increasingly pushed to the fore – by Voynich traditionalists I really can’t say. I just don’t know. Perhaps it is as a result of his publishing papers that I’ve not come across or have never seen mentioned.
Have you been read any of his research-papers about the Voynich manuscript?
So I also looked at the research of one scientist who is currently retired. What he wrote to us new. And I wasn’t surprised. Its table 3. This is a unique crap. (Definition of families of the character of a hundred). Perhaps it is not possible that it was created by a scientist.
In this way, he will never solve the manuscript. Probably as old, he sees it wrong. For the letters.
I don’t know how to write it decently? It’s a great crap.
Every scientist should have a good eyesight. Quality eyes are necessary for manuscript research. Seeing well characters in the manuscript is very necessary. Without this, the scientist will wander a hundred years and write great stupidity.
Diane,
I am always interested in your posts, and my opinion of your “ways” has gone up in the last year or so. I think your ideas about “Wilfridism” are somewhat unusual. Most would probably understand by the standard narrative of the VMs that …well Wilfred Voynich was merely one person along its path that interacted with it. Your attribution that he and Friedman somehow sent us along a collision course of “unknowing” that we won’t ever recover from, is kinda weird. To each his or her own though. I think you kind of do represent sort of what I would call a “they” in Voynichology, and you would probably agree with me. You seem to feel from what you have expressed that you are a bit of a “renegade” albeit very much an insider establishment renegade. So I will humor you “insider” when are we going to have a solution of any sort to this conundrum? Being an Insider you have no doubt noticed that although so much has been presented to the researchers in the way of assistance, (I have never seen a University or research establishment grant such access to something) you guys still know *nothing*. If I were a pro, or a know-it-all in the area, which I am not, I would be, you know really embarressed by this. Are you?
Matt – I’m not sure why you put your comment and questions here instead of at my blog. It puts me in an awkward position, using comments to Nick’s blog to talk about things which have nothing to do with his post.
I think a chief reason that the study seems to go no-where is that some ideas which are taken, by most, as basic premises have no solid, foundational research as their basis but are merely part of the material transmitted from Wilfrid Voynich and thus Newbold and others of his time; then the weird offshoot begun by Hugh O’Neill, and given oxygen by Brumbaugh; and the assumptions which informed the Friedmans’ ideas (and therefore d’Imperio’s book).
If you ask yourself, ‘Why is the manuscript’s content presumed a product of western Christian culture?’ – the answer is ‘because WIlfrid-and-the-Friedmans presumed so. The notion that all plant-drawings come from manuscripts; that the only possible purpose for plant-drawings is to serve medicine; the assumption that all ‘herbals’ are European works… all these unfounded notions are adopted simply because the Eurocentricity of Wilfrid, the Friedmans and Brumbaugh were taken as if proven fact, when they were never anything but imagination.
People working on the written part of the text – linguists, statisticians etc – have sometimes queries the ‘all-western-Christian’ guess, but the people promoting semi-historical storylines have tended to be fixed on the idea of an all-western-Christian *origin* for both manufacture and contents and varied only in which small part of western Christian Europe they prefer. On the point of manufacture, I’d also think it most likely that a Latin oversaw the present manuscript’s manufacture.
Methodology has been lamentable, overall, and that’s a second reason the study fails to move forward, in my opinion. My area is iconographic analysis, and I think there has been a lot of ill-informed and over-confident mis-treatment of the drawings by people who seem to think their only purpose is to serve as clip-art for whatever storyline they want to promote.
When you combine over-reach with adoption of unproven first premises, arbitrarily narrow research parameters, and finally (in most Voynich arenas) positive hostility to any critique of the traditionalist position, it is hardly to be wondered at that most scholars recoil at the mention of this manuscript and that our understanding of it should progress so very, very slowly.
In my own opinion – from my own investigations – the manuscript was made to serve a peripatetic profession; its contents came from several distinct sources and some of those show evidence of chronological layers – or if you like, of evolution over time. The earliest layer I describe as Hellenistic, the second I should think probably 1st-3rdC AD, the next major recension probably mid-fourteenth century and then, of course, the early 15thC copying… and finally the last additions and then the undated marginalia.
That’s the drawings.
At what stage the present written text was first composed; at what stage it was written in ‘Voynichese’ glyphs; whether it is a text composed of nicely grammatical text in some standard orthography or not… I’m in no position to say.
What I’ve been trying to get through, for years, is that only a very few of the drawings are in the visual language of medieval western Christian art. The final manuscript may well have been made by Latins, but that’s not where the great majority of the drawings were made.
I’d be glad, in future, if you could put your questions to me by email or at Voynichrevisionist. It’s a bit embarrassing to be using Nick’s blog as a kind of pulpit.
I might add that it was only after having worked on the manuscript for four of five years that I realised the results were – rather to my surprise – far more nearly consistent with Baresch’s opinion (given to Kircher in 1635), and Panofsky’s (given to Nill in 1932), than anything in the rumour allegedly repeated to Marci by Mnishovsky.
I would just clarify. No scientist knows what is important. And a Jewish substitution. And of course the Czech language. Old Czech language. Which is different from today’s.
Although we have several universities working on the manuscript. They know the Czech language. But none of the scientists know the Jewish substitution.
There are more manuscripts written in a style like MS 408 across Europe. They are in England and Germany.
An example of a manuscript that is in German. And his name is Plowman from Bohemia (Ackermann aus Bohmen).
Example. Bodleian Library MS Ashmole 1511. University of Oxford.
These are just two manuscripts. But even scientists write nonsense about them. Because they don’t know.
Or the Soyga book. Scientists also fumble there because they don’t know.
Also a manuscript in Hungarian. Codex Rohonc. That’s what stupid scientists write about him too. Because they don’t know the Jewish substitution.
Of course, there are more manuscripts about which scientists write nonsense. When scientists don’t know, they say it’s a mystery. And that’s bad.
Diane, to clarify my previous post regarding Toresella’s assessment being ‘significant’. Someone who in the 90’s accurately placed the manuscript in a time period, which was later confirmed by carbon testing, deserves recognition. This is a rarity in the sea of the VMS ‘research’. I do not believe in claims that the VMS contains herbal alchemy, perhaps Toresella eventually saw it similar and chose not to publish any research papers on this topic.
Anyway, my sights are set on the future, not the past of the investigation. I believe that with help of appropriate software and new AI possibilities we can achieve a quick progress. I can soon come up with concrete results and will share them on the blog.
Diane,
Yes, I have read your blog and so know a lot about how you feel about things in general. I didn’t like to have to take this opportunity to act so harshly towards you because as I said I like you and your ideas have merit. We have been around this thing *together* on the record, at least in the comments section, so I know some of your ideas, biases etc. It could be you know a number of things I don’t about the provenance of the manuscript. One of the reasons for me being a tad dramatic is to try to shake the trees a little and bring things to the for, which some may keep to themselves(that is *everybody* who is interested, there are a lot of members in the “club”)’ knowingly or unknowingly. The VMs is an extraordinary thing!
Having read your blog I think you sometimes attribute to either malice or intent things that were *scholars essentially trying to wrap their heads around something kind of completely out of this world* .
I don’t believe there were as may people trying to angle it to whatever outcome they wanted, as you seem to. William Friedman seems particularly a lightning rod for criticism as a general concern I have noticed. Perhaps he could have treated people better. The end of the war was so paramount, I am not surprised if he was a little pushy. Its not for me to say. My family has lived in the DC area for a number of years. We had personal relations with some old schoolers. I’m guessing there are probably not more than a couple degrees of separation between me and Bill. No biggie. I never heard criticism until I started studying the VMs and then it was intense. It would be nice to know what he knew about provenance and such, not that he knew anything, haha.
Anyway hang in there. If you have some beefs with anyone, work better on your argumentation and present them coherently. I am not a eurocentric believer nor not one. Convince me.
Matt
Darius – the list of people whose assessment of the manuscript survived the radiocarbon-14 dating included Kraus and those another anonymous figures representing the ‘consensus’ reported by Kraus’ assistant in .. if I recall … 1963, and among those writing when the radiocarbon-14 range was published Philip Neal, Nick Pelling, Patrick Lockerby, myself and (I’m less sure of this last) Edith Sherwood. If Toresella had also agreed with a date pre-1440, that’s good but hardly remarkable since it was supported by that ‘consensus’ in the 1960s and later by the work done by each of those others I’ve mentioned.
It is a pity that – for whatever reason – the Beinecke cataloguer decided to make the issue so vague, and apparently to maintain a later date without any better reason than that Brumbaugh swallowed Hugh O’Neill’s ideas without testing their value.
D.N. O’Donovan: not so sure about Nick Pelling. Not if you go by his book it ain’t. his theory on Antonio Averlino not arriving on the scene til 1455 thereabouts. That right Nick?
John Sanders: as I recall, my dating back then was 1450-1465 (more strongly to 1455-1465), while Sergio Toresella’s dating was 1460-1480.
The broader point I’d make is that radiocarbon dating is rarely used in complete isolation from other dating evidence, and so I would caution that over-reliance on the narrow scientific output range would be a mistake.
I do not want to diminish anyone’s merits or advocate for anyone. I came across Toresella’s assessment in a comment by J. Reed. He wrote that Toresella believes the VMS is authentic and not a fake, and that it was manufactured in the period between 1450 – 1460. But still a good assessment of you, Nick.
The 1400s date was generally in the pipe before carbon dating was even done.
Except for a substantial minority who (like me) who thought otherwise. True. Stoners generally want to keep the really good thing they know they got for as long as they can, if they can haha. It seems unrelated I know though I did show images from the Voynich to my Sociology teacher at an unnamed Virginia university and he so “comically” asked if it had anything to do with cannabis. Not being an imbiber, and secure in that I laughingly told him no. What a jerk. This is the kind of stuff you will deal with if you try to do it by the numbers with a lot of these folks.
Nick: Given the pushback that I got on Ninja from suggesting that the Voynich could date from after 1430, I would say that you got off lightly with the criticism of your dating.
Mark Knowles: that sounds like a story that’s much more about stupidity and online pile-ons than about genuine appreciation of the limits of knowledge (both historical and scientific), i.e. more putdown than pushback.
Nick Pelling: Rene Zandenbergen’s inclusion of the well thumbed f68 VM Velum sliver, randomly selected (pull the other leg) that sealed the deal for Greg Hodgins’ 1404-1438 Carbon dating, would not have helped your ‘Curse of the Voynich book sales I take it!
John Sanders: I wrote Curse more to scratch a very complicated itch than to rival Dan Brown etc.
Many have relied on the dating by the blurred name of Tepenece, and the alleged price of 600 florins paid by Rudolf II, on the emergence of the on and around 1600.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jakub_Hor%C4%8Dick%C3%BD_z_Tepence
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_II._(HRR)
After the C-14 analysis, the opinions where relied more on the content of the images were confirmed.
But some simply could not break away from their theories.
Maybe Nick will get an email from the lab one day.
“Unfortunately, we accidentally mixed up the samples”.
Translated with http://www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
Peter M.
I expect Kraus and other competent specialists relied on palaeography and codicology to date and place the object’s manufacture. That’s the norm, and it has been sufficient to date and place tens of thousands of medieval manuscripts. In most cases, dating is offered to within 25 or 50 years. So 1400-1450 would be perfectly acceptable in the usual way.
I’ve never known why it was thought necessary to use the destructive radiocarbon-14 dating, especially when the number of samples was so small and the sampling-bias so extreme. However, it served to keep speculations within more reasonable limits. By the time that was done, many were roaming into the sixteenth and even the seventeenth centuries.
It is unfortunate that the task of dating and placing the object’s manufacture has *always* been conflated with dating and placing the manuscript’s contents. This has been so ever since Wilfrid Voynich imagined the whole thing the original creation of an ‘artist-author’ of western Christian culture.
That habit of supposing the content first created when the manuscript was made continues even now, though it is not a reasonable assumption at all, even if the written text was encrypted so late.
But speaking of decryption/translation – I wonder if anyone has seen an informed review (preferably by a specialist in medieval Galician) of Gladyseva’s claim to have translated the entire Voynich text?
We should not expect any manufacturing date surprises, as the colophon will confirm what is already known, narrowing it down to the last years of this time period
@ Diane
To keep it simple.
Alone what she did with the German text. Where actually good to read and understand, there are still the month names, where she mutilates as she just needs it.
One only needs to read it. Here example April.
https://digital.idiotikon.ch/idtkn/id1.htm#!page/10363/mode/1up
The aunt does not have all the bars in the fence.
And what Cheshire writes:
“The researcher assumes that Proto-Romance was widely spoken in the Middle Ages, but then lost because the common people could not write.”
If something is widespread, it doesn’t just disappear. It’s only 600 years, not 6000.
Further:
“According to his evaluation, the book contains information about medicinal plants, astrology, reproduction and child rearing. A Dominican nun had conceived the work for the women at the court of Mary of Castile, Queen of Aragon. It was written at Castello Aragonese, a fortress near the Italian island of Ischia.”
I could go on writing about the laughingstocks for hours now.
But it’s just getting too silly for me.
An owner proof is not an indication of age or author.
If two different opinions are possible, a technical proof was justified.
But from when was such a method only possible and also safe ?
If as an example, the plants were drawn first and then the text was added. That makes sense.
But now the person can look at the plant differently and describe other features that are important to him.
Although others have also described the same plant, the text still does not have to be the same. Therefore also no copy.
There are copies, and there are own interpretations even if the pictures are the same or similar.
Darius –
Nick’s reference to a colophon in his post of December 30th., 2022, says, in the first instance:
[quote] I’d note that f116r (the last proper Voynichese page of Q20) seems to have a structure break halfway down, which would be consistent with an explicit and/or a colophon placed at the end of a chapter / book [end quote]
and later
[quote]f116r: 10 x no-tail, followed by two large unstarred paragraphs (like a colophon) [quote]
It’s one thing for you to accept (and credit) Nick’s suggestion because it appeals to you. It’s quite another thing to repeat the observation, minus mention of the source, as if it were fact. It’s that very same habit which led to decades of erroneous assumptions in this study – Newbold’s speculation about ‘pharmacy jars’ or O’Neill’s speculation about New World plants, or d’Imperio’s musing that a detail in the Voynich map “is like a castle” are just three other examples.
By all means, say you concur *with Nick’s impression* that the passage “would be consistent with” an explicit or a colophon, but it is no more that a case of your liking that possibility. You can’t repeat Nick’s impressions minus his name, as if it needed no more than your adopting it to become a fact established and unarguable. There’s no body of evidence proving the case – and Nick himself doesn’t suggest his observation is more than that. It may eventually prove to be so, and I rather hope it will – but as yet it is Nick’s proposal, and not even his only proposal for that passage.
Peter M. First, thanks for being willing to engage in debate and exchange our points of view. For me, it is a rare pleasure.
Nick has now posted two more comments from you that I hadn’t seen. Thank you very much for sharing your views about Gladyseva’s effort to translate the Voynich text.
For myself, I wouldn’t find the month-names that much of a problem because there’s no evidence that they are written in the same dialect or language as either of the Currier ‘languages’. So – hypothetically – the main text might still be in Galician as she says even if she has misrepresented the month-names. I have no opinion because I nothing at all of medieval Galician.
You say the radiocarbon-14 dating useful because “two different opinions are possible” but it seems to me that opinions derived from solid research and experience are informed opinions and have due weight, where ideas formed in advance of research are ‘notions’ rather than opinions.
So as far as relative weight does, I’d rank Hugh O’Neill’s as featherweight because he clearly had no particular knowledge of medieval herbals, neither skill nor training in reading a medieval drawing, and he hadn’t so much as bothered to test whether or not the Columban documents refer to sunflowers. His ‘opinion’ was worthless. Had the drawing been one made in Europe during the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries, and by a botanist or at least an illusionist, he would have had more hope of getting it right.
Opinions offered between 1912 and the late 1970s reduce, on that basis, to a very few worthy to be called ‘an opinion’ rather than a ‘notion’ ‘speculation’ or ‘storyline’. I accept that cryptologists need to have their guesses precede investigation but even then, perhaps, such speculation may also result in sample-bias and flawed conclusions, mightn’t they?
Diane:
“Darius
on February 1, 2022 at 9:14 pm said:
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. Etc.”
Having all the facts is the first step towards a sound judgment – calm down, Diane. I can understand your anxiety about the merits of the past and years spent publishing articles, but the decisive revelations and publications are yet to come. You will understand this soon as reasoning is one of your assets. And the big project to decode and make the uncovered understandable to the public will only be possible by participation of many talented people like you and at the same time it will be a unique opportunity for those involved to have a share in a really big story.
Btw, I gave last year a kind of small evidence for this claim on this blog – unappreciated as usually.
Scientists are still confused. And they are still looking for some date of origin of the manuscript. every scientist will read at least twice what I write now. Of course, a scientist can read it ten times.
At the beginning of the manuscript. On page 1v. Is written :
I was born in 1466. I am Eliška. And I write in Czech.
The date is hidden in the plant. There are 14 green petals. There are six and six gold petals. (that’s a hidden date – 1466).
Every scientist. And even another quasi-scientist can certainly see two letter signs on the green leaf. ( letters J + T ).
Jewish substitution number 1 = a,i,j,q,y. Number 4 = t,m,d.
Green leaves = 14. (every scientist, historian, linguist and Jew or Catholic, Jesuit or even a scientist without faith must see this). If the scientist didn’t see it. Then it is obvious that he has bad eyesight. And he should go to the doctor.
I understand that scientists are confused. But nothing can be done. It is simply a fact that is clear. Like the sun that shines. It is a fact and a great proof. Which cannot be disputed by any scientist, historian, paleontog and cryptanalyst. That date is at the beginning of the manuscript.
I don’t understand what you keep trying for a hundred years. Date of creation of the manuscript? So you have it on page 1v. (She was born in 1466. Then she had to learn to write. It takes about ten years. According to what I read in the manuscript. So Eliška started writing the manuscript sometime around 1488. ).
Every scientist will look at the page where there is a dedication from Kraus.
And at the top right are some letters and numbers.
J.I.O.22
Read from the right. 22 O.I.J. This means = 22 Ž.I.J.
( English 22 I live ).
The name is written next. It is read from right to left.
elas3I ( substitution number 3 = c,g,s,l ). 3 is made as a heart. (Czech=S.r.d.c). Heart with reads = S.
Name = E.L.I.S.C.A. = Eliška = Elizabeth.
For Josef Zlatoděj Prof. a post from on March 17, 2023 at 12:25 am
Shouldn’t the text string: oPaSo8aie be read as oParo8aie ?
So not O.p.a.l.o.f.a.j.e but O.p.a.k.o.f.a.j.e ?
Nemá být text oPaSo8aie správně přečten jako oParo8aie ? Tedy O.p.a.k.o.f.a.j.e ?
@Darrell Standing. The picture shows the sun. But there are also visible – hands. So the word has multiple meanings. When I take – hands. That’s how you write with your hands. Then the meaning will be – z.p.i.s.o.f.a.j.e. (English – writes). Furthermore, there is the meaning – Zficofaje. (Zvíkov is a castle where Eliška was also) Zvíkova j.e.
There are many words in the manuscript that have multiple meanings. Context is very important. You can’t orient yourself by one word. The whole sentence is important.
to: Josef Zlatoděj Prof.
My question was whether the sign after oPa should be interpreted as R. That is, whether its meaning is not b,r,k? Where are the hands? When the sun is the center of the clock, the oPaSo8aie inscription is at the 9 o’clock position, the hands are between 11 and 12 o’clock?
Můj dotaz byl jestli znak za oPa se nemá interpretovat jako R. Tedy jestli jeho význam není b,r,k? Kde jsou ruce? Když je slunce střed hodin, nápis oPaSo8aie je na pozici 9, ruce jsou mezi 11 a 12 hodinou?
Darius
You write
“The last page is, naturally, a colophon”.
‘Colophon’ means more than ‘last page’. It means an inscription in which we’d expect to see something written along the lines of
‘I, the scribe … completed copying this work at the behest of…. on … (day) in …(year).
A bit of marginalia added at sometime-or-other is not a ‘colophon’ even if written on the last page.
I’m afraid that I must express myself badly, or else suppose you very kind because you have chosen to interpreted irritable comments as expressions of anxiety when, in fact, they are expressions of annoyance.
It would be best if you weighed your own preference for the colophon suggestion against the probable weight of those comments you have attributed to nobody as “The alphabet/code used here is different to the rest of VMS… ”etc.
What matters is not whether a person can use logic; it’s the solidity of the premises on which they erect their towers of logic.
You may not realise it, but that point made by the unnamed person is absolutely spot on. Not about the alphabet used (after all if an enciphered colophon can be added to a plaintext volume, the reciprocal is clearly possible), but the dating for the posited ‘colophon’ inscription.
If the hand is markedly different, or very much later etc., then it won’t be called a ‘colophon’.
You suggest that to support your intended great revelation, many people will be needed, including me.
I have to say that while I’m happy to work with peers, within our area of specialisation, I can see no point in joining any kind of Voynich think-tank. I’m not ant-minded; I feel that while honestly-shared research is valuable in any field of study, intellectual independence is diminished when the ant-hill model is applied. Others think differently, and Pelling is among those who have expressed willingness to serve as ‘an ant’. I don’t feel the same, and since I don’t do the work to benefit Voynicheros, I see little reason to lend my time to constructing some ultimate theoretical metropolis. Quite content with one cottage, the vine and the garden. (That’s a biblical and medieval trope btw).
So – who was your expert, and what exactly did he/she say about that colophon idea?
@DarrellStanding. There is no clock for that word. The sun is drawn there. ( o.P.a.S.o.8.a.i.e. ) = z.P.i.S.o.F.a.j.e. = writes.
or = o.p.a.l.o.f.a.j.e. = o.p.a.l.o.v.a.j.e = sunbathes.
The sun is shining and Eliška is sunbathing. The sign should therefore read = S. or = L. ( c.g.s.l )
I’m interested in. How a scientist sees a rosette. Which is on the top left. Where to paint = 37 months.
Thanks for your ideas.
@Diane
You’re right, the month names alone are not that important. We also don’t know if they didn’t come much later.
Here it is more important to look at what Alisa Gladyševa makes of them. Especially since the German text was written without mistakes and doesn’t really allow any interpretations of its own.
If she can’t do the simple things, I don’t see any reason to believe that she can do the complicated ones either.
Unfortunately, I have not found any other works by her where she directly addresses the VM text.
I only have this link. But maybe you have a better one about her work.
https://fundacionmenteclara.org.ar/revista/index.php/RCA/article/view/128
PDF in english.
@Diane
You’re right, the month names alone are not that important. We also don’t know if they didn’t come much later.
Here it is more important to look at what Alisa Gladyševa makes of them. Especially since the German text was written without mistakes and doesn’t really allow any interpretations of its own.
If she can’t do the simple things, I don’t see any reason to believe that she can do the complicated ones either.
Unfortunately, I have not found any other works by her where she directly addresses the VM text.
I only have this link. But maybe you have a better one about her work.
https://fundacionmenteclara.org.ar/revista/index.php/RCA/article/view/128
PDF in english.
or
https://fundacionmenteclara.org.ar/revista/index.php/RCA/article/view/128/242
to: Josef Zlatoděj Prof.
Eliza’s father died when he was 37 years old.
Peter,
We must differ about the importance of the month-names. Until some solid evidence is produced which shows the hand to be “much later”, I think we have to go with the evidence (first offered by Pelling and subsequently – and quite independently – by Don of Talahassee, that the month-names’ orthography is consistent with examples dating to the early 1400s. It is interesting, I think, that the evidence is found on astronomical instruments.
They are also most important because their assignment of month-to-emblem is another indication that theories of a northern origin are contra-indicated. When German comparisons are adduced for the calendar’s emblems, they have typically avoided mentioning that the month-assignment does not agree. For this there are two reasons: first that the kind of liturgical calendars normally cited relate to the agricultural year which, being shorter in the north, has e.g. harvest month earlier than its occurrence further south. The other reason that I consider them important, is that when after having identified some of the stars/asterisms/constellations referenced by the ‘ladies’, I found they agreed with the actual appearance of the night sky c.1400. I took the latitude as that of Egypt, partly to test whether it agreed with Baresch’s ideas, and partly to test whether they might reflect an intention to update the work done by Ptolemy in, or near, Alexandria.
I wonder what evidence might have been offered by persons hoping to have the calendar month-names (probably contemporary with manufacture) ignored in favour of marginalia that is certainly of later date – as I believe Salomon pointed out quite some time ago. He was certainly qualified, and sufficiently experienced, to offer an informed opinion about medieval German paleography.
Peter M.
I wasn’t quite clear when I said “I found they agreed with the actual appearance” – I should have expressed it more fully as “I found that the stars’ disposition agreed with the actual appearance of the night sky in the named month…” at the Latitude of Alexandria during the early 1400s.
I won’t insult you by explaining such things as precession or the consequences of changing latitude.
@Darrell Standing. Eliška’s father died at the age of 41.
So would otcosfical 37 or otcospalis 37 ?
@Diane
I didn’t deal much with the star part in the VM.
There was something that comes closest to me logically and to what is available.
Someone (unfortunately I can’t remember his name) described the possible sky at the beginning of spring in Bax.
I compared this with the VM picture and the starry sky (drawing Wiki).
That was it.
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=2226955240860451&set=gm.1965052226937902
I looked at what Gladieva wrote. He doesn’t write anything important. He writes nonsense there. He writes there about page 17 R. But he writes badly.
I will write what is written there.
m.a.l.P.i.s.v….a.l.l.o.v…b.v.o.z….etc.
Translation :
M.a.l ..P.i.s.u….a..s.l.o.v….R.ů.ž.o….etc.
English :
had writing and words..roses….
Second option :
He gave..writing…and..words….Roses…etc.
_________________________________________________________________
Otherwise, what is written on the page:
Eliška’s father was born from eye II. And he was born as 3 in order. Oldřich II of Rožmberk. (Eye II = Oldrich II of the Rose)
The red color is blood. Jan II was born. from Rožmberk. That was Eliška’s father.
As I already wrote to you. So all the Rožmberks were from Oka. (Woko from Rožmberk. He is the founder of the family).
The root is the foundation = Oldřich II of Rožmberk.
Flowers . They are 3. John II. was born third in line.
Of course, there is more to the text. But this is the main point of page 17.
Peter M.
A footnote re the number of persons who were left standing after the radiocarbon-14 dating.
I’ve just had my memory refreshed, and we must include Panofsky, because immediately after spending two hours with the manuscript, in 1932, he dated it to “1410-1420-1430”, as E.L.V (Mrs Voynich) reported soon after in a letter to Professor Thompson that is now in the Beinecke Library, and was in a file which the Library kindly copied for me a few years ago.
@Josef Zlatoděj Prof.
Růžice top left
Where to paint 37 months
The ant sees
mandorla with 37 crescents of the moon
Inside is the text
Is the correct translation: otcosfical or otcospalis ?
Diane: I believe t’was you who, back in 2013, when referring to Panofsky’s first dating attempt, he suggested post 1492; it being consistent with Columbus’ return to Spain from the Americas with his sunflower plant specimen. As we’re aware the young man changed his mind about this and other points including place of origin in years that followed but, I don’t recall his specific mention of 1410-20-30 for the SM dating. I’ll stand corrected if indeed you have better knowledge of such.
@Darrell Standing. There is no letter – M in that word.
The word is written = o.l.t.o.c.8.a.S.a.S.
The meaning is read from right to left.
Darell show me what you write. Give a link. I will have a look at it.
Diane, firstly, I would expect a slightly different colophon compared to the proposed one. Didn’t you suggest that the original material may be a compilation. Therefore, I would expect the colophon to include information such as: ‘This damnable collection, in the possession of [name], according to highly esteemed opinion of [name], is ascribed to [name]. It was in the hands of [name] + [name] + [name] in former centuries.’ Additionally, the two words in pure Voynichese, which I translate as ‘words of a goat brought to be burned,’ indicate that the material was considered heretical and that it was last in the possession of a high bishop, if not the highest bishop (the pope), as no one else should have the authority to give such an order. Finally, I would expect the title of this compilation, the title of the Voynich manuscript as for the scribes, to be included in the colophon.
That’s enough about the colophon for now. The rest of your post appears to be nitpicking about the word ‘colophon’ and a misunderstanding. I am only suggesting that my code is correct, supported by statistics, lexicography, and narrative coherence, as shown in my last two published documents. The method to produce ‘big data’ for statistical analysis by constraint satisfaction and the routines and scripts, which realise a kind of 𝛌-calculus, where the functional code (in my case the constraint clauses) is first generated during the evaluation, may not be understood by many, but it is something for people familiar with computer science. The statistical analysis is clear, repeatable, and leads to the findings for the most frequently used glyphs. As for the last document, I won’t comment, as it speaks for itself. However, I would recommend not responding to this post in a knee-jerk manner before reading my two last documents ‘Syntax of a Substitution Cipher’ and ‘Austere Rules’ to be found on my website.
To put it simply, my intention is to provide tools and demonstrate how other tools, like GPT, can be used for independent work that leads to concrete results based on sound premises. I would greatly appreciate an article from you that aligns your insightful image analysis with the revealed words. Anything else would not make sense in the long term. As an example, I would like to show it on the page 67v, but I will do so in a separate blog post as it is not related to 116v.
When I brought it up earlier in this thread “in the pipe”, for a 15th century dating, I was referring to Toresella mostly. I don’t know anything of what you speak Diane, though it makes sense.
Here is a Ciphermysteries post about Toresella:
https://ciphermysteries.com/2019/06/18/what-if-sergio-toresella-was-sort-of-right-all-along
In it Nick mentions, it as being a “post-1450” ID from him. Jim Reeds(Brother where art thou?) was a friend of Sergios. My memory from the list was that where it was heading. My own interest in question the dating is based on the fact that Robert Steele said the parchment was not out of the question as being from *Roger
Bacon’s* time. I figure if he would register his opinion in the matter, probably, if he did not see a conflict with the ink/handwriting/etc. My knowledge of Steele though is very incomplete. He was a British scholar is about all I know. Anyone know anything about him?
John Sanders,
In 1932 while he was in New York, the 40-yr old Professor Panofsky, already a respected specialist in medieval art and senior scholar at his university was asked by Anne Nill and Ethel Voynich if he would give an opinion on some drawings from the manuscript.
At first, he was shown black-and-white copies (made by a kind of early photo-copy method). He asked then to see the manuscript, which was in a bank vault, and spent two hours going through it. He gave his assessment to Anne Nill and Ethel Voynich (Wilfrid had already died).
Both of them soon gave written accounts of Panofsky’s opinion. It may have been in 2013 – not sure offhand – that Santacoloma very kindly went to a library in New York where Nill’s letters are and transcribed the one relating Panofsky’s comments. It was only some years later that I had the file from the Beinecke in which Ethel Voynich’s letter gives more precise information about Panofsky’s assessement of the manuscript’s dates. He also described the drawings as reflecting Arabic and Jewish influences and attributed the current manuscript to ‘Spain or somewhere southern’. It’s that letter which gives the dates 1410-1430.
Taking with him back to Germany a full photostat copy of the ms – with the aim of seekig Salomon’s opinion of the palaeography, Panofsky delivered it to S., and seems to have said nothing more about the ms for the next twenty years.
In 1944, O’Neill’s Columbus notion appeared in Print.
In the early 1950s, William Friedman pestered a mutual friend for an introduction to Professor Panofsky, now a refugee from Nazi Germany living in an America increasingly hysterical about ‘communist Jews’. Regardless of his actual position, Friedman’s apparent position was as a military ‘secret service’ sort of person, and it is understandable that Panofsky was not about to become involved in any cause celebres, including debate about the Vms. He also had friends of friends who were in delicate situations re Los Alamos. So, all in all, he decided to humour Friedman, and even to reply to F’s ridiculous questionnaire. He didn’t actually alter his dating, even then. What he said was that if it hadn’t been for O’Neill’s paper, he (Panofsky) would have dated the ms to c.1470. That was the document d’Imperio had, and some other communication sent to Tiltman in the late 50s or 60s where I think he was expressing resistance to pressure being put on him to agree to a sixteenth-century date. As it happens we first saw the worst account (d’Imperio’s) and only much later Anne Nill’s and finally I received the opy of Ethel’s 1932 letter. So it wasn’t Panofsky who changed his evaluation but me, because obviously the 1932 letters are the most valuable records of his opinion.
Hope that’s now fairly clear.
Matt,
Toresella saw what he thought were parallels between the images in a type of herbal which a man who collected them – a seventeenth century Italian named Aldrovandi – had called (no one knows why) ‘Herbals of the alchemists’.
Toresella rather arbitrarily rendered that as ‘alchemical herbals’, which is a rather different and more misleading title.
Philip Neal long ago pointed out that there’s nothing particularly alchemical about them; that they all contain the same list of plants and those plants have nothing to to with alchemy. I expect that at some stage, though, some Voynicheros will have tried to say that some images in the Vms show some/all of the same plants.
On another line – from about 2009 I did my best to explain to a Voynich audience that the way the plant-images are constructed does not accord with the usual conventions of western herbal images, and to direct them to Mary Carruthers’ land-mark book ‘The Book of Memory’ to explain why I read some elements in those drawings as mnemonics. The word ‘mnemonics’ is now tossed about a lot, but I’d be pleased and surprised if one in a hundred Voynicheros had read anything of Carruthers’ work. Instead, once the usual sniggers and guffaws subsided, someone noticed (a) a reference to Frances Yates’ book in d’Imperio – it’s actually irrelevant but ntw and (b) that Toresella’s idea could be revived by describing the very clunky and clumsy mnemonics in those drawings as ‘like’ the ones in the Vms, and so indirectly claiming that my introducing the topic of mnemonic devices was ‘nothing new’. The effect of that compounded ignorance, inappropriate ‘matches’ and failure to give a true account of this theme in Voynich writings was to lead everyone down the ‘Toresella’ path – which can lead no-where because while those ‘herbals of the alchemists’ show some understanding of the principle, the kind of information memorialised by the Vms’ beautifully elegant (in an intellectual sense) devices, and leaden, rather clunky efforts seen in western herbals of that type.
I have been informed, though whether it is so or not, I’m in no position to know, that Toresella was involved in that unfortunate attempt to invent what was to be sold as an ‘Official Voynich Herbal’ and involved some fantasy of a ‘Voynich Villa’ where women disported in Roman-style baths filled with herbs .. or something along the lines earlier imagined by Toresella. All rather odd, I thought. Especially since the form in which we have the drawings shows, overall, a determined effort to avoid prurience of the kind you see in most surviving copies of the Balneis Puteolanis.
(dear me, I seem to be acting like some Voynich agony aunt…)
Diane: I’ve never heard anything about an “Official Voynich Herbal”, and I would be extraordinarily surprised if such a nutty project were to have had any connection to Sergio Toresella. I was lucky enough to meet Sergio at his flat in Milan, and to talk with him for some hours about herbal manuscripts: I found him erudite, interesting, humble, insightful and super-smart. He had travelled the world to see herbal manuscripts first-hand, something which even now remains difficult.
Diane. Why do you constantly write: The authors rights are asserted? When there is nothing of quality in your blog. You keep changing what you wrote earlier. According to what you read here on John Pelling’s science blog. Your research on manuscript 408 seems somewhat pseudoscientific. You can teach some students in Australia. You can’t teach anyone here on John’s blog. There are no students here. Scientists write here. I’m sorry of course. But it is so. You have very long comments. But about nothing. Try to work harder and then it will surely be better. So far, your work is miserable. Try to do something about it. Above all, do not write in the blog anymore: The authors rights are asserted.
Every scientist has to laugh at that.
Diane, I will look for the book. The best many of us can do is repeat what we know
honestly, look for friendly faces, and not fail to take criticism, constructive or otherwise, into account when reviewing our own hypotheses. I do like you challenge of authority; perhaps if there is enough of it we will fumble our way to answers. Alchemy, now that’s a thing isn’t it. If there is a there, there I have yet to find it. I understand the basic goals, search for the Philosopher stone to a) Transmute lesser metals like iron to gold, and create life extending potions. How it held (or holds) together as an actual science, is very very mysterious. I think if you accept it on face value, humor it so to speak, its not absolutely impossible something of interest may emerge.Though, if someone can put into legible words what these ” alchemical herbals” of Toresella are you are a better man or woman than I. Memory devices for a small group of adherents? That will be a limiting factor to the understanding of scientists and historians at large, for sure.
Nick,
I guess you didn’t read the stream of posts by ‘Steve D’ in which he claimed to be working on a project for/with Edith Sherwood and certain others to produce the supposed ‘Official Voynich Herbal’.
My protests about the re-use and mis-use of my work, and that of certain others resulted in my receiving an email telling me that various important persons were directing this work and naming them. It was evidently intended to persuade me that if such important persons deigned to re-use the work of lesser men (with or without permission) then lesser personalities should not complain. I stopped complaining; I also stopped sharing my plant identifications and others followed suit.
Your portrait of Prof. Toresella is so warm and charming. As it happens, I’ve never come across mention of anything he might have published about the VMS If you have, I’d be very glad to have the references.
Josef.
Your impressions are ill-founded.
Matt,
Thanks for your kind comments. I would like to think that I don’t so much ‘challenge authority’ as, having tired of seeing my own contributions to this study pillaged, distorted and plagiarised, I now run voynichrevisionist to explore the reasons that Voynich studies seems so odd by comparison with the methods, ethics and knowledge of the world beyond it.
I guess I am challenging one and then another of the unfounded notions that have been so often repeated as to be mistaken for ‘authoritative’ pronouncements.
As far as I know, though, I remain the only person with qualifications and lengthy experience in iconographic analysis and comparative art-historical studies. To that extent maybe you could consider *my* statements on those topics authoritative. 😀
In fact, as far as I’m aware the majority of those who leap to read every post on voynichrevisionist are either scholars in some related field, or students of theirs to whom they’ve recommended the blog. Some of the series I’ve posted are the result of being asked a particular question.
@Matt
I see you are already seeing this with today’s eyes. Imagine you are in the 12th century.
I take fruit and squeeze it. Now I have juice. If I let it ferment, I get wine. If I wait longer, it turns into vinegar.
Now you have to know that wine can’t get above 18% alcohol, because the yeast would destroy itself. Sterilisation.
Now I have to distil the wine to get a higher alcohol value. Apart from the fact that it can no longer turn into vinegar, what a miracle it burns now.
If the high concentration of alcohol can be used as a disinfectant for wounds, it can be considered a life prolonger.
There are many of this kind. In the end, the transformation of substances is called alchemy.
Oil of roses.
Some signatures at the beginning and end of research will be a plant (+ )live. AD
It is written at the end of the manuscript. Pencil on the boards. Maybe Kraus wrote it.
There is one very interesting word in that text. The word is Czech.
(third line. r.o.s.t.l.i.n.o.u.). (English = plant). Why is the word Czech? And what is the correct meaning of that message. I will write to you.
The one who wrote it. so he found out. That the plants indicate the year. ( Date ). When someone was born or died. ( it shows a cross +. means he died ). AD means = Anale date ).
According to that, it seems that Kraus was a Jew. And he knew the substitution.
This is my contribution to scientists and of course to Diana. So that Diana would finally stop writing about the herbarium. So colleagues, write it down in your blog where you teach your students. Here on Nick’s blog you will learn a lot of information. Which of course you, dear colleague, do not know. Write in your blog that Kraus was Jewish and found out something about the manuscript himself. Write that you are the first in the world to discover it and that you therefore have all copyrights on your side.
If you don’t know what is written in the second paragraph, write me that you need help. And I will write to you colleagues what Kraus wrote in the second paragraph.
Des war’s! Der Hansl, der Bazi wars? Kruzifix!
Yes. Hans Peter Kraus was of Jewish origin. And an Austrian. After the Anschluss of Austria, he was deported to Dachau. From Dachau he got to Switzerland and then miraculously to Sweden. Then to America. Where he tinkered with old manuscripts. So what is on the plates in the manuscript was certainly written by him. Sign on the left. It is three letters. P.H.C. (C is K). And it is interesting that he knew Czech.
Born on October 12, 1907.
Josef,
Before asserting that my research imitates Nick’s, you should have asked Nick’s opinion on that.
If all Voynicheros maintained the same ethical standards as Dr.Pelling holds to, I shouldn’t need to assert my rights over the work I do. It is quite as much for that reason – his honourable treatment of others’ research – that I refer my readers to him, and to this blog knowing that if he decides to take up some original insight or conclusion he will NEVER pretend the work his own. No more do I.
Certainly, my research has led me, sometimes, to concur on some point or other and sometimes our lines of research have followed similar lines. But in my experience plagiarists often try to soften up the Voynich audience before another bout of imitation/plagiarism by asserting that what they wish to steal is common knowledge, or not original, or derived from the work of some other person whose name they prefer to attach to it. After more than a decade’s experience of such habits, your suddenly asserting that your cronies ‘laugh’ at seeing the usual assertion of intellectual property rights may raise a few eyebrows.
Nick’s research and mine does not reach identical conclusions about many things. It is not uniformity of opinion, but maintenance of methodological and ethical standards in research about which I trust that we still agree.
Diane: by constantly accusing others of plagiaring your work, when in fact you be the worst culpret, falsely claiming the work of others as being your own intellectual property sickens to the core . What’s worse, if anything is your sucking up to likes of Dr. Pelling in hope of garnering support and future leniencies no doubt, for your own persistent victimisation claims against voynicheros (my word) one and all..well all but Dr. Rich Santacoloma, which you will deny of course despite the evidence.
Wherever it is written about handwriting. I also read that the ex libris of the Jesuit Peter Jan Beckx is in the manuscript. I did not find any such exlibris. But I found this: Pencil written on boards. In the beginning.
De Ricci Ce?s?s of Dass.
I will explain. Sign ? = reversed letter -Z. ( Jewish substitution – number 7 = Z,O ). Now I will use substitution and the sentence will be:
M.e…Ř.í.šš.i…C.e.z.c….Z.l.o.F….M.á.š.š……etc.
English :
Me.. Empire..Czech…words…you have…..etc.
___________________________________________
So where is Beckx ????
Perhaps some scientist in the past saw the upper signs. J.I.O.22. And then somewhere he wrote that it was a date. When was Beckx 22 elected General of the Order of the Society of Jesus.
________________________________________________________
Diane don’t be mad. Copyright ??? That’s like a female researcher here. A certain I. Hanzíková. She also writes that she has it certified by a notary and that everything she wrote is her copyright.
At the same time, Irena writes big nonsense. She handwriting – feels. 🙂 He looks at the letters all week and then writes something. How can someone feel the letters and therefore the text? Only a fool can sense handwriting. Or a sick person.
@Josef Zlatoděj Prof.
Thanks for the help (o.l.t.o.c.8.a.S.a.S.). Is the 37 moon crescents mentioned a reference to the substitution used? That is, the “mandorla” is O, the lunar crescents are C, and their number, 37, means CO. Altogether, OCO. With the text inside, does it mean “Lisa plod co oco”?
I don’t have a link, maybe next time.
@Josef Zlatoděj Prof.
Díky za nápovědu. Je zmíněných 37 měsičních srpků odkaz na použitou substituci? Tedy, že ta “mandorla” je O, měsíční srpky jsou C, jejich počet, tedy 37, znamená CO. Dohromady pak OCO. S textem uvnitř to pak znamená česky “Lisa plod co oco”?
Link nemám, možná někdy příště
@DarrellStanding. You’re welcome. You can see that you are thinking. And that’s good. Here at the upper left rosette. It is important to know how Eliška spelled the word Moon. Eliška does not write Czech – m.ě.s.í.c. Elička writes – L.o.n.a. Which should confuse – L.u.n.a.
The word has multiple meanings.
1. L.u.n.a.
2. L.ů.n.a.
Eliška will draw – L.u.n.a. But the meaning is – L.ů.n.a.
The upper left rosette is. What women have between their legs. Pussy. And that pussy is her mother’s. 37 l.ů.n.a.
Based on that, you can calculate how old Eliška’s mother was.
It means everything. Anna Hlohovská. Eliška’s mother. So the mother was 37 years old. When she gave birth to the child Eliška.
Eliška was born in 1466 – 37 = year when Anna Hlohovská was born. 1429.
It is important to understand the word: L.ů.n.a. ( English. womb )
Eliška came out of the womb when her mother was 37 years old.
For example, if you look in other medieval manuscripts. For example, the manuscript – Bestiare. So there is a place – L.ů.n.a. …a cartoon elephant. (it says – s.l.o.n.a.). But it has the same meaning. It is always written about someone who was born there.
John,
It isn’t “Dr. Pelling”, nor is it “Dr. O’Donovan”, and they haven’t claimed these titles to my knowledge. I certainly haven’t about myself. Where their expertise comes from will need to remain a mystery I guess, I have wondered about it myself, though and have never been worried with Nick, and am no longer (much) with Diane. You don’t need a formal title for cred in this particular game.
Scholars have wondered in the past where the renown “Dr. John Dee”‘s title was granted, though he made such a strong impact on our landscape, they don’t worry about it for long. They believe he was made a Priest somewhere which would yield the title use “DR” back in the day. Take a look at his “library catalog” sometime. It matters little. It is pbenomenal.
Point being, she has contributed to the process. Understanding the idea of mnemonics and more or less “remnants” of magical or alchemical operations is really one of the best ways of understanding how they worked,along with iconographic analysis of course. I don’t claim to understand these things so I am interested in people who do, whether their claims are true or false. I think the VMs might be one of these things. That’s my story and I’m sticking by it. LUL
Diane fits the pattern of people I have done business with in the past fairly closely on the Voynich and adore. Mysterious? Check. Dubious? Check. Voynichero? Heck yeah.
@Darrell Standing. Yes, it is correct.
Lisa P.l.o.d.c.o. (Lisa Plod 37). Eliška fetus 37. In the womb.
oltoc8aSaS = SaSa 8cot lo = Lisa Plod 37. 🙂
@Josef Zlatoděj Prof.
Reading this, it occurs to me that “Kozl = Roz 3” is probably not because John II of Rosenberg was the third child of his parents in order (as the eighth E), but because he was the third ruler of the House of Rosenberg in order.
Is the green colour mentioned in the manuscript somehow related to the green Rose of Rosenberg?
@Josef Zlatoděj Prof.
Když to tak čtu, napadá mě, že “Kozl = Roz 3” asi není proto, že by byl Jan II z Rožmberka třetí dítě svých rodičů v pořadí (jako osmá E), ale že byl třetí vladař domu Rožmberského v pořadí.
Souvisí nějak zelená barva zmiňovaná v rukopise se zelenou rožmberskou růží?
Darell Standing. Definitely a green color. It is a green rose. The color of Rosenbergs. When Eliška writes about her father. So he also writes about him as the third. He was born as the 3rd in order. You think very well. And I like that.
Matt,
If you would care to get in touch with me, and give me details of any person whose work you think I have failed to credit accurately, I’ll be pleased to correct that error.
Deciding precedence is pretty simple really. You look at the date when research and conclusions were first issued in print or online. The person who first produced that work ( not bits of sky-gazing, vague speculations or ‘wouldn’t-it-be-funny-if’) has precedence. That’s why we speak of ‘Currier languages’ not ‘Friedman languages’ or ‘d’Imperio languages’ or ‘Zandbergen languages’ – those who come later are expected to acknowledge the original.
In the normal way, one doesn’t have to defend oneself against having the result of work co-opted, bastardised and arbitrarily re-assigned to cronies. because other scholars recognise and object to such mis-use. This doesn’t happen in the Voynich world.
About the Voynich manuscript, I there are relatively few points on which Pelling and I agree, but I know that he would not pretend to have introduced the theme of the cartes marine, Cresques’ Atlas, the use of mnemonic devices in the plant pictures, the matter of Greek influence, the maritime and overland routes and places, the history of trade and travel over those routes, evidence of pre-medieval precedents for some drawings, the influence of Manichaeism in a diagram of the elements (that they were ‘elements’, though, had been noted earlier and independently by Santacoloma).. nor any other of the matters which I have contributed to the study of this manuscript.
Nick doesn’t make a fuss about his higher degree. Nor do I. But from the moment Nick hosted my first paper here, Zandbergen has been obsessed with pushing his fantasy that I’m not entitled to mine.
Fact is, that anyone who has worked much in universities knows that before, as after, receiving a degree the honest man remains honest, the knave still a knave, and the fool not much improved. D
Matt – mnemonics – just to set things straight. I’ve never said they’re remnants of magical or other occult practice. I’ve found absolutely no evidence for occult ideas’ being expressed anywhere in the Voynich manuscript’s drawings. Mnemonics, both verbal and graphic, were part of an intellectual heritage and are to be found in many cultures other than the European. Curiously enough, the only instance I recall finding by a European hand in the Voynich plant-pictures was in folio 25v – the subject of my first Voynich essay in 2009. Just for the record.
Diane,
Make a fuss. I was honestly being nice. I have no reason to conclude you or Nick have any degrees whatsoever. Nick has never made the claim. He in fact made noise about maybe trying to eventually get one.
You both are Johnny come latelys to be honest. I think it bothers you more than it seems to bother Nick. You have spared no expense to slander every name that got to see the manuscript early on. Seems to be a little jealousy there. Since I am starting to think you are just a troll, perhaps you should quit while you are behind.
That’s an interesting word “bastardization”. The VMs is quite the bastard huh? Every time it changed ownership that process has “never” been accounted for correctly. Ever. Very weird.
You have no clue what it says. You have no clue who wrote it and you have no clue where it came from.
All you have personally are ideas that can best be describe as vague. Somehow you think you should be worshipped for this. No thanks.
Matt,
Nick has been involved in Voynich studies since the 1990s – quite as long as anyone else that I can think of who is still involved.
I understand he has a degree, though its possible I’m mistaken that it’s a doctorate. I remember that at some time some Voynichero was nosing about asking overly-personal details and that although I declined, Nick did say he had a formal degree in historical studies.
Of course, it was years ago (I’m not really a newcomer), so it’s possible I’ve mis-remembered.
Short story about my own contributions to the study – I published ongoing research summaries every couple of days from 2009 to 2017, with one year off.
Having expected normal scholarly ethics, I at first thought that the couple of persistent mis-users of the work were simply ignorant of how the critical sciences work. I tried to teach them; I tried to remonstrate. Finally I closed off the blog Voynichimagery after having worked through the manuscript, section by section, providing the usual scholarly apparatus for each blogpost report and a very long basic bibliography.
When I say it was well-received, every single post was downloaded and very likely printed off by someone-or-other at the European Space Agency, which of course was a feather.
Now I am re-visiting the history of Voynich studies to see why its methods and evolution has been so very peculiar and to illustrate ways in which earlier, and more recent approaches and ideas have been off-target.
As for ‘slandering’ people – If someone is a teacher, and you go around saying they haven’t got the relevant qualifications, or are incompetent, that’s slander. If you say it in print, it’s libel.
If someone steals your wallet, and you object to the theft and point out the thief, then that is not slander. It’s simple reporting of fact.
It would be slander if that thief then turned around and said that *you* were a thief from whom they had been running away.
Now, on the one hand, one commentator here asserts that in speaking well of a few Voynich writers’ ethics and methods (including Marco Ponzi, Nick Pelling, Jim Reeds, Nick Pelling etc), I’m ‘sucking up’ and on the other hand you object because I don’t rate … unnamed others… very high.
I might say that a major problem in the way Voynich research was going, after about 2010, was due to some amateurs’ inability to distinguish between objective , fact-based criticism of a theory, and snide ‘boys-in-the-back-room’ ad.hominem attacks.
Do you know that in fourteen years I have never received a single, factual, objective criticism of my research? And that, over precisely the same period, the attacks on my character, intelligence, formal qualifications, motivation and so forth have, quite literally *never* ceased.
I suggest, Matt, that you take some quiet time to think through what evidence you have for what you say.
And, as I’ve said, I’ll happily correct any errors of attribution which come to my notice. Just leave a note at Voynichrevisionist.
PS – Matt
“You have no clue what it says. You have no clue who wrote it and you have no clue where it came from.”
.. I’d be interested to hear your evidence and reasoning for that statement, or your reference if the opinion is second-hand.
Feel free to email me voynichimagery at gmail dot com
if you think it’s safe to do that and we might be able to have an interesting conversation about this medieval manuscript 😀
Diane. You write: It’s not difficult for an informed commentator to make a clear case against a medieval Latin origin for the great majority of the Voynich manuscripts drawings.
How did you come up with that, dear lady? How did you find out? you don’t have open irises. Dear colleague, Your irises are closed. I’m sorry of course. But what you wrote is stupid.
I will say this, the conversations on ciphermysteries are frequently much more lively than on Ninja.
Diane,
You have been around enough, and are a Voynichero, to know my diatribe (I think)
was not primarily aimed at you. My main villain would be the “idea” that someone in authority, secretly somewhere really *knows* what the Voynich says. Having followed it closely, and like you being a person of fair discernment, I have no reason to think this. Yes, it may be a little unsettling, but in my view, I haven’t seen the evidence that anyone has much certitude, not primarily you. Whenever we arrived, we both arrived and are here. Both obviously passionate in our views.
I am aware now you don’t perceive it to magical or alchemical. I honestly wasn’t saying it was. My own opinion of things to restate is I don’t know. I have considered many theories, and while I have narrowed them down in my own mind, I am still processing. For anyone who doesn’t know me. I know a thing or three. Enough to know if someone should try to sneak one buy. I also think its quite all right for new submissions of ideas from *anyone*. Some people don’t like this. Leave it to the experts. No sorry. If
any experts want to chime in… I’ll be here (or somewhere) waiting.
I do appreciate you going way outside the conventional view to speculate it might be from the Near East (?). I have a rough idea about your beliefs about the manuscript, maybe you could write a book in more detail about your ideas. I sort of like paper, not digital. Digital is okay, but it comes in an out of existence so easily. I like hardcopy. That being said, guys, save your digital if its all you have, with backup.
I really don’t think commenting here could amount to libel/slander, because we are somewhat anonymous, “strangers on a train”, so to speak. Nobody has read any lengthy books or documents by me. I have no website. I managed a meager A.S. degree though have been through the academic gauntlet enough that I appreciate all of our Voynich pioneers who *were* scholars with legit degrees one *must* remember and their families were no doubt very proud of them. This is not primarily aimed at you Diane. Other people should know better as well.
Mark Knowles
Voynich Ninja has turned turtle and is nothing but an empty medieval shell. Meanwhile you and Diane O’Donovan are most welcome to ‘view links and no need to REGISTER or LOG IN’ to visit or re visit, as the case my be, VM threads @ Cipher Mysteries, with its open unbiased and up to date social forum commentaries.
Josef,
If you care to discuss the manuscript, I am happy to do that. Your question isn’t very clear. You seem to be asking me to tell you, in a comment to this post what it took a number of years’ formal study, more years’ in practical experience, and several hundreds of posts to Voynichimagery to explain to my readers even in summary form with ‘further reading’ lists offered.
Besides, the series of posts you’re reading (and thank you for that) is about the peculiar history of this manuscript’s study, and why the traditionalist narrative began as one narrowly Eurocentric in the 1920s and has failed to keep up with subsequent advances in non-Voynich medieval studies.
Speaking of outmoded approaches – you may not realise that in modern English the phrase “my dear boy” is not so often used, even in Oxford, and I have never once heard an English or American scholar address a student, let alone a fellow scholar as “dear lady”. It’s the sort of thing politicians do as a way to avoid answering a difficult question; they try to assert superiority by reference to age, gender or ethnicity. Manners may be different in your own country, of course, but you may not realise how poor an impression you give of yourself if using such forms in an English-language comment.
Mark, I wish that were true. I’d love to find someone willing to keep to the subject of the manuscript, or even the history of its study. I have a mass of outstanding questions and debate-able issues that it would be a pleasure to discuss.
Voynich forums sink into silence as soon as one theory-group becomes dominant, and then having suppressed all others, takes their ball and goes home and/or goes dark. Not the first time.
In 2023, after a brief renaissance in the 1990s, the study as such is pretty much back where it was in the 1950s. Quite sad, really.
Dear Diane. Dear colleague. The discussion on whether Voynich is European or not is pointless. Every scientist should understand why. And a scientist of your caliber too. Of course I read what you write. I’m trying to figure out what your thought processes are. To get an overall picture of you. About what you know and what you don’t know. And he could make a qualitative assessment of how you learn. And because I’ve been following your efforts for twelve years. I know you are downright obsessed with researching the mysterious manuscript.
In your writing, the way you teach your students is very good. For example, how do you have a picture on your blog. Where a man sits on a throne. There are 3 people standing behind him. And a person with a book is kneeling in front.
And you explain it to the students very well. This is awesome and amazing. When you write there. The person on the throne is certainly the king. He has a crown on his head. Behind the king are 3 advisers. etc.
From how you explain it to the students very well. I also assumed you had some quality thoughts. And that you can clearly see what is painted in the picture.
But dear colleague. In my opinion, even a student who will have ten diopters in that picture will identify the King. Although it is possible that some retarded student would. Or the blind student couldn’t see.
I have been following your work for a long time. And so I know how your research developed. How did you slowly move from Asia to the Mediterranean? She started writing about Jews, Germany, etc. I think that in a few years you will get into the Czech Republic with research. It is very close from Germany.
Otherwise, I am addressed as “Dear lady”. He meant no harm. But if you don’t like it, I won’t write it.
Discussion on the topic where the manuscript originated. It is very useless. Where could Baroness Eliška of Rožmberk live?
Mind you, I normally read the manuscript.
Josef,
The primary evidence speaks to several regions and periods of time – or at least its drawings do. Overall, I’ve concluded that the great majority of that matter reached western Europe around 1330-1350 or so, and was copied much as we have it, and now with ‘antique’ emblems added to the calendar diagrams and a few other bits and pieces, giving us the early 15thC copies.
I’d say ‘south-western Mediterranean’ but Nick may well be right about the material being copied in Milan. An argument could be made on stylistic grounds for some of the plant-pictures, at least, being painted in a style that has been attested in a few pages from Udine and the Veneto, but they’re outliers anyway.
So I consider the material brought, as I’ve said, thanks to the close co-operation that occurred between Jews and Genoese throughout the fourteenth century.
It’s not a question of my focus ‘moving’ closer to Europe, but of following the material’s evidence of origins and of transmission from earlier and more distant origin to where the 15thC compilation was made. It has been humbling to realise how much reading, research and effort it has taken me to reach conclusions not greatly different from those it only took two hours for Panofsky to reach in 1932.
But I think it’s time for me to give Nick a rest from moderating my comments. Fare well and Happy Easter.
Mark, yes, Voynich Ninja is probably a more sober platform (and I emphasize probably)for Yale to issue its announcements and pronouncements. Lisa Davis has made a lot of progress with her ideas about multiple scribes involved with the manuscript, I will admit, so it has been useful.
Yale has however burned a lot of bridges with its own however, in order to maintain its international connection. It should be vigilant of ne’er do wells, who want to sneak in and wreck its “autonomy”, on a number of fronts I would say.
I wouldn’t ever have posted my feelings on Ninja, certainly.
Diane,
Hardly back to the 50s. In the 50s, hardly anyone knew about the manuscript. Next to nobody had any access to it.
Sure Diane. You are correct that there were many manuscripts that were copied. I am currently working on six manuscripts. Which clearly shows that they are copied from one primary book or manuscript. Rather according to the manuscript. And quite old at that. Apparently the information in the 6 manuscripts is the same. But scientists and world experts write wrongly about those manuscripts. It is clear to me that historians and linguists do not know what there is to know. For a well-educated historian to succeed. Every historian and linguist should realize that they should be able to write in the Middle Ages. And nobody knows that. They do not know the main thing that is necessary to understand the writing of ancient manuscripts. It’s just a disaster.
Well, because I’m a good Lucifer. So I try to bring a lot of light to everyone. Because the darkness that many scientists are in and of course you too. So it is very big. Therefore, I bring the light to finally shine in the heads of those scientists who are wandering in great darkness.
You, Diane, are writing about a certain Panovski, or whatever the person’s name is. I dont know that. You write that he figured it out in two hours. And what did the clever scientist come up with? He didn’t come up with anything at all. That he wrote something about Jews. Diane. During the time when the manuscript was written, many works and theories were created. But as I found out, they are all wrong. You’re probably wondering how I figured that out.
Manly two hours? That’s weak. When I looked at the manuscript, I figured out the encryption within 10 minutes. And since then I have been reading as it is written in the text.
As I have written here many times. The text of the manuscript reads: Czech words, write in Czech. My name is Eliška from Rožmberk. And I was born in 1466.
So what should every scientist do? Of course, the linguist, historian and other scientist studying the manuscript should also do this. First of all, everyone should come to terms with the fact that they will no longer be the first in the world. Who deciphers the manuscript. I hope you understand. Furthermore, the scientist should start learning the history of the Rožmberk family. Then
Then every scientist should focus on what the Jewish cipher is. I can tell you that it is a very complex cipher. For scientists in today’s universities, this is an insurmountable obstacle. So scientists know very little. And that’s why they write about the handwriting of stupidity at universities. I would include scientists such as historians and linguists of all categories in the group – they know very little. That’s my observation. Because I know the main actors from all over the world. I don’t care about ants. You write on ninja.
I’m interested in real scientists. Like you for example. Lisa, Nick, Rene, Santa coloma, John Sanders and several others from universities in Germany.
I wish you a nice Easter too. Although I, as a scientist, do not celebrate them. I have a holiday every day.
Matt
I have just seen your comment of April 6, 2023 at 10:52 pm .
Matt, I’ve had a constant difficulty getting across to Voynicheros that I really *do not* create theories, and I there are fewer than five times in fourteen years when I’ve waste readers’ time with speculations.
I’m very conventional scholar. And the reason I won’t enter any theory in the Voynich pageant of theories is that while pure theorising has its place in solving cryptographic problems, it is not a method appropriate for provenancing and reading pre-modern images. Every statement has to be the *end-result* of research: a research-conclusion with a checkable paper-trail for that research and due acknowledgement (of course) given precedents.
What I contributed to the study were just that – research-conclusions.
You speak about publishing in print. An academic press commissioned 2 vols of essays from me. The Board was delighted. The reviewers were both pleased and helpful. What first halted and scuppered the project was a fire that lost much of my library and academic files (including irreplaceable photos) but even more destructive had been the very determined and persistent pilfering of the research I’d published online and the equally determined assertion by certain figures in the Germanist camp that in Voynich studies the usual standards of honour did not apply – that to cite precedents was unnecessary and so on.
That sort of mis-appropriation was combined, just as determinedly, with relentless attacks on my character, motives, qualifications and much else. Someone whom I won’t name began acting almost as a stalker – phoning up and contacting any university with which I had ever been associated, no matter now briefly. I was put to the embarrassment of having to phone around myself, explaining that if they received requests for any information to refer the matter to me and/or simply say they had no information to offer the enquirer.
I’ve sometimes wished Nick hadn’t stopped reviewing new contributions to the study when he did. I don’t think his review would have been very positive, but in the process he might have put into the record that I’d introduced the theme of mnemonic devices in the plant pictures and explained how they worked there; that in my opinion the work was not by any single author; that I’d introduced material from the cartes marine (including the Atlas Catala); that I’d drawn attention to Asian elements in some of the drawings, and Greek influence in others; offered and explained the reasons for my identifications of about forty plants, had proven Newbold’s ‘pharma’ idea unfounded… and so on.
When one contributes time, effort and research-results to a scholarly project is a bit like donating to some charity. If you find that those managing the books are not able to do it well, if you’re not provided with a receipt and your name is retrospectively even wiped from the list of donors … then after a time it is only sensible to stop handing over money, and look for other ways to contribute to that good cause.
So I no longer share online any of my ongoing research into this manuscript, but instead began a blog whose aim is to see why study of this one manuscript doesn’t observe the normal processes, ethics and rules you find in regard to researching any other medieval product.
And now I really am going to stop commenting to this thread. It has been a pleasure to be recognised, though. Thankyou all.
Diane, well you certainly seem to have been up against it with your studies. I have a lot of free time currently, and had I been paying closer attention, would have noticed my comments were being sent deep in holy season, so having to do it again, I honestly might not have. If I made you sad, I am sorry.
Also, if you were studying anything other than the Voynich manuscript, I might be tempted to dismiss them. It is not at all out of the question that things proceeded as you say. We need to keep our eyes on the ball and move forward, and try to avoid entanglements with scholars we are vastly different from. That being said the maxim “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”, it can be a pretty good indicator though, especially with this thing.
I hope you and everyone have a lovely Easter.
Matt: my sentiments also. Good tidings to our so designated Voynich scholars of true Christian faith, non Gentiles and other beliefs. Happy Easter as well to average Jo Voynicheros with no preference and as such, short on any valid B408 opinions or ideas worth contemplating.
Matt – thank you for saying that. I think we have to distinguish between people who bring to bear on a relevant aspect of the study their existing experience and qualifications, as against hobbyists and people who work beyond those limits.
‘My studies’ – at least my formal studies – ended quite some time ago, replaced by professional experience. It was the combination of both which, I assumed, first led Adam to ask me to comment on some drawings from the manuscript.
I feel much as you do about the prevailing atmosphere. I certainly never expected anything of the kind, and was astounded when told in answer to my request about precedents for some topic which I might read that “citing precedents is unnecessary in Voynich studies” – and that in seeking to find, consult and then cite any precedents I was “out to make a name” for myself. Then, of course, the inevitable occasionally happened; in one case my exposition of a drawing (f.77r) came to conclusions that might be compared – fairly generally – to those of Santacoloma. In another (and I’ve still not been able to get clarity on this) some one, two or three (who knows?) of my plant identifications agreed more or less with the opinions offered earlier by someone else. Normally that would be a very helpful thing, with a manuscript so difficult, but instead of directing me before- or after the fact to that other?/earlier? work, the usual culprits made general noises about the work’s being ‘not new’ or ‘not original’ etc. Such things disenchant one with the ‘Voynich community’ and I’m merely one person among what I suppose are hundreds who’ve been hounded out or left in disgust. Just why the study of this single manuscript among the tens of thousands we have should have developed in so peculiar a fashion has become an interesting study in itself – hence the ironically-named ‘Voynichrevisionist’ blog.
Speaking of religion, Matt. Do you know the scholar who publishes videos at youtube under the title ‘Let’s Talk Religion?’ Really a first-class mind and after years of struggling to get solid information about the Is’maili’s, his exposition offered more. Same for his videos on early Christianity and its texts, which I could appreciate and recommend, even if much was familiar.
Diane: I might remind that your “….I really am going to stop commenting on this thread…” final post on this subject, lasted exactly two days. It shows therefore
that such words of finality coming from one with an ego such as yours (dear lady), aint wuth a tinker’s cuss!
A scientist should not panic. And study handwriting. Studying should be of high quality and without emotions. A scientist, historian, linguist and other researcher should not be disappointed. Even if a scientist works on a manuscript for, say, ten years without any good success. A researcher should have ten each. Or even more years to ask an important question. Why am I not successful in manuscript research?
If perhaps some world expert didn’t know. So it can be on me. And I will explain it to him.
In my opinion. If, for example, the code breaker Willam Friedman were still alive, he would certainly quickly understand what I wrote. He was smart.
Panofsky, even though he was Jewish, knew nothing about encryption.
Wish you all a happy Easter and a successful search for the Easter eggs.
Maybe someone will find the Egg of Columbus. 🙂
Josef,
Friedman might indeed have something to say about your solutions, if only to argue with you about it. He might also tell you to look around Prague to find things to support his artificial language theory. I am not sure what circumstances he thought this language was constructed under.
Peter,
I heard your speculations about Alchemy. Interesting. How long has “moonshining” been around? This is what we call it here in the states when it is done under the nose of authorities who want to tax those goods. I would need to know more about the history of alcohol if you think for instance that alchemy was mostly about that.
I’ve just surveyed the ninja forum’s ‘Blogosphere’ listings.
Only three independent voices of them all are still alive. Most stopped in the latter half of 2021.
The forum is pretty much dead having concurred into silence
So very sad. So unlike scholarship and research in the wider world’s critical sciences.
Or have they all gone to twitter?
Matt: The British Library would be my first choice for evidence of Friedman’s so called artificial language, albeit one with a Czech flavour to it. Prague itself might also provide support for the ancient roots of early writing forms, so must not be overlooked. Joseph Z. would have covered these angles yet is still vigilant I’d say.
Diane: I think I told you that very recently that most Voynich Ninjas have given up their claims to anything remotely reminiscent of B408 or relating to your ideas on Scholarship, research and critical mass applied sciences whatever. Instead they’ve turned turtle completely, opting for more progressive sports like sword swallowing.
@Matt
Unfortunately I have only just seen your question.
The best place to look is in the history of distillation.
As always, Wiki is not bad with its summary.
As you can read, the medical application is not as old as you might think. Before that, it was rather wines. fermented juices.
The picture shows an old vodka distillation. I put this roughly in line with the baths in the VM.
Why: The baths are also connected with pipes, and who would like to bathe in someone else’s old bath water.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destillation#cite_note-3
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%BCchlein_von_den_ausgebrannten_W%C3%A4ssern
The same applies to other drawings. Here I see a similarity to internal organs. (Someone once wrote about this, but I can’t remember who).
Here, too, was the time of the car option. First performed in Italy in about 1360 with the consent of the Pope. I think it was in Bergamo.
Later, in the 1500s it was taught at several universities.
Both are similar in time. Hence my view.
John,
I know you said it. I don’t know what led you to think it so. ? Did they all give notice saying ‘I give up’ or ‘I’m sick of this’? Did some cry “let all like-minded theorist come along and found a new Jonestown in which there shall be no dissent, nor debate but all work together?” What are your reasons?
Diane,
Mysteries like VM and Somerton Man can only keep people interested for so long and in both case folks have devoted far too much time examining the histories and adapting these to more developed latter day methodology for resolution. Turns out all the early confidence for a 15th century provinance turns out to have been over relied upon especially in terms of accepted hearsay testimonials and dare I say it, ill conceived and data deficient C14 dating. My own position on both cases was to start at the begining follow my untainted feelings and to make a logic based assessment on how each mystery developed and how best to identify in each, the most obvious easily proved flaws. As for VM, it proved to be the easy one and I had no problems at exposing it for the imposter that it be; alas my efforts to convince the experts of my case synopsis is awaiting reply but now I doubt that will happen. As for Somerton Man, that’s a different story altogether. Simply put, the case itself has become a cause celebre based on essentially nothing much more than a case where prolonged inability by police to identify a dead man on a beach nor to come up with a positive cause of death. Things got out of control initially due to bad local press coverage with photos of the deceased. Most folks would have thought not much of it at the time, a not infrequent ocurrence at all going by similar chronicled deaths, most often cases of self destruction, in a city like Adelaide.. I don’t need to tell you but the SM case gained a cult following in the past decade. Now with some recent possibly related DNA matching coming to light the case has been virtually re invented to a new level of distraction and denial by vested interests taking control. At the end of the day, once die hard Ninja’s forlorn hopes of a favourable outcome are warning get out while they still have some pride as nothing else is in the offing. Conversely over at Somerton Man central there is still much excitement within the ranks of likely lads and lasses, all maintaining a spirit of savoir-faire; but invariably being led off in all the wrong directions. This can only point to a joint finale such as the sad tales of Voynich Ninja and that of the Somerton Man impossible dream. Then we can all take a Bex, make a strong relaxing cuppa and have a bloody good lie down, what?
reading from Dr. Damschen in 2016:
f116v.1: + árchiton óla dabás / + multás / + #e + cárcere + pórtas + // M(ater)
f116v.2: sis + maris + moris + vis + ahia + ma+ria +
“You, vessel, gave (us) the ruler and many doors out of the dungeon. Be the mother of mankind, the power for morality, holy Mary. “
John, Thanks for taking my question seriously and answering it with specifics.