The Voynich Ninja

In another thread, JKP mentioned the following in response to Diane presenting a table.

(24-02-2017, 11:45 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I've often wondered if some of the pages were calendrical pages (or something similar, like moon tables) minus the rigid vertical columns.

 I, too, have wondered at times whether the text of some Voynich pages actually belongs in columns. It would surely explain some things, like repetition and, depending on the kind if table, low entropy. 

Why does it explain low entropy? Well, in a table the position of the entry also carries information, not just the entry itself. (This is an intuitive proposal, I'll probably get slapped by Anton and Nick for saying stupid things about entropy  ) 

The reason why this had also crossed my mind is because the type of manuscripts that contain star-related information also often contain mostly tables (Ptolemy). Additionally, these tables can be accompanied by images from other astronomical traditions.

And finally, if you look at such a table and imagine that there are no borders and no decent alignement, won't it look a bit like Voynichese? For example in this one (and the following folios) all line-initial words start with either "o" or "T".

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

This is also the kind of script where one might expect a somewhat structured introduction of "false" spaces.

I'm not saying that this is the solution, but it might be worth its own thread.

When the author has the need to align the stuff in the shape of a table, he does not fail to to that explicitly, such as in f66r. Also, the recipe section with its star markers for individual paragraphs also may be considered a kind of table. So I don't see why he would need to hide other alleged table content under the disguise of continuous text.

I think it's worth exploring.

Look at folio 84r...

Notice how there are seven labeled arches. Arches were a very common motif in medieval calendars.

Now look at the text directly below...

There just happen to be two paragraphs, each with exactly seven lines. And maybe... just maybe, relate to days of the week.


Maybe a coincidence but, for the sake of discussion, imagine the arches are column headers, and the seven lines fit into the seven columns.

Now, there are some considerations. It is difficult to evaluate VMS spaces. I don't trust some of them. I think there's a high possibility that the VMS in general plays with some of the spaces in instances where the "reader" would know whether to believe them or not. There's an EVA-y in there, for example, that stands alone. But is that what is intended? Or does it belong to the vord that comes before or after (or does it represent some kind of operation rather than a letter or symbol?).

And, a very important second consideration. Is there some specific way to integrate the first set of seven lines with the second? Does one come after the other, or are they integrated? Do the vords line up next to each other, or follow one from each word? Does one build columns left to right? Top to bottom? Right to left? So many possibilities.


As just one example, I started to do this by hand, but I've been up all night, haven't had any sleep, and am too tired to write some algorithms to organize these in a variety of ways. Doing it by hand is not practical... trying it in different ways is a job for the computer. I will post an example of the first paragraph moved into columns, however, with the BIG caveat, that the spaces are big guesses, the top to bottom format is a big guess (really just one permutation) and the second paragraph could be needed for it to make any sense IF a system like this were used.



Notice that the "labels" at the top of the arches have spaces so what follows in columns perhaps would have spaces also, but I have mostly split them because, at this point, there's no way to know.


But... it's something to think about. Is 7 x 7 x 7 a coincidence, or a clue to structure? Or... are there other pages that would be more amenable to this line of experimentation?


For the record, in the past, I've tried many ways to manipulate the text on the plant pages and didn't find any evidence that they are intended to be understood this way (integrated paragraphs, columns, right to left, up to down, etc.) but... I have different feelings about text in other parts of the manuscript. I think it's possible.

In 84r there are six arches, not seven.

And I think what is labeled are nymphs, not arches.

(25-02-2017, 04:07 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In 84r there are six arches, not seven.

And I think what is labeled are nymphs, not arches.

I agree that it appears to be the nymphs, rather than arches that are labeled (the vord pairs and related nymph pairs suggest this).

But bear with me for the moment... this being the Voynich manuscript, the two half arches on each end might add up to one. For all we know, the labels might even wrap around, so that the one on the far left is associated with the one on the far right (I don't consider this likely, but still want to consider it possible, even if only briefly).

I see the arches (and the arches in medieval calendars) as a containment embellishment, not as the main focus, and was only trying to point out a visual similarity to something that is so frequently expressed in columns in medieval literature (it's not always easy to come up with the best examples at 6:00 am after a long workday but I think it's enough to get the idea across that some of the text MIGHT be intended to be interpreted differently from regular narrative format).



I don't know if those nymph poses can be related to anything celestial, but most days of the week names were based on gods/planets (Saturn–Saturday, Wednesday–Woden's Day, etc.). If the nymphs on the far ends in the half arches are actually a pair, like some of the others, then there are seven nymph groups. Yes, I know, a stretch, but since I think of this as a brain-storming thread on an idea that really hasn't been given much discussion, we can hopefully look outside the box in a few directions until the patterns become better understood.


[Note also that the lines coming out of the "pipe" on the left are ON TOP of the green paint. If they are original, and not later additions, then the paint may be contemporary with the creation of the underlying drawings.]

Well, tables are designed to make referencing the information faster. There's no reason to use them if you want to obfuscate the information - or if you think using tables makes it too obvious to guess what you're presenting.

JKP- Off the top of my head, didn't the Celts used to have an eight day week? They would split the day into day/night (which could account for the dual nymphs under each arch), plus the first night day and a final light day, which would explain for the solitary nymphs either side. Just a brainstorm!

(26-02-2017, 12:27 AM)davidjackson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....

JKP- Off the top of my head, didn't the Celts used to have an eight day week? They would split the day into day/night (which could account for the dual nymphs under each arch), plus the first night day and a final light day, which would explain for the solitary nymphs either side. Just a brainstorm!

What an interesting idea. I was puzzling over why some nymphs are in pairs and some are not and your idea is as good a place to start as any.

Just came across an eight column table in a 10th century Spanish beatus manuscript:

Quote:Commentary
Spain, perhaps in Tábara, ca. 940-945
MS M.644 fol. 171v
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Antichrist: Table -- Table inscribed under arcade.
Illustration for Beatus of Valcavado, In Apocalipsin, VI, 5.

It's an apocalypse manuscript illustrating the book of Revelations.

Here's an example of lists without ruled columns - just to show we are in the real world, not just theorising.

It's an illustration I included in a post last year.  Found in the Cairo geniza. An inventory.  I'm not offering it as argument about the language of 'Voynichese' - but just to show that lists were actually being made in the medieval Mediterranean (and elsewhere) as nothing but unruled columns.

Also - thanks to everyone who has taken time to consider the question. I really appreciate the courtesy.

Anton,
You say...

Quote:When the author has the need to align the stuff in the shape of a table, he does not fail to that explicitly, such as ...

It was natural for people in the west during the early twentieth century to think  that to be an 'important' object, a book or other artefact had to be made by or owned by some single 'important' person.

But while it is understandable how the notion arose, and why each generation just assumed it, I cannot see that there is anything about the content itself to justify an assumption that the content is the sole expression of some individual 'author's mind.

The style of drawing changes noticeably from section to section, and even within some of the diagrams - and when I say 'style' I don't mean just individual hand, but stylistics in the sense of details which embody certain customs, cultural attitudes and so forth. 

Apart from the fact that we inherited the old habits from 1912-60, and the general notion that since no other Latin manuscript closely resembles it, the content should be the unique creation of a single mind... apart from that sort of argument... what is the evidence offered by the primary source that it is the work of one single 'author's mind and/or hand?

And if the content is actually a bunch of stuff, copied from more than one source by more than a couple of scribes, then it is fairly difficult to prove - perhaps even to justify positing - hypotheses about the 'author' or the  'artist' ..  isn't it?

Or is it?

D