The Voynich Ninja

Potential explanations of the VMs group themselves into hypothetical paradigms of various types. One is the natural, ‘face-value’, it is what it appears to be – type of interpretation. And it assumes that the VMs really is an unknown language or it really is an extremely difficult cipher. But whatever it is, it is an earnest and genuine effort to communicate sensible, understandable information. Whatever it is, it is valid and authentic, even if it really is an extremely difficult cipher for an unknown language.
 
Another view is just the opposite. The VMs is not an earnest effort to communicate any sensible, understandable information. To the contrary of the first paradigm, the VMs makes no sense. It is pure nonsense. It was never intended to make any sense. However, a closer examination reveals a variety of interesting features in the VMs language and the illustrations. Is it too complex to be nonsense? Or, perhaps, it is possible to make patterned nonsense –either accidentally or on purpose. And in the end, the absence of sense cannot be proven anyway.
 
A third alternative, recently proposed, is that the VMs is a modern forgery. It is suggested that all the problematic irregularities from the two previous paradigms correlate with the sort of idiosyncratic errors and mistakes that are found in forgery. But forgeries are made to be familiar and similar to known examples. They are not made to be strange, exotic and incomprehensible like the VMs.
 
One of the first things in the investigation of a totally unreadable text, such as the VMs, is to go through the illustrations and see what is there to be seen and to compare it with what is known to the investigator. The first data is visual and pictorial, the comparisons found depend on the individual researcher, and the assumption is that visual similarity indicates correspondence. When the author wishes to indicate correspondence between one of the VMs illustrations and an earlier representation of the same sort of image, then visual similarity would seem to be the presumptive technique. The author would attempt to present a visual replica of the selected, historical prototype in order to indicate such correspondence.
 
That is the standard practice. That is the practice many have presumed. But what if there are other factors involved? What if a strong visual similarity is something that is not desired? Is there a way to indicate a comparative correspondence that does not rely entirely on visual similarity? Rather than create visual similarity with the expectation of correspondence and recognition, is it possible to produce correspondence and recognition by some other means?
 
This suggests a forth type of hypothetical solution paradigm. This paradigm is based on visual deception, intentional visual deception, and then recognition based on other factors. Those factors include placement and structure. Similar structure and placement comparable with that of medieval art is significant. However, the element essential for the comparison is to have identified a source that represents the proper, historical prototype for a particular VMs reproduction.
 
There is a world of difference for the task of paradigm comparison when this historical prototype is real and specifically indentified, rather than some hypothetical proposal. It is an uncommon event in VMs investigation to be able to present a historical prototype for a particular VMs image. The prime example for this (IMO) is the matching of the Oresme cosmic illustration (BNF fr 565) with the VMs version from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (E. Velinska, 2014). Through the comparison of the Oresme prototype with the VMs replica, it can be seen that a certain methodology has been employed to create a new solution paradigm. The new solution paradigm is based on deception and recognition. The deception is visual. It is created by using different methods of representation to illustrate the same thing.
 
Consider this description. This cosmic illustration is quite unusual, when compared with the standard medieval representations of the geocentric model. The general cosmic diagram of that type follows the familiar ‘music of spheres’ format. The cosmos in question here is much simpler. The round earth is at the center of the cosmos. It appears to be represented in the manner of an inverted T-O construction, as is generally found in the three-fold division of the classical elements of air, earth and water, with water consistently in the bottom half. Around the earth is the starry sky. The earth is surrounded by stars. And the whole image is enclosed in an artistic structure, conventional to the medieval period, that was used to represent a cloudy band.
 
Which representation fits this description? It could be either one – the Oresme or the VMs. Yet the visual differences between the two images are significant. The earth is an inverted T-O diagram in both, with water, earth and air represented pictorially in Oresme, but presumably labeled in the VMs. The starry field in Oresme is a lighter medium blue, while VMs blue is darker and much augmented by black inclusions to produce a better representation of the night sky. The stars themselves, which are naturally scattered in Oresme, have all been artificially lined up in a rough circle by the VMs artist. This is an obvious, visual difference, a distinctive indicator, but both examples still clearly fit the description of an earth surrounded by stars.
 
The third part of the cosmic structure, the outer shell, the cloudy band is a prime example of visual extremes. Contrast the ornate and elaborately detailed, scallop-shell patterned, blue and white painted, perfectly circular cloud band in the Oresme representation with the wobbly, meandering, sloppy looking, plain ink line of the VMs image. They could hardly be further apart in their appearance. But, once this line pattern from the VMs can be shown to correspond quite well with the traditionally defined, heraldic example of a nebuly line, then the etymology of the name makes it clear that, despite such strong visual differences, both of these parts perform the same, corresponding function by definition. Note that the VMs does contain a cloud band representation visually comparable to the Oresme example as part of the Central Rosette.
 
So far then, the three parts, a central earth, stars and cloud band, correspond in location and produce equivalent structures despite their significant visual differences. Now the singular presence of the textual banners forming a large wheel with curved spokes around the VMs representation is actually a further confirmation of the intentional creation of visual deception. Simply put, these textual banners are ephemeral. They are not physical objects. They do not exist. They have been used to create a significant, additional, visual difference, but they count for nothing in the cosmic structure. They provide further confirmation of the solution paradigm based on deception and recognition [visual deception and traditional structural recognition].
 
Recognition is another issue altogether. Recognition will only occur when the proper historical prototype is known. And when it is not known, it needs to be discovered – not an easy task. Such discovery has proven rather difficult, hence the significance of the simplified, Oresme-style of cosmic representation as the historical prototype for the VMs cosmic replication. Here is the example where it can be clearly shown that, despite significant visual differences, the parts correspond in their functions to produce the same, uncommon type of cosmic structure. Hence this is a clear example of the new solution paradigm based on visual deception and structural recognition. What other solution paradigm has provided a clear example of how it functions? And that is an example that is not hypothetical, but actually exists in the Oresme comparison.
 
The deception and recognition interpretation, as a solution paradigm, demonstrates further confirmation in the dualistic representation of an optical illusion on VMs White Aries. Visual deception, created through illusion and ambiguity, disguises the historical origins of a known religious tradition, one that is repeatedly confirmed through traditional placement and heraldic canting. This is how the VMs needs to be understood in order to be properly investigated. Visual similarity may be insufficient, even confusing, by intent. That is how things were hidden. That is how this version of Oresme’s cosmos was hidden. The important part is to recognize the reality underneath, as supported by traditional structural and positional correspondence. And that reality is supplied only by the proper historical prototype, through the use of the proper solution paradigm. That is what this cosmic comparison demonstrates. The solution paradigm of deception and recognition is not hypothetical, like the others. It actually functions. Deception is recognized. Trickery is revealed. This allows us to understand the process of conversion that goes from prototype to VMs replica. It relies on the intentional creation of visual difference without contradicting the essential features and functions of the historical prototype. And since the VMs artist was specifically selective, in the choice of historical prototypes, and intentionally deceptive in their depiction, much of modern investigation, in its search for visual identity, tends to see either some disqualifying error or nothing at all, as was the case prior to the important, cosmic discovery and comparison examined in this discussion. Now that situation can be reversed. Now the paradigm of trickery has been proposed, revealed, examined in detail and demonstrated by example. Are there any questions?
 
There is a saying by Francis Bacon, that God took delight to hide his works, to the end to have them found out. This same motivation has been employed by the creator of the VMs, who has hidden historical events, religious tradition and scientific information of the medieval era in the VMs illustrations.

Although I agree with much of what you say, we can also come up with another paradigm simply by removing the concept of deception - and inserting that of innocence.
It is perfectly reasonable to suggest the scribes were untrained in the Scholastic tradition, or the monastic artistic tradition. They therefore used the cultural heritage they were exposed to, but were not bound by strict rules of interpretation and simply put their own spin on things.

What you suggest will produce another paradigm. However, if there were these scribes following their cultural heritage, as you suggest, then there would be numerous examples of illustrations where that cultural heritage was evident. If such is the case, what cultural heritage are they following? Why do these scribes get so many things wrong, if they are following their well-known cultural heritage?

Does the VMs cosmos reflect the Oresme illustration? How can all the parts be visually wrong and the overall structure still represents the same three parts in a simplified and very uncommon type of cosmos? 

Better yet, go to VMs White Aries and explain the optical illusion. Why is there a hidden reference to the Genoese Popes?  The Pisces and Dark Aries pages each have a representation of the heraldic fur known as papelonny? The location of these patterns corresponds in quadrant and in sphere with the blue-striped patterns on White Aries. 'Pape' is the French word for 'pope.' This is an intentionally constructed example of heraldic canting. It is built into these VMs zodiac illustrations by someone who knew what s/he was doing. It is not an innocent, casual or accidental occurrence. Things have been intentionally hidden and disguised here and in the VMs cosmos. To suggest otherwise, at least in my opinion, is to accept an incredible string of coincidences that can only be reconciled with specific historical comparisons, that has been concentrated in specific locations, that reaches all the way to the stars.

Quote:if there were these scribes following their cultural heritage, 

I'm sorry, I meant they were exposed to western cultural heritage - hence all the vague links we keep spotting - but that they were not formally trained in the traditions and so just reinterpreted the imagery they saw.
Rather like a westerner who goes to Japan, has access to traditional Japanese culture, but who has never been trained in it. This person may well draw upon the traditional imagery, and even copy elements of it, but their work would not be in the formal tradition.

The issue is not so much the replication of images, the visual images are not that good. The earth at the center of the VMs cosmos does not copy the pictorial representation of elemental images seen in the Oresme version. The interpretation of images is subjective, at best.

What the VMs does, in the example of White Aries, is to make an ambiguous visual reference and then confirm a possible interpretation of that image through the proper, traditional, objective placement of the elements involved. The construction stands in place whether or not the image can be recognized. Even if it is taken from a prior source the confirmation is still valid. And there would also be a further requirement of that prior source and a prior author. That just kicks the can down the road without addressing the reason for the initial purpose of the construction.

The VMs is a manuscript in disguise. This is how the disguise was created. It is not through copies or accidental resemblances, but through intentionally ambiguous visual elements confirmed by the intentional use of traditional placement, the intentional construction of heraldic canting and so on.

David. 
I come by too rarely, and have just seen your comment above.

Quote:I'm sorry, I meant they were exposed to western cultural heritage - hence all the vague links we keep spotting - but that they were not formally trained in the traditions and so just reinterpreted the imagery they saw.

Rather like a westerner who goes to Japan, has access to traditional Japanese culture, but who has never been trained in it. This person may well draw upon the traditional imagery, and even copy elements of it, but their work would not be in the formal tradition.

It is amazing how far the thinking has advanced since 2011 or so, that you can say this without meeting hostility  - a real sea-change has taken place with the establishment of voynich.ninja.  Congrats to you and the moderators.

What I see is not entirely unlike the scenario you describe, but I think I can be a little more exact even if this isn't the place to adduce all the material informing the opinion.

I'll skip straight to the late thirteenth and early fourteenth century..

Around that time, so the evidence suggests, most - not all - of what is now contained in the fifteenth-century manuscript had entered the south-western area of the Mediterranean, and specifically the network of connections linking Majorca, France, England, northern Spain and Genoa.  (There is solid historical evidence for that particular set).

From there we begin to see comparable ideas and practices - not only in imagery - seeping into works of plainly Latin provenance.  First in England and France (at the time so closely connected that many thought they'd become one kingdom in the near future), and then through northern Italy to about the time the Vms was made, and thereafter further to the north into central Europe.

Once the material moves into the Latin horizons' - not just the physical region but the cultural horizon - it is increasingly affected by the Latin scribes' existing attitudes, habits and formal training.  Some late additions to the Vms also show the impact of Latin attitudes attempting to 'correct' the original forms... the ruled sort of line which transforms a pool into a kind of bath is an example.  Or the representation of the sagittario for Sagittarius as Arcitenens.

I think it quite possible that those who made our present manuscript were Latins, or newly-made conversos.  The point is that what they had received had not been either first enunciated, nor maintained over ... well, say a very long time... by Latins.

Since Europe's colonial era it has been difficult for historians to get across to the general public  the idea that ultimate control over what entered the Latin world was not invariably in the hands of a Christian male.  The model was that the westerner went and 'took' this or that from a passive holder, rather than gratefully receiving material from a superior but non-Latin source.  It's an idea the historians have been struggling to rectify in the public imagination for decades - since the 1960s, but it does die hard.

That's why it's nice to see that you do not presume the 'white man' necessarily the superior in a process of cultural exchange.  Thanks for posting that.