I've written a new blog post about a serious problem with the usually assumed provenance of the "Letters". It lies in the differential between what would have been "mysterious" and "unknown" to the men of the 17th century letters... Baresch, Marci, Moretus, Kinner, and Kircher... and what was still mysterious and unknown to scholars in 1912, when the Voynich was first announced to the world.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
Rich SantaColoma
Quote:But any conceivable language and/or script of their time, that they would have been aware of in the 17th century, other than Linear A and B, had by 1912 their origins and meanings understood.
Does Mayan, not count?
Also your argument is not very clear to me.
(27-05-2022, 06:54 PM)RobGea Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Also your argument is not very clear to me.
I think I follow the argument well enough to paraphrase it:
Of all the scripts that Kircher, Baresch, and their contemporaries would (1) have had access to and (2) considered unknown or unintelligible, most had become known and intelligible by Wilfrid Voynich's time. On that basis, any script characterized in their seventeenth-century correspondence as unknown or unintelligible has a high probability of corresponding to some script that was known and intelligible in the 1910s -- and a low probability of corresponding to one that still wasn't.
Is that a fair summary?
Very interesting Rich.
I would, personally, suggest that although your argument is logical, these scholars will still have had an understanding of many of these scripts, even if they couldn't personally read them.
Ie the galgolthic comment, it was perfectly recognizable and the implication was that they could quickly find someone who read it.
In some ways they would over compensate - Kirchner, and I'm sure many of his contemporaries, would happily claim knowledge that they didn't actually possess.
They were over confident. So show them a strange looking manuscript and they'd wave a hand and say ah! Western coptic in the third province or whatever, without really having a clue.
So for them to confess they were baffled would be a major confession.
(28-05-2022, 06:53 AM)davidjackson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In some ways they would over compensate - Kirchner, and I'm sure many of his contemporaries, would happily claim knowledge that they didn't actually possess.
It is fair to say that. Was Kirchner's approach to deciphering ancient Egyptian texts not based on fundamental misconceptions ? It probably never occurred to Kirchner himself that he could be wrong.
The overconfidence was also expressed by the fact that Kirchner and his contemporaries also thought it was possible to be an expert in all possible fields ( Egyptology, Sinology, Geology, Medicine, Music etc. ). This generalism was common, specializations rather rare.
The concept of universal scholarship declined from the 19th century. By the beginning of the 20th century, it was practically non-existent.
Quote:"He who works only on one thing seldom discovers anything new."
- Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz ( 1646 - 1716 ) -
(28-05-2022, 06:53 AM)davidjackson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I would, personally, suggest that although your argument is logical
Although the argument may seem logical, it is entirely fallacious. It is not even a rational argument.
The flaw (false dichotomy) is to assume that
only a fake would use an alphabet that never gets identified within a corpus of existing texts (whose probability of getting discovered increases with the passage of time) despite the well known fact that all writings using a made-up alphabet that is never reused in other documents (as is often the case with ciphers) also share this property.
(28-05-2022, 11:23 AM)nablator Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (28-05-2022, 06:53 AM)davidjackson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I would, personally, suggest that although your argument is logical
Although the argument may seem logical, it is entirely fallacious. It is not even a rational argument.
The flaw (false dichotomy) is to assume that only a fake would use an alphabet that never gets identified within a corpus of existing texts (whose probability of getting discovered increases with the passage of time) despite the well known fact that all writings using a made-up alphabet that is never reused in other documents (as is often the case with ciphers) also share this property.
Nablator... The thing is, I don't "... assume that
only a fake would use an alphabet that never gets identified within a corpus of existing texts". I realize it is a fine point I am making, and difficult to explain properly... at least, for me. But that is not the point here.
My point is not that the difficulty in identifying the text has meant it is probably a fake. In fact I don't contend that the Voynich language/script/code/cipher is not meaningful in the first place, as it very well may be.
My point is that... real or fake... most if not all of the unidentified languages and scripts in the 17th century were, by 1912, at least identified if not read. So for any language or characters to be both unidentifiable in the 1600's, AND then still be unidentifiable in 1912, is staggeringly unlikely. It strongly implies to me that... in order for this to be the case... the 1912 script and language would have to be invented around 1912, in order to fulfill the 17th century descriptions of "unknown" and "mysterious".
I hope that makes it clearer. I fully respect yours, or anyone's opinion if they disagree, of course. But I hope I can make it understood so that the disagreement is based on my argument, and not on one I didn't make.
Rich.
(28-05-2022, 06:53 AM)davidjackson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Very interesting Rich.
I would, personally, suggest that although your argument is logical, these scholars will still have had an understanding of many of these scripts, even if they couldn't personally read them.
Ie the galgolthic comment, it was perfectly recognizable and the implication was that they could quickly find someone who read it.
In some ways they would over compensate - Kirchner, and I'm sure many of his contemporaries, would happily claim knowledge that they didn't actually possess.
They were over confident. So show them a strange looking manuscript and they'd wave a hand and say ah! Western coptic in the third province or whatever, without really having a clue.
So for them to confess they were baffled would be a major confession.
Hi David: Those are all true, and yes I think it was a major confession on their part, that what they were looking at... whatever it was... baffled them. Luckily they were inquisitive, as all good scientists and scholars are... and they were part of the solution to many such mysteries over the ensuing centuries.
A rough guess of mine... not a significant part of my theory, but what I consider an interesting aside... is that the manuscript these men saw might have been either an Aramaic or Syriac herbal. The Syriac works, in particular, seem to have what might have seemed "chemical symbolism" to them. And there are several loose sheets in the Kircher Carteggio, unattributed to any letter, and at least one of which has Syriac writing and symbols... and some stars. I speculate that the manuscript they were looking at... which I call the Baresch Manuscript... may have have been a Syriac work. I've looked at hundreds of herbals and such online, with some candidates.
Of course it would have to fit the description of the letters, and also have a provenance which fit with the possibility that the men of the letters could have seen it. But as I said, that is an aside to my overall hypothesis.
Thanks again for your thoughts and feedback...
Rich.
(27-05-2022, 10:00 PM)pfeaster Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Of all the scripts that Kircher, Baresch, and their contemporaries would (1) have had access to and (2) considered unknown or unintelligible, most had become known and intelligible by Wilfrid Voynich's time. On that basis, any script characterized in their seventeenth-century correspondence as unknown or unintelligible has a high probability of corresponding to some script that was known and intelligible in the 1910s -- and a low probability of corresponding to one that still wasn't.
Is that a fair summary?
Thank you, pfeaster, and yes I think... if I understand your rephrasing properly.... is a correct assessment of my point. Or, the first part of it. The second part would be that, since, any such script "... would have a low probability of corresponding to one that wasn't", the more likely conclusion is that any such "1910 script unknown to the 17th century and still unknown" would have to be invented in 1910, as no real one would still exist.
But maybe I mangled that? I hope that is clear.
Rich.