(23-02-2019, 11:45 PM)Paris Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But I'm not sure there is a link with the Voynich manuscript.
If that can help you in your researchs, I'm happy with that.
Thanks, Paris. In fact my entire Made-in-the-Americas theory for the VMS is based on VMS marginalia that establishes the VMS as the original source of a small subset of Nostradamus prophecies, specifically, thirty-nine prophecies most of which I managed to identify and extract from Nostradamus back in 1982. I had never heard of the VMS until six or seven years ago, so for more than thirty years it was a fruitless effort trying to find the source.
It follows that I have an enormous advantage over every other scholar who has approached the VMS because I know what some of it says. I also know who decoded and published it in the 16th century and I am familiar with their other writings some of which relates to the history of the VMS. Most of all, being familiar with the prophetic content, I was able to track down external commentary of those prophecies from the 12th century onward.
The most surprising place where I encountered commentary on the Nostradamus prophecies was in the Spanish Chronicles on the Conquest of Peru. It seems at least two of the Nostradamus prophecies circulated widely in Peru during the reign of Viracocha Inca, 1410 to 1438. Though the sources indicate that the VMS passed through Peru on its way to England, it was reportedly found in Mexico, so I’m thinking another copy of the VMS could have reached Peru in the early 15th century. VMS copies may have been mass produced in Mexico prior to the rise of the Aztec empire.
Information on how the VMS marginalia links to Nostradamus can be found here: You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
A brief summary of my historical research is available here: You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
Questions are welcome.
(18-02-2019, 12:09 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I've looked at thousands of folios in thousands of manuscripts and I have sampled thousands of examples (tens of thousands).
JP, Among the thousands of manuscripts that you've seen, did you ever spot another instance of Voynichese script or even an unambiguous reference to Voynichese script? If not, what would be your explanation?
(24-02-2019, 08:11 AM)Morten St. George Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (18-02-2019, 12:09 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I've looked at thousands of folios in thousands of manuscripts and I have sampled thousands of examples (tens of thousands).
JP, Among the thousands of manuscripts that you've seen, did you ever spot another instance of Voynichese script or even an unambiguous reference to Voynichese script? If not, what would be your explanation?
Most of the Voynich glyphs have analogs in Latin script (a few also in Greek script). Even some (not all) of the "gallows" characters have analogs in Latin and Greek scribal conventions (e.g., EVA-k and the way some of the gallows are "stacked"). The ones that resemble Latin abbreviation symbols also are positioned similarly to Latin scribal abbreviations.
There is a small number of Voynich glyphs that I have not seen anywhere, but they are SIMILAR to the way Latin and Greek ligatures are constructed, so, for the moment I suspect they are invented according to the same basic ideas.
Perhaps to paraphrase JKP's point a bit, I think you need to take into account two components to understand Voynichese script.
On the one hand, it is "invented" and original as a limited glyph set. A few of the glyphs aren't found as a set anywhere else (mostly gallows and benched gallows). The decisions of which glyphs were included (and excluded!) feels made, constructed, artificial. As far as we know maybe even tailormade for this manuscript.
On the other hand, it is clear that the glyphs, and to a large extent their positional preferences, are based on Latin scribal conventions.
You really need these two parts to be able to understand Voynichese script. Yes, something new was made, but it's quite clear which writing system served as a source for the creation.
(24-02-2019, 12:05 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Most of the Voynich glyphs have analogs in Latin script (a few also in Greek script). Even some (not all) of the "gallows" characters have analogs in Latin and Greek scribal conventions (e.g., EVA-k and the way some of the gallows are "stacked"). The ones that resemble Latin abbreviation symbols also are positioned similarly to Latin scribal abbreviations.
There is a small number of Voynich glyphs that I have not seen anywhere, but they are SIMILAR to the way Latin and Greek ligatures are constructed, so, for the moment I suspect they are invented according to the same basic ideas.
I guess the question I was really trying to ask is if you have found any historical record of the VMS in any 15th century manuscript or European document from that epoch. My point is that in a society carefully controlled by a ruthless Inquisition which kept detailed records, and with diverse handwriting suggesting that the composition of the VMS was a group effort, there should be a historical record of the VMS but apparently there isn't, which leaves the door open for composition outside of Europe.
My Made-in-the-Americas Theory applies to the physical redaction of the VMS and not to its script which I believe was created in Europe prior to departure for the New World. My best guess (and I emphasize the word "guess") is that the script (and encryption system) was created in Toledo after 1244 (the VMS depiction of Montségur) and before 1284 (the death of Alfonso the Wise). I have five reasons for thinking Toledo was the place:
i. The VMS prophecies were accepted as divine revelation by two distinct religious sects: by Christian heretics known as Cathars and by Jewish heretics known as Cabalists. Both sects had ties to the city of Toledo.
ii. Toledo was home to a famous school of translators which included experts in Latin, Ancient Greek, Hebrew, Arabic, and Spanish. All five of these languages were mentioned as conveying the VMS prophecies.
iii. Between 1253 and 1263 Toledo held control of southern Portugal which would have been a perfect place for launching a boat to the New World.
iv. Roger Bacon (1220-1292) had strong ties to Toledo from where he received many Arabic translations that greatly assisted him in his work.
v. A VMS prophecy refers to the Tagus River on which the city of Toledo was built.
For a historical record of VMS script (if one is ever to be found), a good place to look might be the 13th-century publications of the Toledo translators.
(24-02-2019, 03:24 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Perhaps to paraphrase JKP's point a bit, I think you need to take into account two components to understand Voynichese script.
On the one hand, it is "invented" and original as a limited glyph set. A few of the glyphs aren't found as a set anywhere else (mostly gallows and benched gallows). The decisions of which glyphs were included (and excluded!) feels made, constructed, artificial. As far as we know maybe even tailormade for this manuscript.
On the other hand, it is clear that the glyphs, and to a large extent their positional preferences, are based on Latin scribal conventions.
You really need these two parts to be able to understand Voynichese script. Yes, something new was made, but it's quite clear which writing system served as a source for the creation.
Thanks Koen G. As you can see in my response to JP, I'm not disputing anything you and JP have to say on the nature of VMS script, but I think better efforts can be made to identify when and where that script was created.
(25-02-2019, 12:29 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Morten, I've already stated earlier in this thread and in other threads that the style of the script on 116v is consistent with very late 14th century and early 15th to mid-15th century script. Nobody wrote like that in the early or mid-13th century.
Writing styles changed quite a bit from the early to the later medieval period. So much so, it's one of the primary means that bibliographers and historians use to estimate the dates of many manuscripts.
The style of the handwriting on 116v is very consistent with the radiocarbon dating.
This creates two problems for your theory. For one thing, you have stated that the text on 116v is central to your theory, but if it was created in the early 15th century, then it does not support your theory. The second problem is that if the main text (Voynichese) was created in the mid-13th century, then it predates the radiocarbon dating and the style of the text on 116v by more than a century.
Gosh, JP, I can see that I still need to do a lot of work to clarify my theories:
i. All of the marginalia was written into the Beinecke MS between 1584 and 1642 by the English owners of the VMS. They were familiar with old styles of handwriting and adopted different styles for the marginalia.
ii. The radiocarbon date for the Beinecke MS is not disputed. The recipes section of the Beinecke MS is claimed to be a manual copy made in Mexico of recipes originally written in Spain between 1244 and 1284.
For example, the Bible was originally written BC but thousands of copies were manually made throughout the Middle Ages. In the same way, the Beinecke MS is a copy of earlier writings.
(25-02-2019, 05:37 AM)Morten St. George Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Gosh, JP, I can see that I still need to do a lot of work to clarify my theories:
i. All of the marginalia was written into the Beinecke MS between 1584 and 1642 by the English owners of the VMS. They were familiar with old styles of handwriting and adopted different styles for the marginalia.
So you're saying they faked almost two-centuries-old handwriting on 116v. You haven't presented any evidence for this and it's not a very plausible assertion.
Quote:ii. The radiocarbon date for the Beinecke MS is not disputed. The recipes section of the Beinecke MS is claimed to be a manual copy made in Mexico of recipes originally written in Spain between 1244 and 1284.
But the Mexican conquest is a century AFTER the radiocarbon dating, regardless of when the material was originally written, and assuming the VMS dense text is recipes (which we don't know), and assuming it's natural language (for which there is, as yet, no proof).
Quote:For example, the Bible was originally written BC but thousands of copies were manually made throughout the Middle Ages. In the same way, the Beinecke MS is a copy of earlier writings.
This has nothing to do with the radiocarbon dating or whether the last page is fake handwriting. Most nonfiction books are copied or partly copied from other sources. So what?
(25-02-2019, 05:46 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.So you're saying they faked almost two-centuries-old handwriting on 116v. You haven't presented any evidence for this and it's not a very plausible assertion.
If you find handwriting of the 15th century on f116v, you can say that it could not have been written in the 14th century, but you cannot say that it could not have been written in the 16th or 17th centuries.
In general, your methods are invalid in cases where we find the use of encryption or a motive for deception. The marginalia was written by protestants during an epoch of vicious religious warfare between protestants and Catholics, and there was no guarantee that the protestants would win. They therefore adopted an old handwriting style to mislead the Inquisition in case the Catholics won.
The following marginalia helps to connect the VMS to the Nostradamus prophecies: the folio numbers, the quire numbers, the zodiac months, You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. Latin letters, You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. writings, recipe star red coloring, recipe star tails, recipe star stray markings. There is therefore ample reason to believe that all of this marginalia was written by same person(s) at the same time.
Quote:But the Mexican conquest is a century AFTER the radiocarbon dating, regardless of when the material was originally written, and assuming the VMS dense text is recipes (which we don't know), and assuming it's natural language (for which there is, as yet, no proof).
I have been repeatedly trying to explain to you that European protestants (under the duress of severe persecution in Europe) migrated to the New World in the 13th century. Since this particular sect of protestants didn't believe in procreation, there is today no evidence of their presence in the New World other than the VMS itself and Indian legends. The non-botanical sections of the Beinecke MS would therefore be a copy of their writings made by the second or third generation of Indian converts to their religion.
The marginalia indicates that the dense text section of the VMS is encoded. The botanical sections of the VMS could be either Indian natural language or gibberish.
Quote:This has nothing to do with the radiocarbon dating or whether the last page is fake handwriting. Most nonfiction books are copied or partly copied from other sources. So what?
The situation is that you have been trying to associate the VMS with 15th century Europe when you should really be looking at 13th century Europe.