The Voynich Ninja

Yale's facsimile edition is 304 pages.

The new book is 240 pages (according to Amazon).


From that I assume it is, for the most part, a facsimile edition, since most of those pages comprise the Voynich Manuscript. If there are 64 pages less than the Yale edition, then whatever commentaries are included must be fairly short. Now I understand why no specific author was mentioned (only foreword and introductory matter commentators). The "author" is whoever created the VMS.

(19-06-2017, 04:10 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The new book is 240 pages (according to Amazon).

I'm not so sure that this is up to date. 240 looks like it's just the facsimile part.

(Curiously, the Amazon picture of the cover has Rafał's first name wrong as well)

Now, now, let's not speculate until it's out.
I think we can all understand Rene's last comment, and Dr Skinner is well known for his presentation of classical esoteric works - look up his other works on Amazon.
In my heart of hearts I'm not expecting great things.
There will be two very factual essays (forewords) followed by some inspired guesses and carefully crafted text to excite the uninitiated. No doubt by December it will be the inspiration for several new theories from people unqualified to interpret a bus timetable, let alone the Voynich!

I see the statement "and the lack of any Christian imagery" as problematic. One might consider whether the term 'lack' indicates either 'paucity' or 'absence', but "lack of any" is probably absence. But what is the nature of absence, is it the state of something that does not exist? Or is it the state of something that is not known and has yet to be discovered? Something that is not known will probably not be recognized. Without conscious recognition, we may see things, but not understand what they mean. The failure to recognize elements of the VMs does not mean that all possibilities have been well examined.

The Genoese Gambit, focused on VMs White Aries, poses the silent question, the test of recognition: Does the reader known the historical origins of the Roman Catholic tradition of the red galero, the cardinal's hat, the Genoese bonnet? And let us differentiate between the modern reader and a sort of 'medieval' reader. Clearly this is *not* information which modern readers are likely to have picked up on. There is no recognition and, therefore, there is no imagery.

However, to the 'medieval' reader, in times where church education predominated, the possibility of recognition might have been better.

Is there another proposed identification in the VMs that has more independent elements to supply confirmation than this identification of the origin of an on-going, historical, heraldic, religious tradition?

I just realized today there's a preview. Unfortunately, I couldn't read it all. The repeated references to Sherwood's plant IDs, and further assumptions based upon those IDs, had me shaking my head and when additional references Sherwood's anagramed plant names occurred (you might remember the reference to the name "garlic" to a plant that doesn't even remotely resemble garlic), I stopped reading.


As for the Jewish reference. It had nothing to do with the rosettes page or the crossbow or the various illustrations that Diane has been blogging about. The reference to Jewish culture was based upon Skinner's observations of a possible correspondence between bathing nymphs and Jewish mikvot/mikvoth, and the piping systems that would be necessary to keep the water pure and unrecycled.

While I think the mikveh idea is entirely plausible (one that crossed my mind a number of times), I wouldn't discount other explanations for the bathing pages. My many months of research into medieval spas revealed that they were numerous and well patronized by people of diverse cultures and many had elaborate pools and aqueduct systems.

(19-06-2017, 04:32 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(Curiously, the Amazon picture of the cover has Rafał's first name wrong as well)

I think the Amazon picture was an early version of the cover. I've just gotten the book in the mail ad there the "L" has been written correctly and a few extra shiny marks have been added. Quite pretty

I've seen it.  No new theory. No new research. Just another 'idea'.

A conscientious researcher mentions first enunciation of any conclusion they use, and even of some 'ideas' though mainly as a matter of honesty and transparency - claiming credit to which one is not entitled, whether tacitly or overtly is the final shame.   

Of course, no-body would actually try to claim credit for an 'idea', Of course.

If we had to credit  'ideas' Newton would have to say that his law of gravity was 'idea' of the first  hominid who said "Apple... falls".. .

So, seriously.  Professor Irwin Panofsky is to be credited here.  He was a specialist in analytical evaluation of art, and especially trained and experienced in medieval art and manuscripts, chiefly German Christian and then Italian renaissance. 

He said - in 1931 - that the imagery in the Vms derived from neither of those traditions.  Or rather, he implied this by attributing it to Jews of 'Spain or somewhere southern'. 

From that time until I began noticing details in the imagery which had no other origin or counterpart, Panofsky's evaluation had been unknown or ignored - as far as I can discover. 

I found no evidence that anyone had looked into any aspect : no research into the codicology or palaeography of Jewish manuscripts, no investigation of Jewish botanical drawings, astronomical texts, characteristic habits in art, literature of sciences ... nothing.  No preliminary investigation means no conclusion from that research and its evidence. No-one to credit from 1931- until a few years ago.  So far as I could find.  -

The Friedmans assumed the Voynich manuscript was the unique creation of a sixteenth century, European and Christian 'author' whom they presumed created the text in cipher.  Their only interest in the manuscript lay in the challenge of 'breaking' the written part of the text - to which all the imagery was assumed potentially an aid - but evidently of no independent worth from their point of view.

d'Imperio's booklet is now very badly out of date on many points, including this one.  It shows clearly that the Friedman group interpreted 'Jewish' as meaning a written source of some text on magic from which that imagined Christian, European 'renaissance' or 'enlightenment' author had derived his cipher.

Until I disputed Ellie's interpretation of one of the 'bathy' folios - first in a comment and then a separate post  - explaining to her that in no sense: not in content, style, habits or ways of seeing the world, did the manuscript's imagery evince Christian origin, such a thing had never been said or accepted in Voynich studies except by implication by Panofsky - whose opinion was effectively just ignored.   Again - happy to know better if you know.



Response from Ellie and her friends and associates at that time was of a kind which also made clear to me, as to everyone else, that this was until then an unheard-of opinion.  That's why I wrote the first blogposts: I simply couldn't believe that others really believed what they very plainly did - and which they also thought obvious.  I don't recall any comment correcting their point of view, or referring to earlier research into this manuscript.  I still think it was the first time that had been said, and the reasoning and evidence informing that opinion explained. 

Never mind: everyone seems to believe it now, even if some don't know what brought such a radical change in so short a time.  Its now more thing that I can add to the 'things certainly known' page on my blog.



We advance.

So, is Stephen Skinner wrong in his assessment???

Quote:The Friedmans assumed the Voynich manuscript was the unique creation of a sixteenth century, European and Christian 'author' whom they presumed created the text in cipher.  Their only interest in the manuscript lay in the challenge of 'breaking' the written part of the text - to which all the imagery was assumed potentially an aid - but evidently of no independent worth from their point of view.

d'Imperio's booklet is now very badly out of date on many points, including this one.  It shows clearly that the Friedman group interpreted 'Jewish' as meaning a written source of some text on magic from which that imagined Christian, European 'renaissance' or 'enlightenment' author had derived his cipher.

Could you provide a section nr. or page nr. in D'Imperio's book, from which any of this follows?
Or any other source, for that matter?

The repeated reference to Panofsky's supposed statement that the MS is Jewish deserves a closer look.

In the 1930's there were two Jewish art historians in Germany who took a great interest in the Voynich MS.
Of the two, Richard Salomon was the senior. He was involved in creating the Warburg library in Hamburg, a forerunner of the famous Warburg institute. He was a mentor to Erwin Panofsky, who turned out probably to be the more brilliant of the two (matter of speculation and taste).
With the uprising of national socialism in Germany, both had to leave their posts and moved to the US.

Both have left us their opinions about the Voynich MS.

Salomon was of the opinion that the MS is German, but this seems to be ignored.
Panofsky left two opinions, once in the 1930's and once in the 1950's.
In the later one, he was also of the opinion the the MS is German, but this also seems to be ignored.

In the earlier one, he is quoted by ELV as follows:

Quote:That it shows Jewish or Arab influence, probably in connection with the Kabbala; but also Dutch or Flemish influence in the female faces and figures and some Spanish or anyhow southern qualities. This last impression was strengthened in his mind by the character of the greens and red.

Jewish is one out of five: "Jewish or Arab, Dutch or Flemish, Spanish".

Ignoring ~90% of the evidence, and quoting only ~10% of it, is not sound scholarly work.
It looks like a case of selecting the evidence that fits the theory.

Stick to the topic of this publication please!

(19-06-2017, 08:27 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I just realized today there's a preview. Unfortunately, I couldn't read it all. The repeated references to Sherwood's plant IDs, and further assumptions based upon those IDs, had me shaking my head and when additional references Sherwood's anagramed plant names occurred (you might remember the reference to the name "garlic" to a plant that doesn't even remotely resemble garlic), I stopped reading.

That's exactly what I thought as well. Sherwood's shaky ID's and anagramming? Ouch...

But Skinner's personal thoughts occupy only like three pages in this book, they are not really developed. It feels more like he couldn't resist squeezing in some personal musings. Which can be hard to resist indeed

(20-06-2017, 08:23 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Stick to the topic of this publication please!

Koen,

I am sorry, but it is not clear who is addressed by this.