CaryR said: So a combination of dots and o's might be simply decorative, but then there are those extra glyphs following the string of o's, so I don't know.
Actually the whole problem lies at this point. I have not seen anyone tackle what seems like one of the greatest mysteries of the VM script.
What is written in EVA is: .....ooooooooolar....sasa.....
I have never seen a manuscript that has anything like it. That's why any rigorous study of the VM must put aside any preconceived ideas.
Antonio, did you read my posts (above) as to what the letters might be?
I am suggesting they might be annotations. It was very common for annotations to be incorporated into drawings, illuminated initials, etc. They often left the letters after the paint had been applied.
Whether they are decorative or something else, I wonder if they are related to something numerical since there are nine o's in the string of glyphs and also nine "petals" in the blue central shape, and nine Voynichese "labels" in total between each one. That may just be a coincidence though. Of course, there isn't enough information to go on by focusing on one small anomaly like this and it should be considered in a larger context.
One small anomaly like this, as you says CaryR, is for me one of those little cracks that can end up knocking down the solid wall of the VM. Of course the o's can be something decorative, but decorative with meaning.
It all boils down to this: are those o's the same as we see in the script, yes or no? That there are other glyphs next to them seems to indicate that they are the same
(18-02-2021, 09:17 PM)RenegadeHealer Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Ellie Velinska used to have a blog post that drew a striking parallel between that EVA [ooooooooolar], and one of the strings of numbers, consisting of mostly zeroes, that filled the tables and roundels of Trithemius' Steganographia (1499). This is the book that Jim Reeds demonstrated in 1998 was a cipher, disguised as a numerological grimoire, by solving it. Having been extensively involved with the VMs, I can't imagine Jim Reeds didn't notice or remark upon this parallel at some point.
I spent a night up way too late once, looking at an eBook of Steganographia, looking for the number string 000000000452, keeping in mind that EVA [l, a, & r] were all common handwritten forms of the Arabic numerals 4, 5, & 2, respectively, in medieval Europe. If that string exists anywhere in that book, I wasn't able to find it. I wasn't all that hopeful about this line of inquiry to begin with; Trithemius and his works all post-date the VMs's likely date of composition, so nothing in the VMs could possibly be a reference to him. However, I wouldn't rule out the possibility of the VMs's author(s) and audience running in some of the same circles as Trithemius' teachers. One thing that this particular rabbit hole taught me is that mysticism, cryptography, and conlanging attracted largely similar crowds in the middle ages.
I'll probably not pursue this Trithemius connection any further, because it's a tenuous connection in my opinion. But if anyone else disagrees and thinks it might be promising, I'll certainly be following along and cheering you on.
Raphael Mnisovsky was very familiar with Trithemian cryptography and even wrote a Czech translation of Polygraphia. In his letter to Marci, he posits the author may have been Roger Bacon. (The earliest such reference to Bacon) If a period expert on the subject didn't recognize it as such, then it's probably safe to infer that it's not Trithemian (or Paracelsian by extension).
(01-03-2021, 10:06 PM)J.R Moore Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Raphael Mnisovsky was very familiar with Trithemian cryptography and even wrote a Czech translation of Polygraphia. In his letter to Marci, he posits the author may have been Roger Bacon. (The earliest such reference to Bacon) If a period expert on the subject didn't recognize it as such, then it's probably safe to infer that it's not Trithemian (or Paracelsian by extension).
I hadn't realized that, thanks for this piece of the puzzle. Yeah I agree this pretty much rules out any proximate connection to Trithemius or Paracelsus.
On a lighter note, I recently happened upon two other occurrences of ooooooooo, in two other places much closer to home. The first is in the VMs, along the edge of the T-and-O map by the upper right corner Rosette. The second is in You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. by R.Sale. Coincidence? I think not!
(01-03-2021, 10:06 PM)J.R Moore Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Raphael Mnisovsky was very familiar with Trithemian cryptography and even wrote a Czech translation of Polygraphia. In his letter to Marci, he posits the author may have been Roger Bacon. (The earliest such reference to Bacon) If a period expert on the subject didn't recognize it as such, then it's probably safe to infer that it's not Trithemian (or Paracelsian by extension).
Mnišovský never wrote a letter to Marci (that has been preserved). Instead, what we have are Marci's remarks upon what Mnišovský verbally told him. It was Marci who, tangentially, thought it could have been a work of Bacon.
Nor did he write a Czech translation of Polygraphia - he wrote a version of Polygraphia adapted for the Czech language, which isn't quite the same thing. (Uppsala University library MS Slav. 60)
(03-03-2021, 10:47 PM)davidjackson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Instead, what we have are Marci's remarks upon what Mnišovský verbally told him.
This is right, but it was indeed Mnisovský who thought that the author was Bacon.
In general, it is quite dangerous to draw conclusions from what people
did not say, especially in this case since we only have this fragment of information.
However, it is undoubtedly right that there is nothing Trithemian about the Voynich MS.
Or Baconian for that matter.