The Voynich Ninja

I have already posted on voynichimagery some information about languages being taught in within the Latin domain in the fourteenth century. These included Syriac, Arabic, and Armenian.

I might also mention that Aramaic remained a language in use among Jewish communities.

The last speaker of Cuman in Europe died about the time that Kircher received the manuscript, but a couple of centuries before, it had been in use and understood as a trading language from the Black Sea to the borders of China.

Until the tenth century, Bactrian was still written and spoken around the region of Mashhad which, for other reasons to do with the botanical folios, is a time and place of interest to us.

I expect that because the past century has seen almost everyone begin by presuming the manuscript was European it is easy to overlook the fact that we don't actually know where it was made, nor by whom, nor for whom, nor whether the content is fifteenth century, or whether the fifteenth century version we have isn't a copy of some much older work.

So considering non-European-Latin languages and script may be a good idea.

Not even McCrone was willing to assign it to any place in Europe. When pressed, they would only say that it was "not incompatible' with the form of a European manuscript. As all the scientists here will know, that's the sort of phrasing which signals strong reservations.  Perhaps someone, at some time, set out to test the usual theory but if so, I've not seen any evidence of the process.

I myself think that some small parts of of the pictorial matter were first enunciated by a Latin European; most researchers have begun from that premise; but in fact it is only a presumption, not a fact.

Diane,

I first used the words 'unexpected language' in reference to heraldry some time ago. So, I most definitely agree that there is valid information here to be gathered, investigated and discussed that is not being seen by modern investigators.

Look at the patterns on the tubs in the outer ring of VMs Pisces. Are these examples of heraldry? In a century of investigation, who has named the chevron pattern in the Pisces illustration for what it is? [[I'd ask about papelonny or gurges, but I already know who it was.]]

The problem is very simple. An investigator with no knowledge of heraldry only sees generic patterns on the tubs. Is that a valid assessment of the reality in the text? On the other hand, a person living in the era of the VMs parchment dates, who was educated and familiar with heraldry, might well be able to go around the Pisces ring and name them off one after another. The essential facts are clearly drawn in the VMs illustrations, understanding the information contained in the illustrations depends on the investigators limitations - specifically in relation to heraldry, in this instance.

And I would say that it is the naming of the patterns that turns the designs from something nondescript and generic into something specific and belonging to a set of examples from a single area of relevant investigation, armorial heraldry, as found on the Pisces and Aries pages.

The purpose of heraldry as a language, what is being said, is twofold. First is to establish the presence of heraldry as a method of communication. Second is to establish heraldry as a valid premise for further investigation, which leads to the Genoese Gambit. It is a test of recognition based on the Catholic ecclesiastical tradition of the red galero. Strictly pass or fail. What better than ecclesiastical tradition to attempt to withstand the test of time? Too bad, eh?
.

R. Sale, I really meant only to broaden the horizons of people working on the text's written part, to remind them of languages that were known in medieval Europe or some part of it.

I think the issue with your idea is that the patterns used in heraldry - as distinct from pictorial elements - are just patterns.  When a scale-pattern is used in heraldry, it's called papellony. When a zig-zag horizontal line is used, I believe, it is called "dancetty".

The patterns therefore may be just patterns and that's all.  If they were intended to be read as heraldry, then I think it curious that none uses any of the usual marks to indicate metals, and that there is no particular effort made to distinguish the background from the foreground, as heraldry normally does. On the other hand, if the 'labels' turn out to be names of people, and we find that the barrel pattern for each is the appropriate one, your argument would have a fair chance of being demonstrable, even proveable.

I've seen you offer the Fieschi as owners of one design.  Have you suggested owners for any others?  At one time I toyed with the idea of checking the 'barrels' against the Prophecy of the Popes (Prophecy of Malachy), but realised that following that line would be to begin paying more attention to some hypothesis of mine than to the manuscript itself and its internal evidence, and the relevant range of comparative and historical and archaeological evidence (which is quite enough work).  Slipping into researching hypotheses, to the point where the manuscript is hardly looked at - seems to hover as a chronic temptation in Voynich studies.

Diane,

Let me take up your closing thought, "to the point where the manuscript is hardly looked at" and suggest enthusiastically that we do take a look at VMs Pisces. 

But let me suggest that you are wrong, when you say, "The patterns therefore may be just patterns and that's all." Rather a pattern may just be a pattern and that's all. That is fair enough, a single example taken from the VMs and then wander off wherever one may.  But that's not it. Just on the Pisces page, heraldry works again and again to identify specific patterns on the tubs in the outer ring of Pisces. The VMs is examined in detail, repeatedly matching example after example. Some of these patterns do have historical connections. Did you miss my Feb. introduction of gurges, the whirlpool, heraldically canted to the early de Gorges family, ref. Wikipedia? [The early versions of the pattern could be either concentric or spiral.] The VMs pattern is concentric. Heraldry is the common standard by which this whole set of identifications in the VMs has been made all from the  tub designs on a single page. [Not the walk about picking daisies on different pages style of investigation.]


And there's the legend of Chotard Chateaubriand and the papelonny pattern. Quite probably it was believed to be true at the time of VMs composition. The thing about the various heraldic identifications is that they either connect to the elder Fieschi through the French King Louis IX, in this case, (This was when the papacy was in Lyon), or they connect the younger Fieschi with his role as papal legate to England. There are only a few of the known patterns that have also been identified historically. How many are needed? A pair of historical individuals identified should be significant in the VMs.

As I see it, number and concentration are potential indicators of intentional construction. If there is a pattern to be found - and there is, then there is a pattern in the ms. There is a pattern in the illustrations. The pattern is pairing, at the start of the VMs Zodiac. Look at the number of paired examples in the first five astrological houses. Look at the pairings in the patterns of the tubs on the Pisces and Aries pages The pairing paradigm is established, then it continues.

And the actual blue-striped heraldry, as history would have it, is also paired in this representation as are certain other clear markers found on the White Aries page and with the papelonny patterns. But the famous, historical, heraldic patterns have not been given any sort of ostentatious display. Quite the contrary, Strong radial influences disguise the secondary interpretation of the actual orientation of the pair of blue-striped patterns as they sit on the page. This is a complex construction that includes a few elements of deceptive ambiguity. But it all works together: the red galero, the proper hierarchical positions, heraldic placement and so on. It's all in the first few pages of the VMs Zodiac and see how each of the elements has been built into the respective image.

The general heraldry is really rather simple, for anyone interested: standard patterns, standard heraldic lines of division, standard tinctures, and don't forget that plumetty and papelonny are furs, like many references do. And then skip over all the rest of it.

As to your reference, "I think it curious that none uses any of the usual marks to indicate metals" . The basic system of heraldic tinctures uses only two metals, silver and gold. In the tincture designation system, where the tinctures are designated by markings, it is standard that silver is left blank, while gold is stippled with small dots. The examples in VMs Pisces, to either side of the pair at the top, may be examples of "VMs stippling'. And all the blanks are silver, if you like. Or perhaps you meant tinctures. In which case, there's a topic for later, because the VMs does what it does. Just take a look. Don't just assume that some favored chronology can be imposed on the data.


It would certainly help to know the language that was the actual basis for the VMs written text. But we don't. Still it would be helpful if the text contained some way in which it could communicate with a potential reader. The Zodiac illustrations are either generic and useless or they contain information which can be interpreted through a standard, consistent and highly relevant method of communication, through a common language of the time, but one that is unexpected, most especially from the modern perspective. And that is heraldry. Heraldry as it was done by the VMs Master.


Regards,
Richard

I'd like to add to this topic by making a suggestion:
In the Middle Ages Europe was full of dialects.
Some of these, particularly in mountainous regions such as the Alps, could be limited to a valley or even a village.
Some dialects were linked to professions: most notoriously, mining dialects emerged as pidgins so that miners who came from various areas could communicate with one another. 
Considering the limited cryptographic tools available at the time the Voynich was manufactured, writing based on a little-known pidgin or dialect could add another layer of complexity to a text: Even if you had the right deciphering system, you might not find a plaintext that made any sense unless you understood the plaintext dialect.

I find the term "Latin European" misleading for our purposes. Sure, Latin was the teaching language in universities, but not in abacus schools, nor was it the standard language for many professions, nor is it systematically used in all manuscripts. I think the term reflects a rather reductionist view of the medieval European linguistic landscape. There were literally hundreds of dialects and pidgins spoken in Europe at the time of the Voynich's creation, and in the centuries prior to it. There were valleys where Latin was seen as the language of the oppressor, and people proudly clung to their unique linguistic heritage then, as they still do today.

Perhaps I should have posted this elsewhere, but I think it might be good to try and come up with a list of the various dialects and pidgins which were in use in Europe at the time the Voynich was made. I'm sure this would be a rather long list, and I'm also sure that there's no way it could be exhaustive... but I think it may be useful to try and paint a picture of this linguistic diversity.
How will we ever know we've got the right decryption system if we're not able to recognize the plaintext language?

The language question is an interesting one, and you have a good point. Although when I say "Latin European" I am thinking about a certain culture, rather than a language. For example, I believe the VM is not an original product of Latin European culture, but Latin as a language is still pretty high on my list of possibilities.

An interesting graph from Wikipedia, showing the "Ratio of books printed in the vernacular languages to those in Latin in the 15th century"


It might provide a general idea of the possibilities.
If I thought the contents of the VM were created in 15thC Europe and not just copied, I would definitely look into non-Latin languages. It is an atypical work in many ways, so it might be so linguistically as well.

It seems to me that they key difference with print is intention. Printed books (then and now) were intended to sell and to reach as great an audience as possible. That is the inherent purpose of printing: to allow quick production and diffusion, so that the content will reach a broad audience. So it is normal that Latin would be so dominant: the intention is for it to spread fast to a maximum international readership.
The intentions behind the production of a handwritten enciphered text are very different. So unfortunately I don't think we can use this statistic to determine any probability about the Voynich plaintext language.

I agree with VViews. First of all, the VMS is not a printed book (and btw, I guess the lion's share in that bulk of books printed in Latin simply belongs to the Bible). Second, the VMS rather looks like a collection of notes for personal use , not as a book for circulation.

I showed the graph merely as a possible starting point to find languages. 30% vernacular is not nothing, and like I said, especially given the VM's exceptional character, it might very well belong to one of the more exceptional categories.

Anyone found stats on non-printed books and their range of languages? Seems like a good place to start.

Again, I'm not sure this type of statistic will be helpful either. Here's why: like in the incunabula Latin and the dominant vernaculars will undoubtedly make up the most of such a chart.
French Dutch, Portuguese, Czech or Hebrew are not what I would call "unexpected".
What I wanted to suggest in my post, and I think this is in line with the title of this thread, is to try and look at the liminal, marginal, overlooked niche dialects.
These just don't represent a statistically significant portion of written books. Some were almost never written (especially the pidgins). That is what makes them truly unexpected.