The Voynich Ninja

Rich, I could go point by point and explain and refute every one of your very long list of complaints about the contents of my lecture, but I'm not going to. I suppose I'm grateful you took the time to listen so carefully. All I will say is that there are things about the VMS that are not at all unusual - uncertain provenance, uncertain date, uncertain authorship. There are many things that are unusual, as we all know. The fact that some things are unusual and others are not simply does not surprise me at all and does not imply that the VMS is modern.  

Don't call me a "wonderful woman." You don't know me. 

Don't call me "a rookie." I am not. 

Both statements are astonishingly condescending and sexist.

(29-04-2024, 11:12 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Rich, I could go point by point and explain and refute every one of your very long list of complaints about the contents of my lecture, but I'm not going to. I suppose I'm grateful you took the time to listen so carefully. All I will say is that there are things about the VMS that are not at all unusual - uncertain provenance, uncertain date, uncertain authorship. There are many things that are unusual, as we all know. The fact that some things are unusual and others are not simply does not surprise me at all and does not imply that the VMS is modern.

Don't call me a "wonderful woman." You don't know me.

Don't call me "a rookie." I am not.

Both statements are astonishingly condescending and sexist.

Well no personal insult intended, of course, I do consider you a wonderful person then, if you prefer. Calling you a woman was not meant as an insult, and I can't imagine how you took it that way, but I will respect your wishes and refrain. And I never called you a "rookie" either, I was of course calling the use of a sheep picture, when the Voynich is actually calfskin, a "rookie mistake". The point being, we are all rightly judged on our knowledge of the Voynich, it is important, and it is relevant. Each bit of evidence affects each other. It's like a "Butterfly Effect": One factoid affects a hundred others. It's important to get it right, all of it, and also important to point it out when it is not right. We all do it with each other practically in our sleep. Just look at all the attempted corrections flying back and forth on this one thread!

So "rookie mistake" was obviously not a reference to your abilities and talents as a paleographer. I am really good at some things, not so much at others, and I make rookie mistakes all the time. But I am good with cars, if I may pat myself on the back. But then ask me about removing the differential on my Land Rover, when it was the transfer case that was bad. I've been doing this a loooong time, over fifty years, but THAT was a "rookie mistake". And one might rightly point this out if asked to work on their own car. 

Here's the thing, Lisa: This is an important subject to many of us, we all take it seriously... as you do, too. We pore over the minutia of it all, study every detail, and argue over most of them. I am constantly criticized for my opinions, and my mistakes, we all are. It is expected, it is comes with the territory. No one is exempt, nor should they be. And so for you to level a charge of sexism against me is inappropriate, and not true, either. I carefully delineated my points of contention, they were clearly not related to your gender. And if they are wrong for some reason, tell us why... as I do, as Rene does, as anyone does. We don't assume the reason we disagree is because of some prejudice against one sex nor the other, and shouldn't, because it is not.

I rarely agree with Rene, but he doesn't therefore assume I have a prejudice against the Dutch. You are Dutch, right, Rene? Not sure. And most of the people I argue with are men, and its not because they are men, either. They are just wrong. Kidding.

I know already, sometimes through actual practice, that I really like and get along in person with many of the people in this field. Rene and I were already at odds on many issues by the time he first interviewed me in 2009, for the ORF thing. But although we strongly disagree, we still help each other on the side, with references, sharing copies, and notices of upcoming events. Pelling and I? Oh my god... that really has been like cats and dogs at times. Still is, sometimes! But when I have met these guys in person, we have a great time. Pelling and I shared a pizza and a pitcher in Frascati in 2012. We exchange bad puns on X. Elonka and I do not agree at all about the Voynich, but she has visited Cathy and I at home, and we all went geocaching together. I think Koen is probably one of the nicest guys out there... and I highly respect him, too, and would love to meet him. Do we annoy each other, online? No doubt, but I also doubt it would matter in person. And the same goes for most of the people who I argue with, it has nothing to do with personalities, we enjoy when we can get together. I don't think they do, and hope they do not, take our fervent disagreements personally.

Point being, you should not take it personally, either. Because anyone who knows me, knows that would be the furthest thing from my mind. It is simply that I disagree with some of your positions, nothing less, and nothing more.

Rich.

(22-04-2024, 04:11 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.First it was very exciting to many, myself included, as it was mistakenly thought that the letter WAS referring to the script of the Voynich. It was not realized until much after 2007 that it was a DIFFERENT sample that was being compared to that script. And I still agree that the Voynich script does share many You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (yes, mostly the "gallows" but more), that hasn't changed for me.

Can we assume that the sample pages of the Voynich Manuscript were sent to Kircher along with sample page of Glagolitic writing. I would not be surprised if this was the case. Voynich Manuscript is definitely not written in Glagolitic script, but I did notices some illustrations that look like Glagolitic letter SLOVO, which looks like a triangle topped with a circle.
Perhaps the confusion is not in the script, but in Illyrian language. Claiming that the Glagolitza was invented by St. Jerome, who was Illyrian from the coastal village on the border between present day Slovenia and Croatia, the Croatians obtained papal permission to use the Glagolitic script and the Croatian version of the Old Church Slavonic language.  
The priests who used Glagolitza, were called Glagoljaši.They were also active in some towns in Bosnia, Slavonia, and Carniola. In the 14th - 15th century, the Glagolitic Benedictines from Croatia re-introduced Glagolitic script to Prague, along with the Bogomil ideas. Bogomils, which are considered a fore-runners of the Protestants, also used Glagolitic script and Slavic Illyrian language. This was very confusing for the 16th century linguist: In his multilingual dictionary, Hieronymus Megiser equated Illyrian language to Wendic (German name for Slovenian); a German writer who copied the names of the plants from Rini Codex, claimed that the language was Illyrian.
Getting back to the Kricher reference to Glagolitic-Illyrian writing, it would be very helpful to know in that other example he identified as Glagolitic, was associated with the Voynich Manuscript. Was it just an odd piece of paper tucked in the book? Was it from another book?

Rich, you surely know Lisa is not assuming you are prejudiced against women because you disagree with her.  You've disagreed with her throughout this thread already for weeks without her saying this.  It was your language in that specific post that she flagged.  I read it in the same way, which is why I picked you up on point 8 after planning not to post in this thread again.

Language matters.  It can be infantilizing.  Ask yourself if you would have said "Rene's a wonderful man but [insert reasons he's wrong while also assuming Rene wouldn't know something extremely relevant to his profession]." You've disagreed with Rene a lot here but haven't used such expressions so far that I've noticed. 

• If you think you wouldn't ever have used that kind of language about Rene, good to reflect on why.
  
• If you think you would have used that kind of language about Rene, then reflect on how professional women have been infantilized and had their opinions and credibility belittled for decades through phrases like that, and that even if you didn't it mean it that way, it's best to avoid inadvertently contributing to this narrative with such phrases.
  

@Rich
I have just had a closer look at the leaflet f2r1, 2r2, and 2r3.
I remember from my youth, tinkering with thick paper. Many people may still know it. Cut out a building from a sheet, fold it and glue it together.
I know that once I have bent a fold incorrectly, it is almost impossible to correct.
Now I can see loads of folds on the fold page in the VM. One after the other.
How do you do that when vellum is thicker than paper and you don't want the folds to look like a pleated skirt? Folds and folds, and more folds in between.
If it's part of a forgery, then I really wonder how it's done.
Besides, the parchment already seems very brittle. (No folds, rather brittle with no tears.) These already cause the colour to peel off through dryness.
How do I do this so that it looks exactly as it is.
I don't accept the answer ‘it could also be forged’. If you say you can, then I want to know how. Theory and practice.
If I can maintain the escape velocity at 11G, I can also fly to the moon on a washing machine. So much for the theory.

(30-04-2024, 11:48 AM)tavie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Rich, you surely know Lisa is not assuming you are prejudiced against women because you disagree with her.  You've disagreed with her throughout this thread already for weeks without her saying this.  It was your language in that specific post that she flagged.  I read it in the same way, which is why I picked you up on point 8 after planning not to post in this thread again.

Language matters.  It can be infantilizing.  Ask yourself if you would have said "Rene's a wonderful man but [insert reasons he's wrong while also assuming Rene wouldn't know something extremely relevant to his profession]." You've disagreed with Rene a lot here but haven't used such expressions so far that I've noticed. 

• If you think you wouldn't ever have used that kind of language about Rene, good to reflect on why.
  
• If you think you would have used that kind of language about Rene, then reflect on how professional women have been infantilized and had their opinions and credibility belittled for decades through phrases like that, and that even if you didn't it mean it that way, it's best to avoid inadvertently contributing to this narrative with such phrases.
  

Well, I do get your point, but respectfully disagree that anyone should read into what I wrote as reflecting these awful sentiments. And as to your first point, yes, I often do refer to those I discuss and even argue with in glowing terms. The reason is exactly to defuse any notion that any of my disagreements are personal.

Ironically, I called Lisa a "Wonderful woman" in my first post exactly to make this point, to express that what was to follow was not at all personal. Boy did that backfire! I've actually grown up with an environment particularly well versed in all issues of gender equality, and always been very careful not to use or support sexist tropes in my speech or writing. I have always used "Ms." instead of the unfair and unequal "Mrs.". In fact, since a child, I have been often critisized as being someone androgynous in speech and actions and interests, which I have thought somewhat sexist, and never liked.

In short, I am very sensitive to negative gender bias and tropes, and believe it was not warranted to accuse me of sexism, based on the well-intentioned moniker I was using to reach out my hand with.

But I will of course be even more careful to avoid the possibility of any claims, whether I consider them valid or not, that anything I say is in any way meant as "sexist", or "infantilizing". I always want my arguments to be free of any hint of personal animosity, both because it is wrong, but also because it then deflects from the purpose of the discussion at hand.

Rich.

(30-04-2024, 04:41 AM)cvetkakocj@rogers.com Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(22-04-2024, 04:11 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.First it was very exciting to many, myself included, as it was mistakenly thought that the letter WAS referring to the script of the Voynich. It was not realized until much after 2007 that it was a DIFFERENT sample that was being compared to that script. And I still agree that the Voynich script does share many You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (yes, mostly the "gallows" but more), that hasn't changed for me.

Can we assume that the sample pages of the Voynich Manuscript were sent to Kircher along with sample page of Glagolitic writing. I would not be surprised if this was the case. Voynich Manuscript is definitely not written in Glagolitic script, but I did notices some illustrations that look like Glagolitic letter SLOVO, which looks like a triangle topped with a circle.
Perhaps the confusion is not in the script, but in Illyrian language. Claiming that the Glagolitza was invented by St. Jerome, who was Illyrian from the coastal village on the border between present day Slovenia and Croatia, the Croatians obtained papal permission to use the Glagolitic script and the Croatian version of the Old Church Slavonic language.  
The priests who used Glagolitza, were called Glagoljaši.They were also active in some towns in Bosnia, Slavonia, and Carniola. In the 14th - 15th century, the Glagolitic Benedictines from Croatia re-introduced Glagolitic script to Prague, along with the Bogomil ideas. Bogomils, which are considered a fore-runners of the Protestants, also used Glagolitic script and Slavic Illyrian language. This was very confusing for the 16th century linguist: In his multilingual dictionary, Hieronymus Megiser equated Illyrian language to Wendic (German name for Slovenian); a German writer who copied the names of the plants from Rini Codex, claimed that the language was Illyrian.
Getting back to the Kricher reference to Glagolitic-Illyrian writing, it would be very helpful to know in that other example he identified as Glagolitic, was associated with the Voynich Manuscript. Was it just an odd piece of paper tucked in the book? Was it from another book?

Well others can answer many of your questions in more detail, but my impression to many of your questions and observations is that we just don't know. We don't know exactly what characters the reference to Illyrian was describing, nor for that matter... given the phrasing of the Latin in the letter... what the other sheet was (although I think there was someone who speculated on a specific document... anyone remember?). And, I think it is still a bit open to be the manuscript they were all talking about, Voynich or not.

And yes, absolutely, and I think we all agree, "... it would be very helpful to know in that other example he identified as Glagolitic, was associated with the Voynich Manuscript. Was it just an odd piece of paper tucked in the book? Was it from another book?"

Rich

(30-04-2024, 01:47 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Well, I do get your point, but respectfully disagree that anyone should read into what I wrote as reflecting these awful sentiments. And as to your first point, yes, I often do refer to those I discuss and even argue with in glowing terms. The reason is exactly to defuse any notion that any of my disagreements are personal.

I don't mean to trivialize this issue and I'm not making any judgement on this particular usage of the phrase or the sensitivities of anyone involved.
But I couldn't help but notice with some amusement, the parallels with the use of "vir optimus" and "vir bonus" in the Marci letters.

(29-04-2024, 11:12 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.All I will say is that there are things about the VMS that are not at all unusual - uncertain provenance, uncertain date, uncertain authorship. There are many things that are unusual, as we all know. The fact that some things are unusual and others are not simply does not surprise me at all and does not imply that the VMS is modern.

Hi Lisa: I didn't get to this portion of your response to me, and wanted to make some comments about it.

As for "uncertain provenance, uncertain date, uncertain authorship" yes of course... these things are a part of many manuscripts, and I don't dispute that. The important distinction with the Voynich is the very extreme nature and extent of them. So each time I point out the extreme case of the Voynich on these issues, it is said that this is normal. No, I disagree, it is not at all normal to the extent the Voynich exhibits them.

But there is another key issue with the Voynich, which amplifies these characteristics even more than their individual existence would imply, and that is the fact that most other items still have some other identifying characteristics which then help "triangulate" when, where, and what the the item is. A good example of this might be Rongorongo: Perfectly enigmatic, unreadable, with unknown characters, unknown language... but the place they were created and found is known. And the culture where they were found, being solitary, tells us who made them. And the age of the materials the glyphs are on makes sense in the overall context of the rest that is known. Also, the dating of the materials matches the expert opinion on the content, given what is known of the occupation of the island. The authorship? Even if it became readable, it will probably never be known... and as I said before, authorship is not the point, as I agree it is often not known, for many items.

But the point is, even for such mysterious items as scraps of Rongorongo, we still know more, for certain, than the Voynich. And that is an extreme case... we may have letters without a date, and don't know who wrote it... but the age of the writing, and meaning tells us something about it. There are always enough knowns to give enough context to have a pretty good picture of when it was from, where, and who by (generally, not necessarily authorship).

And like this for any of the questions you list... yes, it is ordinary for certain things to not be known on one or two points, to a limited extent. But the Voynich is highly unusual, and actually unique, for the number of them- for every little thing to be unknown: The language, meaning, culture, content, area of origin are all unknowns and can only be speculated on. The C14 dating does not match the style of the content (overwhelmingly attested to by experts), the given provenance falls short of being a good description of it (so probably not the item described in said provenance), the construction methods do not all match the C14 dating (the foldouts, for one, elements in the binding, for another... and the cover is of a far later age). Many people... experts and amateurs alike... note similarities in the illustrations to a wide range of ages, origins, styles... and so on.

The point is, to say that "uncertain provenance, uncertain date, uncertain authorship" exist, is, of course true. But not nearly to the extent and quantity of these and other unknowns that the Voynich exhibits. It is practically perfectly unknown, with no anchors in it to moor it anywhere. THAT is my point to this. The uniquely, virtually perfectly unambiguous nature is far different than any other item, and these problems cannot be dismissed by comparing the Voynich to them.

To the second part of your answer, "The fact that some things are unusual and others are not simply does not surprise me at all and does not imply that the VMS is modern", then I would ask, "Why not?". You have, as I noted, pointed out a great many problems with the Voynich, any one of which should be concerning... and you did seem very much surprised at the time you mentioned them. You admit they have no explanation (in your given context), that they are out of place, very odd, in the Voynich. So how does one go from admitting these things are unusual, which you do, to not trying to explain them? These problems are there for some reason, and I think, should be explained, or attempted to be explained, rather than not considered in later analysis or discussion.

This is reflective of an effect I have seen for almost the entire time I've been interested in the manuscript- All the great many anomalies and anachronisms are first noted in the Voynich, but then don't get mentioned at all, or are casually dismissed with no explanation for their existence, in later discussion where the Voynich is being defended as 1420 and genuine. You are not alone, it happens constantly.

I feel the massive number of problems with the Voynich are noticed, I see them noticed by others all the time, and I think not explaining them is a mistake. They are the "Elephant in the Room" and they won't go away by casual dismissal, because the Voynich won't be something other than what it actually is... whatever that is... and these problem are cooked into it. They won't go away by ignoring them. I also think the casual dismissal of such important evidence is one of the prime reasons the Voynich has not yet been solved.

Rich.

We don't know the author of most manuscripts. How can it be more extreme than "author unknown"? Author extremely unknown? And similarly, there are many manuscripts of which we don't even know in which country they were made. And of which we don't know how they ended up in the repository where they were first inventorized. Why? Because manuscripts travel. Because of Latin as the lingua franca. Because medieval scribes rarely signed their works. 

I would flip it around and say that the situation of the VM is pretty standard. The cases where we actually know everything about a manuscript's provenance are the extremes.