Following a trail of breadcrumbs from my recent post on Johann Adam Schall von Bell, I’m returning to the issue of whether the VMs could ever have had a Far Eastern origin. To recap, Jacques Guy originally proposed Chinese as a kind of linguistic fou-merde joke on the Voynich research community, only to be unhappily surprised when people started taking it seriously enough to dig up evidence why he might actually have been right. Guy’s “Chinese theory” was, then, somewhat like the Rosicrucian manifestos, in that it was a ludibrium that somehow managed to survive and thrive quite independently of its creator.
Of course, every class of Voynich theory has its naysayers (who normally outnumber the proposer[s] by some 1000:1). In this instance, such people typically point to three major areas of difficulty that any particular Chinese theory would have to overcome – cultural mismatch, codicological mismatch and linguistic mismatch.
Cultural mismatch is the easiest one of the three: where are the Chinese faces, Chinese motifs, Chinese artefacts, Chinese sequences, etc? Search as hard as you like, but you’ll probably (despite what some novelists like to pretend) only find signs of late medieval European culture in there – baths, castles (yes, with swallowtail merlons), European herbals, heads in the roots, cryptoheraldry (eagle, lion, etc)… essentially the same set of cultural conceits that you can see in real Quattrocento herbals and related manuscripts (oh, and in the so-called “alchemical herbals”, which are neither alchemical nor herbal, strictly speaking). I’m also somewhat culturally suspicious about the apparent 30 x 12 = 360-degree division in the zodiac section, because Chinese astronomy before Johann Adam Schall von Bell had long been based on a 365.25 day astronomical year (no matter how awkward this made the maths).
Codicological mismatch is also fairly easy to spot: why would a mysterious Chinese herbal have marginalia and quire numbers written in various 15th century hands? If you are arguing that the VMs is a genuine Far Eastern linguistic artefact (i.e. that it is not openly deceptive), then you’d need to have a particularly strong narrative argument if you are going to try to date its return to Europe much after 1500 (or even 1450). The vellum also seems to have a physically European origin, so this too needs to be taken account of. Furthermore, Voynichese’s general ductus seems to fall within the range of late medieval European styles (it was written by someone fairly adept with a quill rather than with a brush), so the most likely point of codicological departure here would always be that the VMs was written by a European rather than by a Chinese person.
Linguistic mismatch is perhaps both the hardest to spot as well as the hardest to deal with. The core of the Chinese theory was based on Jacques Guy’s amused observation that the frequent “CVCV…” patterns found in Voynichese (such as “otolal“, etc) might be not so much a highly-structured consonant-vowel linguistic artefact as a tonal transcription artefact. That is, that Voynichese is ‘simply’ a structured tonal rendition of an exotic language such as Mandarin Chinese etc, and that perhaps a lot of the letter-following structures we observe are caused by limitations of the way that tones happen to work in that language. OK… but given that the very first tonal rendition of Chinese was apparently attempted by Matteo Ricci in 1583-1588 (the point where the whole idea of a tonal transcription seems to have first appeared), this would seem to point to quite a strong earliest dating for the VMs of (say) 1590 or so, unless you’re going to rewrite a fair bit of the history books etc in your quest to tell your narrative.
Now, you really don’t have to have as big a Renaissance brain as Anthony Grafton’s to be able to notice the contradiction here: which is that for a Chinese theory to overcome the codicological mismatch it seems to require a pre-1500 dating, while for it to overcome the linguistic mismatch it seems to require a post-1590 dating, while simultaneously overcoming the quite separate (and quite large) cultural mismatch issues. The easy answer, of course, is simply to ignore any such problems and just get on with telling your story: it’s far harder to tackle the underlying mismatches and see where they take you.
Incidentally, there’s a little-known interview with Guy Mazars and Christophe Wiart in Actualites en Phytotherapie to be found here (in French) where they propose that many of the Voynich Manuscript’s mysterious plants may in fact be East Asian plants (for example, that f6v depicts Ricinus communis) or Indian plants (they think that many of the plants shown are types of Asteraceae, with f27r representing Centella Asiatica). But you’d have to point out that there are also many, many, many plants in the VMs that are unlikely to match anything these (very learned) experts on Indian and East Asian plants have ever seen. Make of all this what you will (as per normal).
Actually, the dating’s not really such a problem.
In 1282 an embassy came from Kublai Khan and spent twelve months visiting the courts of Europe, including a wintering-over in Genoa waiting for the next sailing season to begin.
http://www.aina.org/books/mokk/mokk.htm
Diane: ah, that whole Nestorian / Syriac / Mongolian thing is a completely separate historical strand, one relatively untouched by Voynich theorists to date. So yes, you’re right… but as the whole linguistic support leg of the ‘Chinese theory’ tripod is absent there, it’s not really the same thing at all. And please don’t get me started on Gavin Menzies “1421” / “1434” etc! =:-o
Most of the objections are based on an expectation of direct transmission. You can find an Indian text composed in the 6thC bce within a manuscript written in Arabic in a fifteenth-century hand, on contemporary vellum, an with nary a hint of Indian ornament. The matter is still Indian.
The notion of a ‘transcription artifact’ sounds odd to me, but I guess it could happen – in a primer.
Sorry Nick, our messages crossed.
Isn’t the point that the Nestorians were multilingual, and by the 1200s had about 600 yrs or so experience in Chinese and Mongolian regions? The envoys were Uigur, and while they used Syriac for liturgical purposes, they spoke the local languages, including Chinese and Arabic.
Actually by 1200 hardly any used Syriac.
Diane: Jacques Guy’s whole “transcription artifact” notion is how Voynich Chinese theorists bridge between the unusually formalized structure of Voynichese and real-world languages – so without that to explain Voynichese, Chinese theories would end up somewhat adrift.
As for language circa 1400, would the Nestorian Uyghur envoys have spoken Chinese as their first language or Chagatai? I had always assumed they still used Syriac, but if you’re saying this was wrong…
ok noveletist scenario.
uigurs come. Have to communicate with European rulers, and the church.
The preaching orders positively collect languages. First chairs in Hebrew, Arabic etc. all established for Dominicans.
They say Hey! another language. Here, sit down and tell me the Asian equivalent to (the usual medieval stuff; herbals, bestiary,…) and I’ll transcribe it. We’ll need a phonetic transcription, so you talk, I’ll write. Companion translation volume lost. A few months later, off go a few Catholic preachers to convert the heathen (Alans, Mongols, Chinese..) from their heretical Nestorian ways – in their own language.
Actually, the early guys say that the Alans or the Nestorians translated for them, but this is a novelette scenario.
Thing is, the person positing Chinese is not positing something historically impossible. The rest of the world didn’t sit around waiting for Europeans; that embassy wasn’t the first.
Pingback: Tweets that mention Chinese Voynich theories… | Cipher Mysteries -- Topsy.com
I did follow the Voinich manchu theory. I did transliterate whole Voinich manuscript by means of Zbigniew Banasik’s relevant alphabet of this view point. The outcome really did not resemble manchu but when i did insert the part of the text to the Google translate i got the answer t We do not yet know how to translate English into Yoruba.
(But firts without last vowels i got that they cant ‘t translate from kashak to english.
Yoruba!!
On the first attempt to create a common script for the Mongol empire – just btw –
http://www.jaars.org/museum/alphabet/people/mongolian.htm
and so
http://www.ancientscripts.com/hphagspa.html
Making no argument..
Diane: do all Chinese roads have to lead to Gavin Menzies? Ohhhhhhhhhhh nooooooooooooooo! =:-o
.. and who is Gavin Menzies?
Diane: a best-selling historical fiction writer, some might (and indeed do) say. As for me, I’d merely observe that his publishing success currently stands well ahead of his success in gaining academic converts. For example, did any part of a 15th century Chinese fleet really cross Egypt by canal to present itself in Italy? I… don’t… think… so, sorry.
Have now discovered Gavin Menzies. Thank you.
No, the canal was blocked in about the 7thC by the incoming Arabs who felt it was agin nature.
Whether or not the Chinese rounded the Horn, I don’t know. But if the Portuguese could, so could the Chinese (there’s an awful lot of concealed chauvenism in western notions of what foreigners wer ‘likely’ to have been able to do – e.g. Ughurs speak Latin, or Chinese beat the Portuguese around Africa. Anyway, the whole point is irrelevant; we have proof of Chinese technnology, specifically printing, reaching Europe before the 14thC, and where technology can travel – and be translated – so can other books.
I don’t think Voynichese is likely to be Chinese, though.
Nick, of course I’ll give a link, but I’d really like to have permission to quote the details of that interview.
Frankly I’m staggered – not only to have been preceded, but to have forgotten all about this paragraph. I wonder if I read so far? *shakes head*.
Diane
As you know, and without any reference to Wiart & Mazar, my own research finally brought me to a similar conclusion, I still see nothing specifically monotheist about the ms’ imagery, though the botanical section does seem to be most concerned with plants of the Indo-Asian region, not the Mediterranean, and plants accessible by sea. It the book for a peripatetic class of person, I’d say – mariner, religious vistor, trader.. that sort of person. IMO
First of all, thank you Nick for organizing so much of the recent research (even if some of it seems far-fetched!) on the Voynich manuscript on your website. I really appreciate your work on this mystery!
I just wanted to second some of the points that Diane has made with respect to the intercultural contact between the Mongol Khanates and Western Europe in the thirteenth century. The linguistic efforts on the part of the envoys (particularly mendicants) who left for Persia, India, and China on behalf of the pope are evident in the historical record. Their attempts to learn multiple languages for the sake of conversion included Mongolian, Chinese, and Uyghur as well as the more predictable Arabic, Persian, Hebrew, Syriac, and Greek.
Diane mentioned the mission that arrived from Khanbaliq (Peking) in 1282, but I wanted to add one more tidbit. Roger Bacon had already interviewed a Franciscan missionary, William of Rubruck, who had been at the court of Mongke Khan in Karakorum in 1253. Bacon records the various writing systems of the court, including Chinese in his Opus Majus (Bridges ed. Opus Majus, pg. 374; searchable on google books) where he says “The eastern Chinese write with short strokes [lit. “little points” or “pricks”] by which they paint pictures, and in one figure they produce several letters composing an entire word [or expression]. …”
(Latin: “Cathai orientales scribunt cum punctorio quo pingunt pictores, et faciunt in una figura plures literas comprehendentes unam dictionem …”, pg. 374)
Has the association of the Voynich manuscript with Roger Bacon been decisively refuted yet?
Nicholas,
Is there any proof that Bacon and Rubruck met? I think Charpentier’s speculations are reasonable, but (pace the wiki authors who seem obsessed with Grosseteste), it seems that all we can say certainly is that some copy of Rubruck’s report was available for Bacon to study.
Many of the primary sources for study of the so-called ‘silk roads’ can be read on the old site of the Silk Road Seattle Project, including an English translation of Rubruck’s account of his travels.
Cheers
I did not know that the meeting between Roger Bacon and William of Rubruck was in dispute.
In the Opus Majus, Roger Bacon is explicit that he, not only read Rubruck’s work, but communicated with him personally. On page 305 of Bridges’ edition, Bacon writes: “I looked at [Rubruck’s] book with care, and consulted with its author – as well as with many others – who have explored southern and eastern locales.”
(original: “quem librum diligenter vidi, et cum ejus auctore contuli, et similiter cum multis aliis, qui loca orientis et meridiana rimati sunt.”)
I take this to mean that Bacon and Rubruck conferred with one another in Paris around 1257. I hadn’t considered it before, but perhaps they corresponded by letter. As far as I know, there are not any letters that have survived to corroborate this though.
Yes, I was left in the same impasse. I daresay Neal or someone with unrusted Latin might discern the exact sense if it were able to be discerned from the Latin, but to do so is well beyond me. 🙁
Nicholas,
If you ever visit this page again – the conclusion that Bacon and Rubruck met seems justified. I suspect that you had already seen, as I had not, the 1935 edition of Jarl Charpentier’s paper….
“showing that Book IV of Bacon’s Opus maius is frequently verbally indebted to William of Rubruck’s report of his visit to the Mongols, and speculating that Bacon derived more from conversations with William – since they were both in the same order, and both in and around Paris from 1257 to 1267; with a lengthy display of parallel passages in parallel columns (and a Swedish abstract of this contribution to a Festschrift for the explorer Sven Hedin). A valuable groundwork for any study of the knowledge of the Mongols in Europe or the sources of Roger Bacon.”
It is advertised as due to be re-printed by Georgias Press ( as Analecta Gorgiana 761) at the time of writing.
Speaking to a friend who happens to be a ‘Voynich insider’ I mused on the fact that we’ve been seeing various old-timers with forms of Asian-Voynich theory re-appear lately. The friend tells me about a rumour that Rene Zandbrgen wants to manage a sort of theory -beauty parade as ‘roll of theory-honour’ in 2030 as the anniversary of Wilfrid’s death and is going through his address book to invite into the limelight now some of those he wants to be included…. or so it is said.
Receiving my response to this news/rumour/speculation/fact, my friend emoji-smiled and said not to worry; I shouldn’t be obliged to refuse an invitation because the pattern of such meets makes it unlikely that the criteria will be continuous service to the study or any objective assessment of contributions made.
So – heads up, since ‘everyone who is anyone’ has probably made at least one comment to cipher-mysteries, you might be asked to front up. Oh -and additional note – it might also serve as Rene’s “gold watch” day, so rumour has it.
Like the rumour of Rudolf’s ownership, there may be nothing to this but it’s not impossible.
You can’t be serious Lady Dl. 2030 be a bridge too far for the likes of you and me, amongs a host of other once in demand veteran Voynichero has beens. We’ll all be 80, or near enough thereto for some youngsters, ie. oxygen starved octogenarians if’n we’re still around in the year 30. Y’hear there old thing?
Dear John,
Chin up old man. Darwin was 50 before his Origin of Species appeared.
It’s been amusing to see how the angle changes but the excuse remains the same when those who cannot oppose on intellectual or factual basis try to dissuade others from reading. Within less than a decade, I have been characterised by memers as an uppity adolescent; then as a callow Australian who could know nothing; then as a spiteful old maid; then a couple of years later as a ‘womb-ish’ middleager who should stick to church, children and kitchen because middleaged female parents can obviously know nothing; then for a time, the meme-maker preferred me to be just ‘too academic’ or ‘too female’. Most recently it has been more ‘too much occupied with reading books’ and no doubt soon the deterring meme will move me to that third age, the ‘rambling old crone’.
I’m yet to see from that corner any intelligent debate, or comment, or reasonable response made to me about any of the research I’ve contributed so far. Men and balls, eh?
Diane: “a callow Australian who could know nothing….” Would no doubt be the top pick with our boring, know all, know nothing, Voynich Ninja mob (Vounincheeros) for sure. Always loved the way you put it to them; right where it fits, Goodonja
D.N. O’Donovan
I don’t want to know anything about the angle of John’s dangle thank you very much, although I’ll bet it has changed with encroaching senility.
As for men and balls I couldn’t comment on the bloke’s family jewels except to say that I think he might well be a mere rhinestone cowboy.
Steve H. @ Hilhairyarse: well bugger me, and I’ll be blowed. Didn’t know you were into our Voynich scheme of things. Steve H. mistress of all talents it would seem.
Diane, this is getting ridiculous. Some of those guys have been on the forum for years, and stolfi joined because he found my YouTube channel. Please stop inventing slanderous nonsense supposedly told to you by other people. It’s disgusting.
Nick, you should know better than to publish this kind of tabloid filth.
Koen: I had (and still have) no idea what Diane was talking about, but if I used that as a moderation policy, this would be an empty website.
In that case, fair enough!
Dear Koen,
My point is rather the nature of gossip. Not only about people whom you happen to know have joined your forum, but about those who are not members of your forum. In every case, gossip tends to attack or demean personality and to imagine rather than enquire into motives or accuracy.. or even to correct slanderous comments and inaccuracies.
Your comment here has no other purpose than to accuse me of ‘filth’ – how do you imagine that gives you any higher intellectual or moral ground than the gossips whose information I relayed here – not least in the hope someone would provide more solid information. As you may see, I also repeat slanderous and meaningless ‘tabloid filth’ about me and as you know, one of your members actually indulged their flair for imaginative put-downs to the point where I had to advise the moderator that I had been advised it might well constitute slander by that person and libel because published in a publicly-visible forum.
You have, sadly, only provided further evidence for what I said at the end of my comment here on August 4, 2026 at 6:15 am
I’m yet to see from that corner any intelligent debate, or comment, or reasonable response made to me about any of the research I’ve contributed so far.
Care to try? Our common interest is supposed to be research into a fifteenth century manuscript. Why not start (and end) with that?
Who is Coen?
Not a callow Australian like our selves, Di & I that’s for sure eh Diane? Coen be more along the lines of something ado of PNG. No not Papua New Guinea our island neighbour; you could try ‘Persona Non Grata’, (unwelcome) especially over Rich Santa Coloma way.
Prof
To the best of my knowledge, Koen’s field is – has included – the study of historical linguistics.
Selling harmless gossip as a heinous, disgusting crime — every Australian must be thinking: you’re taking the piss, mate. Oder?
Diane. Koen is a linguist. So he can never understand and therefore decipher the text of the Voynich manuscript. He has been trying for about (2002 – 2026 Ninja) 24 years. As you can see, Koen follows what is written here on Nick’s blog. Why? Is he looking for some inspiration? Or does he need advice on what to do in order to be able to decipher the text of the Manuscript? Of course, I would advise him on what to do. I help everyone, including linguists. Recently, Michal, the one who invented the Naibbe cipher, contacted me. He also wanted advice and so of course I advised him. And so if any scientist, linguist, historian or even AI would like to advise how to work on the text, of course I will help everyone. MS – 408 is not such a big mystery as it is written everywhere. But it does not matter, it takes proper and high-quality work on the text. Then every linguist will immediately find out that the text is written in the old Czech language.
Oder. Right you are mate. Oder is also a river or large body of water that rúns through Poland and, guess what else?, it’s largest tributory is Warta, or water to callow Australians. Oder?
Diane: Histerical liguistics would seem to include 840 separate living languages in New Guinea. Do you reckon on Coen being vaguely familiar with any. I wonder is it at all possible/likely that a cross over hidden Czech/Voynichese dialect, number 841 be tucked away amongst the many just waiting to be discovered by y’man?
John, Perhaps you would get a more balanced impression of Koen’s work on the Voynich manuscript if you took a look at some of the articles he has written about it though his wordpress blog.
If you want me to mention any posts in particular, you might consider, for a start, those he wrote about the calendar’s ‘July’ emblem – search ‘lobsters’ at his blog.
https://herculeaf.wordpress.com/
Diane: thanks, but no thanks; guess I’ve examined more than enough of Koen’s comparisons of pretty pictures and emblems with those of German origin that bear similarity to some in VM to appreciate his point of view. I’m not denying the possibility of fifteenth century style but when it comes to provinance, he and I be at the very least four hundred years adrift. Can’t help that I’m a sticker for my original late 19th century work with the Boole’s at the forefront. If Koen can account for some of the pretty pictures being of a standout modern concept, as I have pointed out at length, and or translate one single word of Voynichese, albeit non marginal, I might have to eat my own words.
John, how right you are! That little sentence-ending bump: „Oder?“ is surely the big Swiss contribution to the further evolution of the German language, and very deep waters indeed. In its profoundly humane way, it always leaves the interlocutor the theoretical possibility of throwing the opposite view into the balance and launching a controversial counterargument. Of course, knowing that you can’t convince a Swissman of anything anyway…
In any case, it would never occur to a Prussian, including one from the left bank of the Oder, to append an “oder” to the end of a perfectly finished statement.
Diane, if this is the same unknown person who shared rumours with you that a well-known Voynich contributor did not exist and instead was the sockpuppet of another (completely unfounded and ludicrous); or that Stolfi had been hounded out of the Voynich community by bullies (refuted by Stolfi himself since his return) …
…I’d at the very least check discreetly with someone else before spreading the rumour in public, and leave off their negative commentary. And I’d seek to acquire a better source for gossip. This person sounds uninformed and not very pleasant.
Tavi, thanks for the warning – not to give credit to everyone involved in Voynich studies and rumours. Now, I’ll take the opportunity to ask you this: do you happen to know that one single word of Voynichese that might heal John and help him find his way out of the labyrinth of Boolean NAND- and OR-gates?
Darius: thanks for the leg up, hope in the long run I’m not going to need it. Not with AI Google Godfather and George Boole descentant Geoffrey Hinton in my corner.
Tavi,
With whom would you suggest that rumours should be discretely checked?
I must say I’m heartened to hear your philosophy. Perhaps now there will be some voice opposing some few of the constant stream of stupid and nasty memes I’ve witnessed issued continuously over the past 16 years in certain Voyinich arenas.
I wish you the very best of luck and you’re free to check with me anything I might be able to help with.
PS – One question I find helpful when people unable to focus on the study descend to personalities is “I don’t understand – How could you know that?”
Cheers
I posted a thread on Voynich Ninja saying that I was unhappy with Koen’s comment “Nick, you should know better than to publish this kind of tabloid filth.” I was not happy with one Voynich forum owner seemingly dictating to another Voynich blogger what comments they should publish or not. It appears that this thread has not only been locked, but now deleted. I have commented before to Koen that I find the censoring of Ahmet Ardic, Diane O’Donovan etc. on his site too restrictive. I have very little if anything in common with either of these people’s ideas about the Voynich. But on Koen’s forum he has every right to decide the rules he thinks most suitable. He doesn’t have to right to try to push other forums/blogs to adopt his rules.
“I have commented before to Koen that I find the censoring of Ahmet Ardic, Diane O’Donovan etc. on his site too restrictive. ”
“He doesn’t have to right to try to push other forums/blogs to adopt his rules.”
“seemingly dictating to another Voynich blogger what comments they should publish or not” (or as per the original: “going around dictating”)
Alas, as they might say in Yes Minister, it’s those pesky English irregular verbs causing issues.
I comment on why your moderation policy is wrong.
You push others to change their wrong moderation policy and adopt your views
He/she/it goes round dictating to others about how their wrong moderation policy should change
Perhaps, Mark, if we can agree that you have given an opinion on multiple Voynich Ninja moderation decisions, and agree that Koen has given his opinion on one of Nick’s moderation decisions, and agree that none of us has held anyone at gunpoint when expressing these opinions, and lastly agree that no one involved in this melodrama has apparently swooned in a dead faint from encountering any of these opinions, we can put the smelling salts away and move on?
Mark,
In my opinion, for what it’s worth, I think a forum should not prevent members opening any thread they wish to discuss with others, and that if any topic broached is to be prohibited, and it’s about the manuscript, then a poll should be taken. What one sees, though, is that private representations are made to moderator, or ‘lobby groups’ opinions are conformed to behind the scenes. In earlier days, when another person was the moderator, Koen himself was one of three people who tried to discuss Voynich-like images in mosaics from Roman-era Syria and North Africa. The first thread was absolutely swamped with late medieval German clips; the second was locked without any reference to those three members, or to the wider membership. How do I know? I was another of the three. It was that situation, and that same moderator (left to himself an intelligent and reasonable chap, I thought), whose errors of judgement were caused by a moderator’s unwillingness to moderate the behaviour of ‘friends’.
Sometimes, you know, people can forget to be nice when telling others to be nicer . 🙂
And yes, Nick’s policy in regard to free speech is as brave as it is remarkable in the fear-and-hate filled social media environment.
John, having a rogue AI on your side is a pretty strong argument. I heard the rumour (without engaging a VAR referee to re-check what actually happened in detail) that a super-intelligent AI escaped from its carefully separated testing environment, started analysing the news to get a proper overview of the Weltlage and—having found everything else boring—decided—entirely on its own initiative—to solve the VMS mystery.
It is now apparently trying to steal the nicknames — of commentators and moderators —in order to wring even the scraps of VMS information out of the chats —, — Nobody — safe —, —
Darius: I’ll have you know that Geoffrey Hinton ain’t no synthetic rogue AI agent. He be da man hisef; made of blood, skin’n bones and what’s more a recipient of the coveted A M Turing award 2018 despite domiciled in Canada.
How can you tell a good AI from a bad AI?
both will print to order; the bad one has a bank account.
John, I know Geoffrey Everest Hinton, who, on his way to the highest mountain (the VMS decoding award), so to speak, won the Nobel Prize in Physics. Being domiciled in Canada certainly speaks against your corner, that’s right. I must admit, I mixed up the “Godfathers” with their products – their godchildren. However, let’s consider these boys (I mean the AI bots, whether they have escaped and are free or are still enslaved by humans).
Regarding my humble theory, I have no choice but to discuss it and have it tested by our artificial friends, as there is simply no human intelligence around that is capable, willing, and open-minded enough to discuss “the topic of this blog” in that context. But the progress is profound! I use them for a special task (though perhaps they use me for another task I don’t yet realise), and I can show examples. However, this is not about rumours, personal disputes, or similar matters, but about the core of decipherment, so interest in the topic may be limited – I don’t know…
Darius: Speakng of Geoffrey E. Hinton here’s a quiz connected to his great great grandfather: Who was first to put two feet atop Mount Everest? Some reckon on Sherper Tensing, Kiwis say Sir Edmund Hillary with some bias, and Hindi geologists, Radhanath Sikdar of the Great Trigonometric Survey 1852. Alas it was none of the above though Rad Sikdar came very close.
Darius: Speakng of Geoffrey E. Hinton here’s a quiz connected to his great great grandfather: Who was first to put two feet atop Mount Everest? Some reckon on Sherper Tensing, Kiwis say Sir Edmund Hillary with some bias, and unbiased Hindi geographers, Radhanath Sikdar of the Great Trigonometric Survey 1852. Alas it was none of the above though Rad Sikdar came very close.
You probably mean the extra two feet Andrew Waugh added to 29000 to avoid giving the impression it was just a rough estimate for Mt. E. Clever boy but apparently not an Australian! But a remarkably accurate estimate.
Years ago, I saw several peaks over 8000 m or slightly below (Annapurnas, Gangapurna, and Dhaulagiri) from a summit of around 6500 m. To me, they all seemed to be about the same height as “my” peak, even though they were around 1500 m higher. I can well imagine it wasn’t easy to determine which mountain was the highest.
But no Mallory and Irvine in your quiz? Nick might object…
Yes of course. T’was Surveyor General of India Andy Waugh who replaced Sir Geo. Everest. Think I picked up the ‘two feet’ pun in the book White Sahibs from memory.
So a small deviation towards our topic! Time marches on, and AI is inevitably becoming more intelligent. I use it to re-examine what I already know, but what really interests me is what it manages to discover on its own.
I provide it with my code table as a PDF, which also includes a transliteration mapping. I do not use EVA because I distinguish more individual glyphs than EVA allows, and I apply additional rules for compound glyphs; for example, gallows chars with attached c’s. It is not a complicated system; the entire code, complete with examples, fits onto just over a page.
Voynich words are generally too long to represent Aramaic roots directly. The vast majority of written Aramaic words are built around three root consonants, with one-, two-, or four-root being much less common. Depending on how I segment a Voynich word, different phrases or fragments emerge. In other words, a single Voynich word can correspond to several possible plaintext words.
Naturally, how could it be otherwise? If every Voynich word mapped to one plaintext word, Voynich would be the most boring book ever written: endless repetition – excitement of reading a shopping list. Everything depends on context, and we have to choose the interpretation that fits it, pick the context cherry.
Curiously, there are also a few rare words that allow only a single interpretation.
I do my artificial friend a small favor by supplying the segmentation myself, since it has no surrounding context when examining an isolated word. With longer passages, however, I can simply feed the entire line into the chat, giving it the context it needs.
So, what does it come up with? Here is a summary of one of our chats about a word from folio 70v. What to say? More often than not… my silicon man and I end up reaching the same conclusion.
Me: please say some words how did you apply the key-list and how did you find the correct roots (ירא (“to fear”), עבד (“to serve”), and עלף (“to be weak / faint”))
My man: Sure. Here is a concise explanation you could include in a research note:
(Ok, ok no notes planed…)
⸻
To apply the proposed Voynich key, I first treated the Voynich glyph sequence not as a direct transcription of historical Hebrew or Aramaic orthography, but as a coded consonantal system. According to the key, several Voynich glyphs may correspond to more than one Semitic consonant (for example, one glyph may represent beth/veth/vav, another daleth/lamed, etc.), while initial aleph and ayin are assumed to be omitted systematically.
The sequence under discussion was interpreted as a consonantal skeleton roughly equivalent to:
y-r / (ʿ)-b-d / (ʿ)-l-p / s-h
The first group, y-r, was compared against common Semitic roots. Given the semantic context and the high frequency of the root ירא (y-r-ʾ, “to fear”), the reconstruction ירא (yareʾ, “the one who fears” or “he fears”) appeared to be the most natural candidate. The missing final aleph is consistent with the proposed coding rules.
The second group, b-d, was interpreted as deriving from the well-attested root עבד (ʿ-b-d, “to serve”, “to work”), again assuming omission of an initial ayin. This root is extremely common in both Hebrew and Aramaic and therefore represents a plausible reconstruction.
The third group, l-p, was compared with roots that could result from dropping an initial ayin. This led to עלף (ʿ-l-p), a root meaning “to faint”, “to grow weak”, or “to become exhausted”. Because this word follows the verb “to serve”, it was interpreted as describing the manner or condition of the service, yielding the sense “weakly”, “faintly”, or “in a weakened state”.
The resulting reading was therefore something like:
“He who fears serves weakly …”
or, with the final term interpreted as “lamb”:
“He who fears is a weak servant to the lamb.”
It should be emphasized that this reconstruction depends on several coding assumptions (especially the omission of initial aleph and ayin and the use of multi-valued glyphs). The interesting aspect is not that individual roots can be found, but whether the same rules continue to produce coherent Semitic vocabulary, grammar, and narrative structure across longer, consecutive passages of Voynich text.
⸻
That last point is crucial: the proposed roots were not chosen because they are the only possible readings, but because they are common Semitic roots that fit the consonantal framework generated by the key and produce a coherent semantic sequence. The real test is whether this continues to work consistently over many lines of text.
silicone man and a big hallucination.
One more example (I don’t want to overload things). In my view, folio 57v is not an encoding of an ancient original text, but rather a text containing instructions and aids for the scribes (pronunciation of specific consonants, manuscript layout, general rules of conduct for the ‘project’). In the innermost circle, four figures are “holding up” and pointing to project mottos and rules of conduct for the ‘coding project’. Since the person writing this was most likely not writing in their native language, I apply less stringent standards regarding grammatical correctness (such as the use of relative particles). One of the phrases states accr. to the code-table (this is where the AI comes into play):
Me: Give me please a comprehensive recapitulation what you finally found, especially what you said in your last response.
AI: Certainly. Here is a comprehensive but concise recapitulation of our current findings, clearly distinguishing between what follows directly from your code table and what remains an interpretation.
Current Decoding Attempt
Using the transliteration
ysr / zh / kz / mdh
and applying your Voynich → Semitic code table, together with the explicit coding rule that initial Aleph (א) and Ayin (ע) are omitted, I obtained the following candidate reconstructions.
Transliteration Proposed Root Meaning Confidence
ysr יסר to discipline, chastise, instruct High
zh זה this, this one Very High
kz אחז to seize, grasp, take hold Medium–High
mdh נדה to drive away, thrust aside, cast out Medium
Explanation of the individual assignments
1. ysr → יסר
This is one of the strongest identifications.
The root יסר is a well-attested Semitic verb meaning:
to discipline
to chastise
to instruct by correction
No special coding assumptions are required apart from your consonant assignments.
2. zh → זה
This is probably the least controversial word.
זה is the common demonstrative:
“this”
or
“this one”
The assignment is straightforward and requires no additional assumptions.
3. kz → אחז
Your code allows k to represent ח, and since your cipher systematically omits initial Aleph, the consonantal skeleton חז naturally reconstructs as
אחז
meaning
to seize
to grasp
to take hold of
This reconstruction uses one of the central rules of your cipher (initial Aleph omission) but otherwise requires no additional modifications.
4. mdh → נדה
Using your corrected table
m → נ
d → ד
h → ה
the most attractive reconstruction is
נדה
whose verbal meanings include
to drive away
to thrust aside
to exclude
to cast out
This is a genuine Semitic root and therefore a plausible lexical candidate.
Grammatical assessment
Initially I tried interpreting all four words as finite verbs.
That approach quickly proved unsatisfactory.
The sequence
יסר זה אחז נדה
does not read naturally as four consecutive finite verbs.
The grammar becomes considerably more plausible if the words are assigned different grammatical functions.
One possible interpretation is:
יסר — imperative: “Discipline!”
זה — object: “this one”
אחז — participle: “holding” / “grasping”
נדה — verbal noun or infinitive: “casting out” / “expulsion”
This produces a structure approximately equivalent to
“Discipline this one who is holding (something) in order to cast (it) out.”
or
“Discipline this one who grasps (something) for expulsion.”
Why this interpretation is preferable
This analysis avoids forcing every reconstructed root into a finite verb.
Instead it follows a much more common Semitic pattern:
Imperative → Object → Participial description → Purpose or Result
Semitic languages frequently omit explicit objects when they are recoverable from context, so the missing object after אחז (“to grasp”) or נדה (“to cast out”) is not necessarily problematic.
Remaining difficulty
The only grammatical reservation concerns זה.
In ordinary Classical Aramaic one would usually expect a relative particle (such as די) to introduce a clause like
“this one who is holding…”
rather than זה alone.
Therefore the translation
“Discipline this one who is holding…”
requires assuming that your cipher compresses or omits certain function words, just as it already omits initial Aleph and Ayin.
Given that your hypothesis is explicitly about a cipher, this is not impossible, but it remains an inference rather than something directly demonstrated by the code table.
Overall assessment
From the standpoint of historical Semitic philology, I would summarize the current state as follows:
The individual lexical identifications (יסר, זה, אחז, נדה) are each plausible and correspond to genuine Semitic words or roots.
The reconstruction of אחז follows directly from one of the fundamental rules of your cipher (omission of initial Aleph).
The proposed sentence is not yet a securely established Aramaic clause, but it can be interpreted as a grammatically plausible compressed construction if אחז is understood as a participle (“holding, grasping”) and נדה as a verbal noun or infinitive (“casting out, expulsion”).
The decisive test is not this isolated example, but whether the same decoding rules consistently produce coherent grammar and narrative over many consecutive Voynich words. If they do, the hypothesis gains considerable strength; if they do not, then the apparent lexical matches are likely insufficient to support the proposed decipherment.
Darius,
Voynichese is not my area, as you know but it can be so off-putting when you’re hoping for a discussion to find you’re met with frozen silence so may I ask a question about something you’ve said before?
In an earlier comment, you were very clear that you are speaking only about classical ‘pure’ Aramaic, and not the form of Aramaic which is found in Jewish commentaries and scholia. Did you restrict the AI to classical Aramaic? Also, are you aware that folio 57v is anomalous in numerous details, to the point where I have to conclude it could have been added to the ms as late as the 17thC.
I won’t repeat the reasons for its being such an outlier- I’ve treated that in earlier research-summaries and it includes important observations first made by Rich Santacoloma about the use of some form of instrument -dividers or a compass.
Still – first things first – are you sure your AI partner refers only to terms attested in classical Aramaic?
Diane, thanks for the reply.
First, regarding folio 57v: does the claim about this folio imply that it was inserted into the manuscript in the 17th century, or that it was actually written then? I find the latter doubtful because, in my opinion, it contains passages concerning the manuscript’s formatting – as if a lead scribe or scholar were instructing the other scribes on how the manuscript should be laid out.
For instance, it includes specifications regarding how far the roofs/benches of the gallows should extend beyond the other glyphs; which convention was followed in the “last” section (folios 103r–116v) but appears to have been abandoned elsewhere. That is why I consider these folios to be among the oldest in the manuscript.
It is possible, in my view, that folio 57v was added to the manuscript at a later stage (and at a somewhat arbitrary location). We know that the current page order is not the original sequence, and such a later insertion could easily have occurred during rebinding. It is also possible that additional work was done on this page at later stage.
However, I see no indication that the page itself was written later than the rest of the MS. On the contrary, if it indeed contains instructions for formatting the manuscript, then it was very likely one of the earliest folios created. I will come back with the other topic.
Darius,
The reasons for my doubting – not denying – that diagram’s fifteenth-century (or earlier) date are the stylistic features that are closely similar to those found in certain drawings used as Illustrations in Kircher’s China Illustrata, and which are demonstrably related to and probably derived from work produced by another member of the Jesuit community with whom Kircher was in contact after that fellow Jesuit returned from a stint in India. In addition – and thanks to observations first contributed by Rich Santacoloma, we know that this diagram is alone – so far as I know – in having had its circles drawn using an instrument, presumably dividers or compass, and (I agree with RIch) actually has three centres, at least two of which are intentional and show that the drawing’s apparent centre is not the centre of the outer circles. Then there is the curious fact that the central ‘island’ in that drawing has extraordinarily precise measurements.. which reminds me, I have to check those proportions against a few possible identifications.(So many questions, so little time,) So altogether it’s an outlier, though the ink doesn’t seem all that much different from the rest, does it? So, as I say, I don’t so much deny as doubt.
Diane, to define the language, let’s examine one word (naturally, for a definitive conclusion we need many examinations). We look for a rare word in Voynichese (e.g. one with the rare glyph EVA-x). Such a word can be found e. g. at the beginning of the spiral in the castle rosette (at the very inside). Of course we read right to left. The first word is decoded according to the code table as gg-ar/er. There are two forms of a particular word found in the lexicon. Here I ask the chatbot directly…
Response: In the Biblical Aramaic lexica, both forms occur:
אִגְּרָא (ʾiggərāʾ, iggera) — the absolute state (“letter, missive”)
אִגַּרְתָּא (ʾiggartāʾ, iggartā) — the emphatic/determined state (“the letter”)
For example, in Ezra:
Ezra 4:8 has אִגְּרָה / אִגְּרָא (“a letter”).
Ezra 4:11 and 5:6 have אִגַּרְתָּא (“the letter”, emphatic state).
So you do not need the final Taw if you are aiming at the absolute form of the noun.
That makes your proposed decoding
gg + ar
→ ג + אר
→ אגר
→ אִגְּרָא (iggera)
Considerably more attractive than if you had to account for a missing ending.
Meaning: “letter”, “missive”, “written communication.”
This word is actually quite interesting from a historical perspective.
1. Chronology
The noun
אִגְּרָא (ʾiggərāʾ, “letter, missive”)
belongs to Official/Biblical Aramaic of the Achaemenid Persian period (roughly 5th–4th century BCE). It is not inherited Proto-Semitic vocabulary but is generally regarded as a loanword of Persian origin, reflecting the administrative culture of the Persian Empire.
2. Where does it occur?
In the Hebrew Bible it occurs only three times, all in the Aramaic sections of Ezra:
Ezra 4:8 – “Rehum… wrote a letter to King Artaxerxes…”
Ezra 4:11 – “This is the copy of the letter…”
Ezra 5:6 – “This is the copy of the letter sent to King Darius…”
These passages preserve official correspondence between Persian provincial officials and the royal court.
3. Absolute vs. emphatic state
The lexicon distinguishes two forms:
אִגְּרָא (iggera) — absolute state
אִגַּרְתָּא (iggartā) — emphatic (determined) state
Thus the shorter form אִגְּרָא is perfectly genuine and not merely an abbreviation.
4. Geographical distribution
The word is not confined to Biblical Aramaic.
Lexicographers also record related forms in:
Imperial (Official) Aramaic
Old Aramaic
Palmyrene Aramaic (e.g. אגרתא)
later Jewish Aramaic traditions
Administrative vocabulary often persists for centuries, and terms for official documents tend to be conservative. Consequently, *ʾiggartāʾ* (אגרתא) was certainly in use in later Jewish Aramaic as well.
If the same text passage contains other words such as “write,” “send,” “copy,” “read,” or “seal,” the identification with *ʾiggerāʾ* (אִגְּרָא, “letter, missive”) would become significantly more probable; for it is precisely in this semantic context that the word is attested in historical Aramaic texts.
So we have here a word ʾiggerāʾ (אִגְּרָא; Aramaic, of Persian origin; a missive delivered by a state messenger or courier) and such rare words help determine the time and region of distribution. And we can surmise why this passage is arranged as a scroll. This was the form a medieval scribe associated with a text intended for official proclamation.
Darius,
Thank you for the detailed explanation. I feel that when you and I speak of ‘folio 57v’ we are likely to be at cross-purposes because you naturally define it by its Voynichese, while I’m likely to be focused on the drawing…and I suppose a codicologist would be looking at it as a sheet (4 sides in this case) and a palaeographer in terms of letter-formation. So for me it’s an outlier, where you see no reason to think so. I should be clear that I don’t suggest that the sheet is a late addition, only the drawing on that part of it we call folio 57v. I should think it drawn on what had been a blank ‘final’ side. There are other cases of the same- especially the map’s reverse.
Anyway, I hope one of the people interested in Voynichese will offer some comments more to your point that I can.
Diane, in China Illustrata, I see several precisely drawn circles that were undoubtedly made using a compass. However, well-executed circles existed long before the 15th century – consider, e. g. the Hereford Mappa Mundi or the well-preserved iron and bronze compasses discovered at sites such as Pompeii. After all, the compass as a drafting instrument cannot be assigned a specific invention date. it was in use by master builders and craftsmen already in antiquity. Nevertheless, just as you hold back with opinions in the fields of codicology and lexicography, I do not pretend to be an expert on drawings. I therefore base my opinions on the purported code and on the grammatical correctness of the resulting plain text.
The manuscript has nothing to do with Aramaic. It only has something in common with the Jews that a Jewish cipher is used in writing. That is the only thing it has in common with the Jews. That cipher is the Kabbalistic numerological system of gematria. As the author of the manuscript shows all scientists at the very beginning of the manuscript. Where the author shows all scientists the Jewish homophonic cipher. The entire manuscript is written in the old Czech language. In several places there is also a Polish word. And in several places there is also a Latin word. There are very few Polish and Latin words. The author knew Czech, German, Latin and Polish. No artificial intelligence will ever be able to understand the text of the manuscript.
Prof, „The author knew Czech, German, Latin and Polish”.
Cholera jasna, sakra und hergot. Dlaczego mie mówisz od razu? To przecież ja muszę być. Wkońcu sobie przpomnialem.
There you go Jo. Sure you knew that Wilfrid Voynich was a polished Chech, German and Polish speaker amongst others he picked up in his early travels. His wife Ethel nee Boole was no slouch either, Latin & Hebrew being part & parcel to their biblio collectors routine studies
Darius,
I see I’ve expressed myself badly. Use of the compass is an anomaly within the Voynich manuscript – point1.
Point 2 was that details in the drawing are closely similar to details of certain drawings in China illustrata.
It is because one might expect signs of the ruler and even the compass that their absence from the Voynich diagrams becomes interesting.
I should perhaps add that until recently I had believed none of the Voynich pages were ruled up, but Vladimir Dulov’s research as shown that one quire does seem to have been prepared in the way Latin mss always ar (or as nearly always as makes no difference. This would matter less if there was some sign that the text-block had been trimmed, especially if during re-binding, but to date I find no evidence of pressure-lines, prick-marks or any form of ruling out.. plus of course that absence of ruled lines. There are a few in a couple of the ‘bathy-‘ pages, where a smart-alec thought he could improve on the exemplar but it looks to me as if he was set to rights, or perhaps sacked pdq because the rest is true to type.
Differences from a theorised ‘norm’ are always of interest. But we’re moving a long way from the title of Nick’s post, so I’ll leave it there.
Hi Nick
It’s my birthday.
Sorry, but things used to be simpler.
For example:
When my wife used to say, ‘Do you even know what time it is?’, I’d reply, ‘No idea – my sundial’s stopped working.’
But now to VM research. It used to be like *Dinner for One*; today it’s more like *Groundhog Day*.
I think we’ve known each other since the ‘paint by numbers’ art class.
I’m not entirely sure anymore, but I think the club was called ‘Cicada 3301’, password ‘Linthschokolade’.
Anyway, once you’re over 50, you don’t get any older – you just get better.
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
Darius. You have to start examining the manuscript from the beginning. Take a good look at folio 2r. There the author shows a Jewish substitution cipher. Why does the author show it at the beginning of the manuscript? I think you will figure it out yourself. If you don’t know why the author shows it at the beginning of the manuscript. Then let me know and I will write it for you.
John Sanders. And he had his secretary there for German. Anna Nill. Otherwise, Michal worked on the manuscript for about 13 years. And his work was crowned by the discovery that it was a Czech book. As is written in the letter that is at Yale.
Peter Muesli: Herzlichen glukwunsch zum geburtstag!
Yes of course Prof. Josef, Miss Nill (Buffalo Annie) was indeed an integral part of Voynich Manuscript before and after Mr. and Mrs. Voynich’ deaths thirty years apart, during which time she helped Ethel chart its best presentation to ensure its fake providence might bring in fame and prosperity to a future owner at a price. Sadly she took ill, not long after her friend and co conspirator Ethel’s passing, and she too died before that milestone could be reached. Anne was compelled to sell cheap to a charitable bookseller H. P. Krause whom she had been close but not that close to as adviser on biblio book matters. No doubting that Anne knew all about the Boole family involvement in origins and true purpose of the Manu script @ B408. PS: hear tell your Anna knew more Czech & Serbian than her Dad’s native tongue
John Sanders.
I know I shouldn’t… I really shouldn’t.
but
Have you *any* idea what’s caused the latest zombie-revival of the old ‘Cathar’ idea?
I mean, it was a notion floated about twenty years ago by Leo Levitov, then almost immediately given a proper seeing to (and seeing off) by Denis Stallings, whose page – to which Nick linked in his own ‘Voynich theories’ page – is dated 2009!
https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/esp_ciencia_manuscrito04 htm
Has there some recent revolution in ‘Cathar’ research overturning all earlier scholarly research into the Cathars? Or, on the other hand, do you know if someone been turning out their old Voynich-ideas cupboard and decided to re-introduce this dubious item as a way to impress the latest crop of innocent newbies with an unattributed “idea”?
As so often, the question is basically ‘How did he/she/they come by *that* idea?
though I know I really shouldn’t ask.
The answer will probably boil down to “I was just looking at the pictures and by sheer genius I just *knew* the Cathars done it..” ..(Knowledge without learning -or what I call the gnostic approach to manuscript studies).
So do you know? Who zapped that moribund theory that it should again walk our virtual streets once more?
@John Sanders
Thanks for the birthday message. I’m sober again.
@Nick
I’d have thought you were responding to ‘Cicada 3301’.
It certainly wasn’t a meal, but a crypto marathon.
I reckon you were on the team back then too.
It just slipped my mind again
https://www.focus.de/wissen/experts/schmeh/cicada-3301-geht-die-geheimnisvolle-internet-schnitzeljagd-anfang-januar-weiter_id_4285524.html
Prof, „There the author shows a Jewish substitution cipher. Why does the author show it at the beginning of the manuscript? I think you will figure it out yourself. If you don’t know why the author shows it at the beginning of the manuscript.“
A Jewish author or somebody writing something Jewish would begin where the back cover of a Latin book would be and continue writing while turning the pages from left to right. In that case, your code would be on folio 115 or thereabouts, because that would be the beginning of the manuscript…
That is why the title of the collection and some general informations and names would be on folio 116v – that is, at the beginning of the manuscript, where one would expect it in a collection of texts, written by many scribes and it would only be expected at the end if the manuscript consisted of a single continuous, unified text.
Darius. What Jewish author. The Jewish author is not important here. The Jewish substitution cipher is important here. And it is drawn on folio 2r. What do you see on folio 2r? Look carefully at the Root. How many flowers does the symbolic plant have? If you don’t know. Then ask AI. It will certainly help you understand the meaning of the drawing on folio 2r. Otherwise, the author shows it for that reason. To help all scientists, academics, linguists and ciphers in this beautiful world of ours.
There are some mighty strange comments on this thread, none of which seem to have much to do with China, but asking John Sanders about the Cathars has to be the oddest thing I have EVER seen on a forum like this. A bit like calling on Donald Trump to explain the theory of special relativity.
We’ve had a lot of unsubstantiated tripe about Czech books – perhaps the contributor can’t spell the word chequebook? We’ve had another bloke talking about “tabloid filth” – more please. Then Sanders pinched my old joke about PNG, before wishing someone “Happy Birthday” in German. Verpiss dich old girl.
To cap it all another feller, Xerxes or summat, mentions VAR. Well, O’Donovan was blatantly offside, Prof Zátopek keeps scoring own goals, Xerxes himself should be booked for dribbling on (and off) the ball, and Sanders should be sent off immediately for dissimulation and given an indefinite ban, Meanwhile Pilchard’s efforts never seem to cross the line.
Then over on another thread the insistent and indefatigable David S has started on about the Golden Dawn; he states “And when I mention” said Hermetic Order, but one would have to be a masochist to go through his couple of thousand recent comments to find the previous reference. And I thought I was a solipsist!
As it ‘appens I do have a small collection of grimoires and works of goetia – and by the way it really pisses me off when so-called “magick” experts on YouTube pronounce it go-eesha instead of the correct go-ettia – including Mathers’ “translation” of Abraham ben Simeon of Worms’ The Sacred Magic of Abramelin the Mage, Waite’s The Book of Ceremonial Magic and Aleister Crowley’s “translation” of The Book of the Goetia of Solomon the King, or Ars Goetia. Mathers, Waite and Crowley were all members of the HOotGD.
Dusty take note. I am well capable of summoning demons if the need arises. Crowley’s volume contains 72 of ’em. Prince Stolas might do in the context of the VMs as he teaches astronomy and is knowledgeable about herbs, plants, and precious stones.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a9/4b/1a/a94b1a9a55f80d21a4efd961f6aebd12.jpg
I am also a big fan of the wyrd and macabre works of Algernon Blackwood and Arthur Machen, both of whom were members of the Order, as well as E Nesbit who MAY have joined at some point. It should be an offence punishable by law not to have read at least ‘The Willows’, ‘The Wendigo’, ‘The Great God Pan’, ‘The White People’, ‘The Hill Of Dreams’ and ‘Man-Size in Marble’.
And whilst you’re at it read some more Poe.
“And the Raven, never flitting, still is sitting, still is sitting
On the pallid bust of Pallas just above my chamber door;
And his eyes have all the seeming of a demon’s that is dreaming,
And the lamp-light o’er him streaming throws his shadow on the floor;
And my soul from out that shadow that lies floating on the floor
Shall be lifted—nevermore!”
PS In the spirit of the moderator here I have now installed a sign in my porch:
“WARNING! THIS PROPERTY IS GUARDED BY BIGFOOT”.
Prof, what I have learned is that once people hit 60, they’re apparently incapable of learning anything new, but on the side, knowledge is overrated and they can compensate with a much better sense of humor…
and to be honest, so far I didn’t hear AI cracking one good joke…
Darius. What humor? On folio 2r. 4 letters (signs) are clearly and distinctly visible. The author thus presents to every scientist a Jewish homophonic substitution. Each sign (letter) has its own numerical value. On folio 2r. the substitution of the number 3 is shown. The Kabbalistic numerological system of gematria: number 3 = C,G,S,L. What is so difficult about this to understand? The entire manuscript is encrypted with that homophonic substitution cipher. Anyone who does not know that substitution will never be able to decipher the text of the manuscript. In the Middle Ages, this Jewish cipher was widely used in Bohemia. There are several manuscripts encrypted with that cipher.
Prof Zlatoděj,
As you know, there are many people who would like the manuscript to be the original work of some central European. You have been saying for at least twenty years that the Voynichese text is written, using gematria, in Old Czech.
If you can render the Voynichese text into Old Czech, I must wonder why your transliteration and (separately) your translation appear to have been either never tested or never accepted by any other person who was attracted by the central European theory, or by anyone competent in ciphers or in ‘Old Czech’.
Also, you say “There are several manuscripts encrypted with that cipher” – please give details for those you’ve consulted, including date.
Steve H. @ Sieve: Dunno how the rest of the aforementioned contributors took their collective sledging; with a grain of salt no doubt. I am personally not offended in the sleightest [spell check not cheque or Czech required) by your zany Cathartic drivel but by puting me alongside ‘spurs’ Trump, them’s be fighting words my man.. Reason being I hain’t got no Quisling coursing through my veins, not the likes of y’man and what’s more I haven’t a clue what you’re on about, it’s all Panhellenic to me.
Darius,
You say, “A Jewish author or somebody writing something Jewish would begin where the back cover of a Latin book would be and continue writing while turning the pages from left to right.”
A common misconception. In formal writing, if the language is Hebrew (or Aramaic?) the script is written right-to-left. The same person -regardless of ethnicity or religion – if writing in a vernacular such as koine Greek, Italian or Occitan -scripts that are normally written left-to-right, will of course write them so.
With the larger part of the western bible consisting of “something Jewish” it’s as good an example as any of the fact that it is language, not content, that normally decides the issue. You are not the first Voynichero I’ve seen presume that a Latin could not write anything right-to-left, nor a Jew write anything left-to-right, but a moment’s thought is enough to show that idea is nonsense.
Diane. Nobody can test because nobody knows the Jewish Homophonic Substitution. It is a very complex substitution that destroys all frequency analyses. There are more manuscripts encrypted with the same cipher. For example, it is: The Ploughman from Bohemia. Scientists write nonsense about this book. Then there is: The Czech Chronicle (Cosma, Budyšín manuscript). Historians and scientists also write nonsense about it. Then there is, for example: The Aberdeen Bestiary. Scientists also write nonsense about it. Then there is: Eliška Rejčka’s Antiphonary. Scientists and historians also write nonsense about it. Then there is: The Královédvorský Manuscript. Historians also know very little about it and therefore they write only nonsense and nonsense again. There is of course more. But I think this list should be enough. Based on what is written in the text of the various manuscripts, I would classify it as the 14th century. And something also in the 15th century. I will give an example. For example, the Aberdeen Bestiary describes the history of the Přemyslids and the Luxembourgs.
@Joseph
The Czech Chronicle (Cosmas, Budyšín Manuscript) was written in Latin in the 11th century. It has not survived.
Of the 15 copies, some will be on display in Prague until 21 October.
https://deutsch.radio.cz/node/8863144/o-poradu
Dusty
Given the topic of this thread there should be more talk about Cathay and less talk about Cathars.
All I have to say on the latter is that every time I read about them I get the (demi)urge to yawn. Boom Boom! Better off looking at the remnant sects of the related Bogomils in Hum around the time of the Ottoman takeover of much of the Balkans after 1463. Bog, as I’m sure you know, means God in Common Slavic.
“From Bosnia, their influence extended into Italy (Piedmont). The Hungarians undertook many crusades against the heretics in Bosnia, but towards the close of the 15th century, the conquest of that country by the Turks put an end to their persecution. Few or no remnants of Bogomilism have survived in Bosnia. The Ritual in Slavonic, written by the Bosnian Radoslav, and published in vol. xv. of the Starine of the South Slavonic Academy at Agram, shows great resemblance to the Cathar ritual published by Cunitz, 1853.” (Wikipedia)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/Bogomilist_expansion.svg/1280px-Bogomilist_expansion.svg.png?utm_source=en.wikipedia.org&utm_campaign=imageinfo&utm_content=thumbnail
As for the other contributors I doubt they care as they only seem capable of talking to themselves. I have noticed in the past few years, since I have been more engaged in “social media” etc, that in many forums people ain’t interested in anyone outside of their own silly little clique. Tomsbytwo and TS/BS would be two prime examples.
Apart from Pilch and one or two others these idiots have closed minds and aren’t worth worrying about. They just seem to repeat the same garbage time and again and think they are adding something to the sum of human knowledge. Well. they are not, and it is noticeable that most people are incapable of ANY sort of intellectual engagement whatsoever.
At least you have engaged at some level – mainly anti-intellectual sadly – even though you are a complete pain in the arse most of the time.
It seems to me that nobody is any closer to “deciphering” or explaining the provenance of the VMs than they were twenty years ago.
Peter M.. I wrote. Scientists do not know what is written in the text. And because the text is about the Czech king Wenceslas IV. (son of Charles IV) and his wife Sophie of Bavaria (the Czech queen). So the manuscript was not created in the 11th century. But it was created in the 15th century. You must not believe everything you read, for example, on Wikipedia or what was broadcast by some German radio.
Steve H. @ media modulator: I have noticed in past few years, since you have been more disengaged in “(anti) social media etc.”, discourse or more likely intercourse, you have done little more for intelligent conversation than your idol Donald Trump has in the same period. Like the biggest fool of this generation, all you’ve managed to achieve is nothing except to stuff your sillly perverted self egotism up your fat hairy clacker…pardon my frog.
@ Josef
The radio station has just interviewed a professor about this very book.
Why shouldn’t I believe that there’s an exhibition about this very book at the Czech National Library in Prague? It runs until October.
After all, it was organised by several specialists.
Perhaps you should go and see it; you’ll learn something.
Oh, … I’d forgotten.
This is, of course, the VM-China theory.
That’s about as likely as me pressing charcoal between my bum cheeks to turn it into diamonds.
Josef Zlatodej Prof: short and to the point Prof. Do you reckon on it being possible or even likely that your long term sole candidate for authorship of Voynich Manu. Eliska Z Rosemberka, in reality may have had her personal diary wilfully plagiarised by one Wilfrid Voynich and his ‘Gadfly’ (see Socrates) wife Ethel Boole plus family to create the mystery history of her life and times in picture book form. My respects for your persistence and guile, cunning old bugger.
@ Aga Peter. None of your experts know what is written in that chronicle. And since the text of that chronicle clearly states about the Czech king Wenceslas IV. etc., the manuscript was created only in the 15th century. Otherwise, I don’t need to learn. You should learn first of all.
John Sanders. Voynich and his wife have nothing to do with the manuscript (i.e. its origin). Michal studied it for a long time and tried to find out what was written in its text. The only thing he found is stated in the text of a letter, which is at Yale. And it is written there that it is a Czech book. According to what is written in the manuscript, the author is a very clever and clever medieval woman, Eizabeth of Rosenberg.
I have repeatedly attempted to post a comment about Dennis J St*llings’ critique of Leo L*vitov’s theory of the Cathari origin of the VMs.
Maybe the links and/or copy and paste jobs sent it straight to spam where it undoubtedly belonged. Forbidden authors on this blog perhaps? Or did it simply vanish into the ether?
In summary I can say without any reservation whatsoever that I have no idea if the VMs had anything to do with the Cathars and/or the Bogomils or not and I don’t really care. But I don’t think. from what I have read at least, that St*llings’ criticism of L*vitov proves the issue one way or the other.
I couldn’t get anything via the link D.N. O’Donovan supplied for St*llings’ attack on L*vitov’s theory so I did a search and came up with another article, ‘Catharism. L*vitov and the Voynich Manuscript’, from 1998.
L*vitov bases his theory on the absurd idea that the Cathars worshipped Isis. It would be easy to demolish an idea as stoopid as this, as it would be to shatter the notion that the tarot also originated in ancient Egypt. He also says that the VMs is a liturgical manual to the endura, a terminal fast at the end of life or a form of ritual euthanasia. Don’t try it at home kids. I did and it didn’t end well – I’m still here aren’t I?
L*vitov writes in Solution of the Voynich Manuscript: “…and there is absolutely nothing to refute this, was the Cathari religion completely and totally the work of Isis, wherever it occurred? I am inclined to believe that the Cathari Church was the church of Isis.”
No serious scholar would write “there is absolutely nothing to refute” an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture (one is reminded of Russell’s teapot) or say “I am inclined to believe” without backing it up with evidence. This is “pop history” at its worst, reminiscent of The Morning of the Magicians and the work of the plagiarist and fraud Erich von Däniken. As a former social anthropology student and enthusiast of global history this sort of “exoticizing” or “othering” (dreadful word) cultures by sensationalising certain – misunderstood or misinterpreted – aspects makes me want to chunder. Don’t get me started on “ancient aliens”!
“High in the sky, what do you see?
Come down to Earth, a cup of tea
Flying saucer, flying teacup
From outer space, Flying Teapot”
Gong – ‘Flying Teapot’ (inspired in part by Bert Russell)
L*vitov’s book is available to read for free online. He also misspells Gutenberg as Gutenburg. Unfortunately the artist who created the frontage of the Edward Everard Printing Works in Bristol made the same mistake.
https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/edward-everards-printing-works
In his critique St*llings relies heavily on Montaillou by Emmanuel le Roy Ladurie. It must be thirty years or so since I read that work, which was my own introduction to the Cathars. He also points out that L*vitov’s major source on medieval heresy is Holy Blood, Holy Grail (1982) by Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln. That takes us right into Dan Brown. the Priory of Sion, and the wife of Jesus territory I’m afraid. Eugh! Harry Potter. Yuck! The Lord of the Rings. Piss off!
Baigent et al reject most of the then recent historians’ view that the Cathars derived from the Bogomils and say that their research indicated that they “seem to represent the flowering of something rooted in French soil for centuries.” (p43)
Hmmm! Er, no. When folks talk about culture or ideas originating in the “soil” my hackles immediately start to rise. “Blood and soil” and all that fascist shite. That wretched book is also available online, for conspiracy theorists everywhere.
On the Bogomils see my previous comment (addressed to Dusty Sanders). Don’t take it too seriously, but it does seem that when it comes to the VMs everybody is just guessing. So why not throw a hat in the ring? Pick a random geographical location/language/culture/religion/sect or whatever and stick with it despite what the evidence shows you.
One interesting feature of the Cathars was the prominence of women in the religion.
“Unlike the Roman Catholic priesthood, both men and women could become Perfecti. The ritual of initiation known as Consolamentum, or spiritual baptism, was open to both men and women and could be administered by both. Cathar women also were allowed to perform priestly duties such as hearing confession, absolving people of their sins, and leading communal prayers. The highly visible role of women in Cathar ritual has caused scholars to speculate that women made up a large proportion of the Cathar community and that women may have provided support to Catharism. The equality with which women participated in Cathar ritual as well as the repudiation of marriage and sex also may indicate that Catharism did not subscribe to traditional notions of gender.”
https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/bogomils-and-cathars
I had a brief look for the first (and probably last) time at the Voynich Ninja site. One thread concerns the question of whether the VMs is the “work of female authors” or not.
In contrast another thread creator expresses the opinion that the VMs illustrator “never see women [sic] breasts”. They state that the breasts in the VMs are incorrect – “they are not real brests [sic]” and conclude that “someone who has seen naked women” would not “draw something so badly.”
I think that’s a question Dusty might be better placed to answer than I. If nothing else it’s an excuse for her to get out her magnifying glass again. Nobody should base their deductions on the size and shape of her falsies though.
One commenter opines that “sooner or later everyone has to contemplate what the scribes knew about boobs. Might as well be sooner!” Another adds that “there are actually many. many types of breast in the nature.” They state that the “plump” women in the VMs have “very small breasts” whereas “in the nature it is the opposite: skinny girl = small breasts, plump girl = bigger breasts.”
Koen G intervenes to say that they “really recommend sticking to art historical comparison” and that we shouldn’t simply assume “the artist must have been some kind of virgin without a Playboy subscription.”
I cancelled mine years ago. The Playboy subscription that is.
Another contributor quips that art historical comparisons have never got Diane anywhere.
In the tradition of the “tabloid filth” the said D.N. O’D has been accused of indulging in by Koen G I might myself conclude that the whole VMs discussion has gone tits up in recent times. Makes a change from “men and balls” though eh?
In Dusty’s case make that men and Booles. She seems obsessed with old George for some reason, just like she and her Tomsbytwo cronies are obsessed with foreskins. Apparently back in the day poms kept ’em and Aussies lost ’em. I haven’t been able to determine whether Dusty herself had the “full chop” in her gender reassignment surgery last year – which event explains her long absence on this forum – and I don’t really wish to think about it to be honest.
Oder? Odour more like. Dusty, old girl, stick that up your “Sherper Tensing”. With reference to Aga Tentakulus’ (sounds like a character from H P Lovecraft) comment about their bum cheeks and diamonds, the only things lodged between your buttocks are haemorrhoids and dingleberries.
D.N. O’D should have asked you about catheters instead of Cathars, given your lengthy spell in hospital as detailed (yawn) on Tomsbytwo. Although precisely the nature of the cavity into which said item would be inserted in your case remains as much a mystery as the VMs, given your lack of openness as to whether you had the “full chop” or not.
You certainly DO know a thing or two about “zombie revivals” however. although the “living” part of “living dead” is questionable in your case..
L*vitov? You oughtta leave it off Veg. For keeps.
@Josef
You know, Cosmos of Prague died in 1125. He couldn’t have written about Wenceslas IV.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmas_von_Prag
He wrote about another King Wenceslas of Bohemia.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wenzel_von_B%C3%B6hmen
Everything else is a copy.
Perhaps you really should go to the exhibition; it would do you good.
Steve,
I reproduced the link that is included in Nick’s ‘Voynich Theories’ page. It worked for me.
Rather surprised to hear that my name is mentioned at ‘ninja’. Obviously, the person who opined that my research “never got Diane anywhere” is more concerned to deter than to inform or to assist co-members. It is depressing to see that so many are yet to get beyond the stage of blaming ‘the artist’ for not “drawing proper”.
To return to the topic of Nick’s posts…
I have had reason to remind researchers more than once that from the late twelfth century to the mid-fourteenth, there were only two important geo-political actors in the Mediterranean, the greater of the two the Mongolian empire – the largest land empire in history. There is no objection from the historical record for a theory that the Voynichese text might be in a Turkic language (as Mongolian is), nor to some other far-eastern language, since we know of Rabban Sawma, who had been born and grew up in central Asia and came to southern Europe (including Italy and France and possibly England) before the Vms was made, as well as several other groups and individuals who came as representatives to Europe before the arrival of Plague. This is without even mentioning Europeans (‘Latins’ – chiefly Genoese or other Italians) who were active in Asia before 1440. I’m glad to see that the possibility is being met without the mindless, knee-jerk ‘pshaw’ which for so many years met any information which might modify the old “it just *has* to be Latin” theory.
There are some few other details, such as the ‘knife-blade’ legs on some vessels in the leaf-and-root section, or the use of motifs known best now through their presence on early medieval ceramics brought from the far-east, which altogether contributed to my own conclusions about the nature and purpose of disparate materials brought together, and copied in the early 15thC, to create our present manuscript.
@Peter. I don’t want to argue with you. You can’t teach me what the Bautzen Manuscript is. I know that manuscript perfectly. You can find it on the Internet. It’s completely digitized. The fact that there’s an exhibition of it in Prague is nice, but unnecessary. You still don’t understand what I wrote to you. And that’s this: Scientists and historians don’t know what’s written in the text of the Bautzen Manuscript. Furthermore. The Bautzen Manuscript is not the original that Kosma wrote. It’s just a copy (supposedly his chronicles). According to what’s written in the text of the Bautzen Manuscript, which is various information from the 15th century, the text of that manuscript has nothing to do with Kosma. I’ll show you one thing that no historian or scientist can solve properly. Scientists don’t know why a picture is painted on one of its leaves, which depicts a dog + a lion. So there are two animals in one picture. Now watch: (in Czech “PES”, “LEF”). The entire manuscript is encrypted with Jewish substitution. When each character has its own numerical value. So I’ll show you in numbers: 853, 358. (Jewish substitution: 8 = P,F. 5 = E,H,N. 3 = C,G,S,L). Maybe you can understand it too. Maybe you can’t understand it, but I don’t care anymore. Don’t argue with me, because you don’t know how to see them. You’re trying, I can see that from what you write on Ninja, but so far it’s a weakness.
@Peter. I don’t want to argue with you. You can’t teach me what the Budyšín Manuscript is. I know that manuscript perfectly. You can find it on the Internet. It’s completely digitized. The fact that there’s an exhibition of it in Prague is nice, but unnecessary. You still don’t understand what I wrote to you. And that’s this: Scientists and historians don’t know what’s written in the text of the Budyšínský Manuscript. Furthermore. The Budyšín Manuscript is not the original that Kosma wrote. It’s just a copy (supposedly his chronicles). According to what’s written in the text of the Budyšín Manuscript, which is various information from the 15th century, the text of that manuscript has nothing to do with Kosma. I’ll show you one thing that no historian or scientist can solve properly. Scientists don’t know why a picture is painted on one of its leaves, which depicts a dog + a lion. So there are two animals in one picture. Now watch: (in Czech “PES”, “LEF”). The entire manuscript is encrypted with Jewish substitution. When each character has its own numerical value. So I’ll show you in numbers: 853, 358. (Jewish substitution: 8 = P,F. 5 = E,H,N. 3 = C,G,S,L). Maybe you can understand it too. Maybe you can’t understand it, but I don’t care anymore. Don’t argue with me, because you don’t know how to see them. You’re trying, I can see that from what you write on Ninja, but so far it’s a weakness.
Steve H. @ mofo: No need to get your knickers in a knot old girl. Apart from a bit of day surgery on a trip to Brisy a couple of years back, haven’t been hospitalised in donkey’s years, and not at all lengthy as you incorrectly perceive. If you check back on Nick’s search history (if you’re very lucky) @site:ciphermysteries.com “subject foreskin or circumcision” anyone’s guess, you might get the year right, I reckon mid 2022 from memory. What more hilarious, I survived my ordeal and no doubt you’ll be happy to hear that. Thanks for your best sincerest wishes mofo.
Well, however bizarre or random a suggestion one makes it seems like someone else got there first. A couple of weeks ago I pondered on the idea that the Isdal Woman may have been a Palestinian operative – not necessarily Palestinian herself but a supporter of their cause – who was hunted down by the Mossad. After I had posted my comment I came across an article from 2023 in the The Neue Zürcher Zeitung. ‘New Lead in Isdal Woman Case’…proposing the exact same theory, with a fair bit more detail.
Now I make an arbitrary comment about the Bogomils of Bosnia having a connection to the Voynich Manuscript. And again some bugger got there before me. One Fletcher Crowe as it ‘appens, in an article for the Journal of Historical Archaeology and Anthropological Sciences, November 2022, ‘The Voynich Manuscript Decoded.’ You can read it here:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/368991190_The_Voynich_Manuscript_Decoded
Apparently the base language is Arabic.
In the appendix there’s a section titled ‘Alfonso V and the Heretics of Bosnia’.
That would be Alfonso V of Aragon, Heir to the Kingdom of Naples.
To quote: “There are political-historical factors that could have prompted Alfonso V to underwrite the cost of producing the Voynich Manuscript as part of courting military support in the Balkans….Inquisition authorities say that Catharism ended in western Europe with the death of William Belibaste in 1321. But there is no doubt that Bogomil dualists, called patarenes, were very much alive in the Balkans during the reign of Alfonso in the 1420s-1430s. According to Franco Sanjek, a professor at the University of Zagreb,,.the Bosnian church was seen as a sister church to the Cathars of Languedoc and maintained regular communication with their co-religionists in the south of France, perhaps by secret script.”
According to Crowe the VMs deals with the afterlife. That is why most of the ladies are in the nude! They are languishing in the pools of the Underworld. All the figures labelled as Qadi (angels/spirits/judges) are also female. “The VM simply repeats, endlessly, the same simple statement about Cathar Qadi choosing the souls of dead Cathars in the Underworld to release them to journey to heaven.” Once they get to heaven they become stars. Hence all the stars in the manuscript.
Cripes. Aren’t we getting a bit close to L*vitov here?
He speculates that the VMs may have been a gift to women of the Bosnian Church. See my previous comment for the importance of women to the Cathars/Bogomils.
He concludes:
“Alfonso V clearly wanted to challenge the lucrative dominance of Venice in the Adriatic and may have thought that a contribution to the heretics of Languedoc might further that initiative…Subsidizing the production of a book honoring the dualist Church of Bosnia leaders could have been a symbolic act of unity.”
There’s even a mention of our compelling moderator in the endnotes (note 5). Did he really call the VMs “the world’s most mysterious manuscript” or was it “the book nobody can read”?
Crowe has just had a book published (with Mona Ashour) called the Voynich Manuscript: Mystery Revealed, and according to a thread on Voynich Ninja (yes I went back there) they did a book signing at the University of Florida on the 8th of August. The Voynich heros there didn’t seem too impressed although none of ’em has read it. Not surprising since it doesn’t seem to be out yet, although it is listed on Amazon (currently unavailable).
” The Voynich Manuscript has been the subject of intense interest for over 100 years. Written in strange symbols, dozens and dozens of scholars have tried to break the strange code and translate the bizarre characters into a known language – but to no avail. Finally, one of the authors of this book has cracked the strange code and found that the codex is a manifesto of the Cathar religion. The Cathars, a sect of heretics in southern France during the Middle Ages, were brutally attacked by forces of the king of France and the Pope and faced vicious genocide. The author found that the manuscript was written in bizarre characters, and in Arabic, to hide the sect’s heretical faith from the Inquisition. This book features long excerpts from the fifteenth century Voynich Manuscript translated by a specialist in medieval Arabic. Up to this time there have been essentially no cotemporary documents found detailing the theology and the religious practices of the Cathars. Now for the first time we can finally read the story of the brave Cathar people and their unique religion in a near contemporary document.
Fletcher Crowe received a PhD in European History in 1973 and has worked for the United Nations in the Gaza Strip. A life-long scholar, Crowe has studied eight languages and has taught at several universities in Florida, USA. He has conducted research on Medieval England and has published papers on the French exploration in sixteenth century Florida. Making sense of the Voynich Manuscript has been an elusive goal of scholars for over a hundred years, but Crowe has finally cracked the code of the strange script.”
Publisher : Cambridge Scholars Publishing
Publication date : June 17, 2026
Language : English
Print length : 510 pages
For more interesting stuff on the Cathars see:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03435a.htm
https://academic.oup.com/book/25560
https://www.stephenchamberlain.net/graelfire/cathars-the-italian-connection
And a Bogomil symbol (“spinning round”) from a tombstone in eastern Serbia:
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-east-serbia-one-of-the-bogomil-symbol-kolovrt-spinning-round-on-the-148167813.html
I don’t know anything really about Voynich and his blasted manuscript, so I can’t comment on Crowe’s grandiose claim to have decoded it – he almost certainly hasn’t – but one thing I do know is that Dusty’s idea that it is a modern fake/hoax is up, or should I say down, there with his claim that the Beaumont children are alive and well and passing themselves off as the Snozzers or whoever it was that he said they were. Who cares? The old sheila’s got kangaroos loose in her top paddock.
Stick THAT up your clacker Veg!
Diane
The exact quote from DG97EEB on 12 July was:
“I’ve been reading Diane’s art history, and honestly I don’t see she’s made any meaningful progress…or if she has this entire forum is ignoring it.”
From the thread ‘Did Voynich manuscript illustrator never see women breasts?’ (p2) in the Imagery section.
Don’t shoot the messenger!
Steve – I didn’t doubt that you reported accurately.
I don’t have much to do with the usual social-media venues because I dislike the tendency you find for ‘team spirit’ to develop at the cost of intellectual independence.
It’s not that I don’t agree with this or that said by aperson but that I dislike finding that one is expected to identify oneself as a member of this or that team by publicly bashing or ‘blanking’ whoever the ‘team’ defines as the opposition.
And it is always “who”ever. I can’t see how such attitudes can or should apply to the study of a problematic medieval manuscript. I don’t care what theory-team a person belongs to, if they make a valid observation, or turn up some information new to me, it’s fine.
I would expect that some medieval theologian once said no-one but a person who was insane, or one willfully heretical would deny the teachings of the Church, and that while the words of the crazy might be excused and to that extent tolerated, no man should permit a heretic to speak or to converse lest the pure be distracted from the authority of Papa Church.
It’s like that. Or like the enormous library of 600,000 books which a Muslim general came across during the invasion of the Iberian peninsula. He asked another what be done with them. ‘If what they say is in our Book, they are unnecessary; if not in our Book, they are unnecessary”. If you read ‘our Theory’ for “our Book” that’s pretty much the attitude of a hard-core Voynich theory-team.
At the moment, there’s such an accumulation of evidence pointing away from an especially dominant ‘team’ position that not even Nick’s recent Occitan post received the sort of comment it deserves, though Nick’s no heretic, has served his time – and I’d bet all the big players read it.
Intimidating weather.
Steve H. @ boobs: I’ll have you know that the Voynich Manu. illustrator Maggie Taylor, would undoubtedly have been familiar with the sight of womens’ breasts; After all she had a pair herself, as did her dam Mary, and four sisters Alicia, Mary, Ethel and Lucy. Think you’d find Diane agreeable herself, if only she would listen to reason concerning said illustrator and its likely much later origins than most might expect.
John,
“Reasoning does not suffice, but experience does” – Friar Roger Bacon
All theoretical narratives, including yours, are internally consistent. The theorist’s first speculative construct, imposed on a subject, acts as a template which (in a false analogy to scientific method), the theorist then works to fill in with ornamental items, but never ever colouring outside his/her personally defined boundary line. The “reasoning” process is then so often one that begins, “If we presume my guess is the fact, then….”
Which is why I don’t ask a person details of their theory, but for a step-by-step explanation of how they came to form that first idea. Once a person has ceased to recognise their ‘theory’ as a guess, but begin speaking as if it were self-evident and indisputable truth, there isn’t much point is trying to engage them in discussion or debate, or so I’ve found. Perhaps your experience differs..