The Voynich Ninja

I have been doing a series of presentations on the history of 14th of 15th Century Cryptography in conjunction with the University of Wuppertal and it seems in this context it would not be a bad idea to do one on the Voynich manuscript. 

I could do a presentation on my own theory, however I would prefer to do a presentation that is more general and less specific.

Having watched a few general presentations online I have decided what I don't want in my presentation:

1) Much discussion of late history of Voynich manuscript. Whether Anne Nil, Athanasius Kircher, Hans Krauss etc.
2) Lots of Talk about folios and bifolios and quires.
3) Lists of possible theories already discredited by carbon dating. E.g. Roger Bacon, Wilfred Voynich, Edward Kelley, DA Vinci etc.
4) Voynich is pop-culture

OK. So what does that leave us with, if anything?

1)Comparison with other historical herbal manuscripts of the time
2)Comparision with other astrological documents of that time eg. Diebold Lauber
3) Relevant Statistical work
4) Contemporary figures Giovanni Fontana, Ramon Llull

A hard question is how much time to devote to a known/unknown language theory and how to a cipher theory. Given my strong objection to the idea that the Voynich is written in a unknown language or known language in an unknown script maybe I should present that in the talk even if it might seem to show some kind of bias and I can then still leave the door open to that possibility.

If you were doing a talk about the Voynich what would you include ignore outside of your own theories?

I would like to know more about (modern) famous decipherment claims and why they're wrong / why they are interesting theories.

I would also like to see your presentation on YouTube when it's ready!

The investigation of the VMs cosmos illustration and the original comparison with images from BNF Fr. 565 and Harley 334 opened the possibility of historically validated comparisons in combination with matching the C-14 chronology. A better understanding of the VMs cosmos makes for a better interpretation of the artist's perspective over all.

(30-11-2023, 07:40 PM)Lissu Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I would like to know more about (modern) famous decipherment claims and why they're wrong / why they are interesting theories.

I would also like to see your presentation on YouTube when it's ready!

I think modern decipherment claims have a lot in common methodologically, so I think you are right it is worthy to discuss their shortcomings on block. Though there is certainly some variation.

This much depends on the intended purpose of one's presentation. If the purpose is to present your own theory, then in turn that would depend on the essense of your theory, effectively on what it's about. Do you claim to have deciphered the manuscript? Do you suggest that you've established its authorship? And so on. Based on the presentation's purpose and the essense of your theory you then derive the methods and the contents.

(30-11-2023, 06:05 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.4) Contemporary figures Giovanni Fontana, Ramon Llull

I have to jump in here Mark and make a correction, and take the opportunity to promote my own line of research. Ramon Llull was not a contemporary figure. He is, of course, much earlier. And yet, as you imply, it is not hard to see the influence of Llull on Voynichese which displays complex combinatorics. Indeed, I remember an early luminary (expert) in the Voynich space concluding, "Who in the Middle Ages but Ramon Llull could have done something like this?" 

My research started there. In the relevant period the foremost exponent of the systems of Llull was Nicholas of Cusa. He is exactly contemporary with the manuscript. As a young man, he started immersing himself in Llull in 1427, putting all other studies aside, and prior to his illustrious church career (and subsequent hagiography that distorts our picture of him.)

Who in the relevant period could have done this? Cusanus was the preeminent Llullist of the age.

(03-12-2023, 08:24 PM)Hermes777 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Ramon Llull was not a contemporary figure. He is, of course, much earlier.

I thought someone might make that point. I meant that he had influence at that time.

Presenting a good summary of evidence and arguments for/against cipher vs unknown language/script would be very interesting.
In any case, I can't wait to see your presentation.  How is it going?