The Voynich Ninja

Linda, the medieval representation of the cosmos has nothing to do with what we see on a starry night. It's not figurative; we could say abstract, as you say, but I prefer to call it the representation of a mental conception. That is to say, what we see on the Rosettes page is a drawing of an intellectual way of viewing the universe. Even if only for this fascinating drawing, the Voynich has enormous cultural importance, because there is no other representation of the medieval cosmos that I know of that is so complete and graphic.

   The medieval universe is like an onion composed of various layers or crystalline spheres. The outermost layer or sphere, that of the fixed stars, is solid and riddled with holes. These holes are filled with stars, some brighter than others, and some that we cannot even see. It's somewhat similar to our own perception, although in the Middle Ages some stars weren't farther away than others; they were all stuck like tacks to the sphere.

That's why we see those tubes protruding from the central sphere of the Rosettes. It's to better show the holes where the stars are housed. The other decoration serves the same purpose: the wavy line around the circle and the slabs or cells with a dot. That dot also represents a hole, just like in the tubes. What the artists wanted to show is that the entire sphere is riddled with holes and filled with stars. We also see how the central sphere is linked to the others on the Rosettes page because it is an interconnected universe and celestial influences radiate from the central sphere.

  Apart from all this, which is fundamental because it expresses the idea, there are other minor elements that are whims of the author of the drawing.

Antonio, I try reading your thread but it is very long  

Putting all cultural references aside, do you think that the text may be actually read?

What is it in your opinion? Natural language with weird alphabet, cipher, numbers, something else?

Rafal, I understand that you might get lost in the reading because the thread is very long.

   For me, the imagery and the script are part of the same message, and I don't believe there is a text, but rather groups of astronomical symbols whose function is to complement the message of the images. What the book aims to convey is the power of the stars over the herbs we see, which is why, in my opinion, the authors didn't bother to draw real plants. Some may give the impression that they are, but that's accidental. The plants are idealizations, which doesn't mean they don't exist in the authors' minds. God's power through the stars can work any wonder.
 
   I am convinced that an enlightened man of the time would have understood the message of the Voynich just by looking at the pictures. In my opinion, the major iconographic error is the belief that there is a balneological or biological section in the codex. The female figures we see are personifications of the stars, and all those pipes and pools represent the plumbing of the cosmos.

   I know it's difficult to see it the way I do, but I think it would be very useful to start seeing the glyphs as they are, forgetting their transliteration into an alphabet. Although it's helpful in the analysis, converting the glyphs into letters distorts the script. When I see these glyphs [c], [cc], [ccc] in groups of astronomical symbols, what I see is the symbol of the moon moving.

To anyone who wants to understand this thread        Just read the  "The Voynich.docx"  file on Page 1, post 2.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Thats it, because in 161 pages  nothing has changed.

It's not exactly like that because I've been refining things over the years. But you're right about the essentials; my fundamental ideas haven't changed. That's what happens when you have clear ideas. If this forum is still active, you'll see that in ten years my ideas will have changed little.

  RobGea, as I assume you are an intelligent person, you will have realized that this thread would not have reached 161 pages if people did not have some interest in what I write. It doesn't mean that people agree with my ideas, but at least they don't dismiss them.

Thanks for the answer Antonio.

So 8 years passed since the first post  

Did you get deeper into understanding of Voynich text? I can imagine it is not a usual narration but rather some tables of stars and planet positions. 

However such data are most often very schematic, usually expressed as tables of numbers like here:


Voynich text is nothing like schematic. There are over 8000 of distinct words, no tables and no obvious numbers.

Do you have some sample of text where you can provide your reading?

Rafal, be aware that you're talking about words and text, something that is not proven in any way.

The reality is that since the Voynich manuscript has been available on the internet, thousands of linguists and cryptanalysts from all over the world have tried, some more than others, to decipher it without success. Enlightened people from the court of Emperor Rudolf II had already tried in vain in the 17th century.

  Does this mean there is no text, whether in natural language or encrypted? I wouldn't say that, but it is highly unlikely that there is one. So is the script just gibberish? I would never say that, nor can I explain how people who think the Voynich is authentic can say that.

   The simplest explanation is that we haven't delved deeply enough into medieval culture. I have an alternative; there could be others, but in any case, what's needed is more knowledge. Delving into the past is like exploring uncharted territory.

Okay, I will try to sum it up what you said and how I see it.

The text in VM isn't natural text because it would be already cracked. But most probably it isn't gibberish as well.

In your first post, 8 years ago you were much more concrete like:

Quote:Two moons joined above with a line form a bench and could be the full moon and new moon. The gallows on the benches signify parallel astronomical locations: (t) and (k) on bench without eclipse; (p) and (f) on bench with eclipse.

Today you seem not to be very attached to this initial, detailed theory. Generally if I may say so you seem to me to be kind of humanist mind and cryptoanalysis and statistics aren't your favourite area.

You enjoy giving us different cultural referrences because they could be important and one who eventually cracks Voynich would have to know them and think like a medieval man. But you don't have any advanced theory about the nature of the text. Neither you don't have your own decipherment of parts of the text.

Is that fair said? Would you agree?

You keep talking about text as if it were already established that the script was a text. You do it instinctively, without thinking, as many people interested in the Voynich do, but the fact that the script is a text that can be read is something that has not been proven.

  To your question about whether I still think the same as I did eight years ago, I say yes, fundamentally, with some slight variations. For me, the glyphs we see are astronomical symbols, specifically the sun, the moon, and the fixed stars and their different positions along the ecliptic circle. I don't know how the authors group the symbols the way they do, but in any case, it's not about reading but about interpreting.

  What I insist on time and again is that the script is not the important thing about the Voynich; it is merely a complement to the message of the iconography. And the message is the power of the stars over plants and over life on Earth in general. This is pure medieval thinking. It's nothing original.

Well, it is good to hear your point of view made clear. Text is not that important, icongraphy is important.

Personally I come from exaclty opposite point of view. It is the text which makes Voynich unique and so intriguing and trying to make sense of it is the fuel to most people here. Plants, zodiac signs and bathing women can be seen in many other manuscripts.

But I hope we can here agree to disagree   Good luck in your pursuits!