The Voynich Ninja

(26-11-2018, 07:54 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There was nothing uncommon about ciphers in the Middle Ages. What was rare was difficult ciphers. Most of them were simple substitution codes or first-letter anacrostics. Also rare were manuscripts where there was a lot of cipher text (usually it's just a small amount), but they do exist.

I agree with that. I actually have a book on medieval codes and ciphers, which I did not find to be particularly helpful for decoding the VMS. I clearly misused the word 'cryptographic'. I really wasn't referring to codes and ciphers, but to deceptive and evasive writing in general. Once determined that the objective of the author of the marginalia was to inform us on how to decode the VMS, all items of doubt should be interpreted in that light. Even if a character looks a bit more like a Latin abbreviation than a VMS symbol, the overall objective might require that we give priority to the VMS symbol if that is more helpful for the decoding. Cryptic writing can be defined as efforts to lead unwelcome readers astray, and, of course, those efforts can include characters written in disguise.

(26-11-2018, 08:00 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The person who wrote the marginalia used 15th-century script. So the marginalia may have added long before the manuscript was numbered and bound. In the Middle Ages, manuscripts were usually purchased (or given to their patrons) unbound and usually un-numbered, as well, since the creator didn't know how many extra leaves would be added to the beginning and end and in between sections. The binder's assistant or apprentice was probably the one adding the numbers. There is evidence of division of labor in added page numbers.

In 1597, a botanical book was published in England displaying a shield in the form of a fleur de lys on its front cover. The shield contained Arabic and Roman numerals, which could be added up in two ways: one sequence added up to 79, the number of a Nostradamus prophecy containing the words "fleur de lys"; the other sequence added up to 85, the number of a VMS page whose foldout includes a drawing of the fleur de lys.

But that does not necessarily mean the numbers were added to the VMS prior to 1597. The order of the pages could have re-arranged so that the number 85 would fall next to the fleur de lys.



The VMS marginalia on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (to the right of your rotated m) includes a shield in the form of a fleur de lys, similar in design to the shield seen on the 1597 publication. This is where your expertise comes in handy: Does shield overwrite the number 1 or does the number 1 overwrite the shield? Another possibility: Does the shield stop just before reaching the number 1 and then continue on the other side? For sure, this will determine which was written first: the marginalia or the numbering. Beware: cryptic writing can be deliberately deceptive, that is, they might want you to think one was written before the other whereas in reality they could have been done at the same time.

Based on historical considerations, both the marginalia and the numbering would have been done between 1584 and 1625.

(26-11-2018, 11:06 AM)Paris Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Here are two examples from a dictionary of latin abbreviations (lexicon abbreviaturum)
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

I noticed that a few of the abbreviations in that book resemble Voynich symbols. Has anyone compiled a complete list of such abbreviations and what they abbreviate?

An abbreviation that I saw in the published output was "tēps" for "temps". Makes me think that VMS decoding requires a mechanism for associating consonants with vowels or vice versa. I'm working on it.

(27-11-2018, 06:51 AM)Morten St. George Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[quote="-JKP-" pid='23667' dateline='1543258812']




The VMS marginalia on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (to the right of your rotated m) includes a shield in the form of a fleur de lys, similar in design to the shield seen on the 1597 publication. This is where your expertise comes in handy: Does shield overwrite the number 1 or does the number 1 overwrite the shield? Another possibility: Does the shield stop just before reaching the number 1 and then continue on the other side? For sure, this will determine which was written first: the marginalia or the numbering. Beware: cryptic writing can be deliberately deceptive, that is, they might want you to think one was written before the other whereas in reality they could have been done at the same time.

Based on historical considerations, both the marginalia and the numbering would have been done between 1584 and 1625.

It doesn't look like a shield to me. It looks like a flower with three petals close to the viewer and one on  the side farthest from the viewer. Bell-shaped, like Campanula or blue Gentian flowers:

[attachment=2519]

It looks to me like the number one overwrites the drawing but I can't tell for certain because the ink colors are similar. It could be either way. When over-writing something else, there's always the possibility of a slight ink-skip because of the minutely raised texture of the underlying ink bumping the pen, so sometimes it's hard to tell.

The best way to figure it out is not by looking at an individual folio number, but by going through the folio numbers and seeing if there are others that overwrite (or underwrite) the drawings. The folio numbers are relatively consistent and were probably added all in one session. It's better to look at the context to see if there are other things that make the data clearer.

Hi Morten St. George

Morten St. George Wrote: For sure, this will determine which was written first: the marginalia or the numbering...
Based on historical considerations, both the marginalia and the numbering would have been done between 1584 and 1625.

For me, marginalia was written by the first writer around 1450 and numbering by the last one around 1550.

Based on the script styles, I would say the annotations on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. were added sometime between 1395 and 1520. If I were asked to narrow it down, I would say early- or mid-1400s is more likely than later 1400s.

The annotations between the legs of the zodiac figures are probably added a little later, maybe 1420 to 1530.


The quire numbers are in a style that was popular between about 1390 to about 1480. Most writers had stopped using the old style numbers by about 1480, but there were still a few who used them into the early 16th century.


The foliation is in a style (and ink) that was common between about 1430 and 1590 or so. This style (and ink) was pretty common in the 1500s. Around the late 1500s, writing implements improved and people started using different kinds of pens and modern numbers became more common. By the 1600s, foliation didn't quite look like VMS foliation any more. Most people were using the new pens and the modern shape of 5.

.
I have hundreds of samples of medieval numbers that are relatively similar to the VMS foliation. The six closest samples range in date from about 1480 to about 1550. There are two that are slightly less similar that might be as late as 1600. It's hard to establish an exact date because they are rarely added at the same time the manuscript is made, but I have located palaeographic comparison samples within manuscripts that help establish a relative date for the style.

(27-11-2018, 08:08 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It doesn't look like a shield to me. It looks like a flower with three petals close to the viewer and one on  the side farthest from the viewer. Bell-shaped, like Campanula or blue Gentian flowers:

[SEE IMAGE ABOVE]

It looks to me like the number one overwrites the drawing but I can't tell for certain because the ink colors are similar. It could be either way. When over-writing something else, there's always the possibility of a slight ink-skip because of the minutely raised texture of the underlying ink bumping the pen, so sometimes it's hard to tell.

The best way to figure it out is not by looking at an individual folio number, but by going through the folio numbers and seeing if there are others that overwrite (or underwrite) the drawings. The folio numbers are relatively consistent and were probably added all in one session. It's better to look at the context to see if there are other things that make the data clearer.

Are you 100% certain that your Photoshop is not enhancing a stalk reflecting through the page from f17v?

I do not know why you are suddenly becoming so devious. You are undoubtedly aware that there is no other instance where the page numbering comes into contact with page content. This makes it all the more the likely that the shield (disguised as a fleur de lys flower) is marginalia.

Determining what overwrites what should be a matter of elementary forensics, resolvable with nothing more than a good magnifying glass. Can anyone in this forum gain brief access to the VMS?

(27-11-2018, 10:00 AM)Paris Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.For me, marginalia was written by the first writer around 1450 and numbering by the last one around 1550.

Hi Paris. In an essay about the medieval history of the VMS, I provide evidence that it came into the possession of Viracocha Inca between 1410 and 1438. I therefore think it rather unlikely that marginalia in Latin letters was added to the VMS around the year 1450.

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

Quote: I provide evidence that it came into the possession of Viracocha Inca between 1410 and 1438.

A wonderful excuse to use one of my new emoticons

(27-11-2018, 03:06 PM)Morten St. George Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....


Are you 100% certain that your Photoshop is not enhancing a stalk reflecting through the page from f17v?

I do not know why you are suddenly becoming so devious. You are undoubtedly aware that there is no other instance where the page numbering comes into contact with page content. This makes it all the more the likely that the shield (disguised as a fleur de lys flower) is marginalia.

Determining what overwrites what should be a matter of elementary forensics, resolvable with nothing more than a good magnifying glass. Can anyone in this forum gain brief access to the VMS?

When you get to know me you'll find that I'm not devious at all. It's not part of my nature. If I were, I wouldn't be on the forum. I would be quietly trying to solve this on my own and not sharing my findings.

I did not know that there is no other instance where the page numbering comes into contact with page content. I have studied the shapes of the folio numbers quite extensively but I have not looked for overlaps. It's a big manuscript, there are zillions of details. It's impossible to study all of them, so I chose a few areas in which I am particularly interested and I focus on those. I've barely looked at the "biological" section compared to the plants and zodiac figures and I haven't really studied overlaps yet except for the text between the legs of the zodiac figures (there are many different kinds of overlaps in the VMS, some of them probably worth studying).