The Voynich Ninja

(16-08-2016, 12:04 PM)Sam G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Her statement that Aries has been "redrawn from a calendar" is plainly a suggestion that the Aries image originated outside the usual collection of Zodiac imagery. 

Not really. It would be a zodiac cycle that is part of a calendar.

(16-08-2016, 12:37 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(16-08-2016, 12:04 PM)Sam G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Her statement that Aries has been "redrawn from a calendar" is plainly a suggestion that the Aries image originated outside the usual collection of Zodiac imagery. 

Not really. It would be a zodiac cycle that is part of a calendar.

Perhaps.  I would say that her statement isn't quite clear, and it's also not clear whether this is offered merely as a suggestion or something she saw as absolutely certain.  Also worth keeping in mind here that we only have her statements in the form of a "translation/summary" by Rafal Prinke.  So I still don't see a contradiction, and certainly I don't see any basis for using her statements as a sort of "expert-opinion-in-a-box" that can be used to dispose of any evidence that may surface at any point in the future.  It's basically just attributing an opinion to her that she never expressed.

(16-08-2016, 11:57 AM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The answer to this question is very simple. The scribe did not see this mosaic.

Rene mentions just one possibility in his last post: Aratus manuscripts. I learned from Marion Dolan's doctoral thesis about the subject that the Carolingians' intent was to safeguard the knowledge of the Ancients. They copied the texts as far as they were available. And for the imagery, they searched far and wide (including North Africa) for remaining useful images: mosaics, frescos, carvings, public monuments, calendars...

Hence, the Aratean tradition was one way the imagery, concepts and style of the ancients found their way right into the heart of Europe.

There are many, many other ways for ancient imagery to find its way to Europe. Take Baresch' learned traveler who went to Egypt to gather knowledge. Take Diane's wandering traders, who maintained Hellenistic documents just because they were incredibly useful. 

R. Sale is right: we should not argue for a one-to-one correspondence. Diane had posted a very similar image before in which it was clear that the tail was originally a palm tree. Now Sam posts a mosaic with much the same palm tree and even more similarities. It is clear that this was a common way of depiction. Moreover, Diane's example was in a coin, and coins travel. But there were likely once dozens of such images found in a wider area, and many dozens more copies of those spread far and wide.

R. Sale is once again right: the head is different. This means that the VM cat was altered or copied from a similar source. Diane has written about the depiction of the eyes which, together with the splash of blood on the hind leg, point to a post-Hellenistic tradition of neutralizing images that were seen as threatening. If I recall correctly, this points towards the Carolingians again.

This way the puzzle of transmission can be assembled. The tail, the blue spots, lack of mane... are likely indications that the original source was classical. The head and other factors point towards another stage of alteration.

We are not looking for the direct source, that is futile. We are looking for pieces of the puzzle. And in my opinion, Sam provided a corner piece

As long as it is understood that, no matter how far the imagery can be traced back in time, it is a matter of transmission through the ages and continuous change, there is no controversy here at all. The problem will remain that the path of transmission will be highly speculative.

I am extremely skeptical about the palm tree story. Leo as a lion with its tail  between its hind legs and upwards is a fairly common way to draw the zodiac sign. Were they all derived from an image of a lion with a palm tree in the background? I think the evidence does not allow this conclusion at all.

I am also not convinced about the red spot either. There are many red spots in the MS that seem like spills of paint or wax, but it doesn't seem possible to conclude whether it is intentional or not.

In general, at least some pieces of the puzzle need to be concrete to make it attractive. As long as they are all speculation, the grand total is equally 100% speculation. That doesn't make it definitely wrong, of course. One simply has to be careful with words like 'has (been) shown' etc.

---

(16-08-2016, 12:56 PM)Sam G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Perhaps.  I would say that her statement isn't quite clear, and it's also not clear whether this is offered merely as a suggestion or something she saw as absolutely certain.  Also worth keeping in mind here that we only have her statements in the form of a "translation/summary" by Rafal Prinke.  So I still don't see a contradiction, and certainly I don't see any basis for using her statements as a sort of "expert-opinion-in-a-box" that can be used to dispose of any evidence that may surface at any point in the future.  It's basically just attributing an opinion to her that she never expressed.

The essence of what she writes is very clear: it's a product of its time. It's an adaptation of a tradition according to the area and time where the MS was produced.

The conclusion is that the similarity with a mosaic that is 1300 years older has to be coincidental.

Suggestions (not from you, certainly) that the Voynich MS 'zodiac' isn't a zodiac, are also strongly contradicted by her.

Rene,
As so often, you deflected the issue by a form of ad hominem - in this case suggesting that I am "not consistent" when the point I was making is that it would be more helpful if you just acted as any other researcher and offered your own insights.

I would also say that, as it happens, I'm also a professional in my field, and that field is comparative iconographic analysis. So what you actually have is a series of experts whose opinions do not agree.  In that case, the usual approach is to consider the evidence adduced, the comparative examples offered, and the secondary documentation cited.

Now, the "zodiac expert" - whatever that may mean, but let's take it as a meaningful term - did not present her opinion in a way that I should find acceptable for a second-year student. 

There is no attempt to analyse the figures; no attempt to explain why the month-names are a little unusual if the cycle is an astrological zodiac; there is no effort to offer proposed comparative images... nothing which is normally found in any scholarly assessment of a given document.

Speaking as another professional, though not a specialist in "zodiacs" I did not feel those comments made at a level which would enable them to be cited as evidence - not even as evidence that the person had actually sighted the original.

You may find that opinion more congenial, and adopt it as you think fit.  But it certainly is not any "last word" on the subject, and while you also say you find this person's ideas or that personally convincing, again that is not an argument in the academic sense.  You are simply telling us that you like it; that their arguments suit your preferences.

There is a general lack of objectivity and dispassionate approach to this manuscript, and especially to its imagery and more than any other single factor, that has prevented any genuine advances in our understanding of the object since the demise of the first mailing list.  Everything seems to have bogged down in a rut from which others are being discouraged - either actively or passively - from escaping.

Sam G's examples are the topic, and objectively speaking they have more points in common with the Voynich manuscript's figures than anything in the Latin manuscript tradition: point by point.

So rather than re-railing the line of discussion, or attempting to maintain the now eight-year campaign to suggest that I am irrational, or inconsistent, or illiterate, or 'out for glory' or any other among the useless and pointless stream of memes.. how about focusing on the manuscript, and the points which Sam G. is making?

Worth trying, anyway, don't you think?

I was talking about the MS with Sam G. and Koen.
I have no need and no desire to attack anyone on a personal level.
Your state of mind was never the issue, so I don't know what this last post is supposed to be.

One thing though, when two people express different opinions, their credentials (background, reputation, etc) certainly play a very big role. The opinions can have very different weights.
This is completely in general, of course.

“Objectively speaking” the tail of a lion curving around its hind legs is more similar to a palm tree than to the tail of another lion curving around the other lion's legs.
Things seemed clearer in the “natural talent” version. I find this “objectivity remix” quite dissonant.

Rene

I have a genuine question for you, since there is one point that, as an amateur, I don't understand. A point of criticism I often get, from you or like minded people, is that I have to demonstrate transmission. Now I understand what transmission means and why it would strengthen an argument. What I don't understand tgough, is why it is necessary before anything can be considered. 

Simply put, I believe the large lines of Diane's conclusions (even though we disagree about speifics): the base layer of the imagery is Hellenistic, and the effects of subsequent copies can be seen in the imagery. There is a clear Eastern influence in some sections, and some medieval European alterations can be seen as well, with the crossbowman as an obvious example. 

Now for the sake of argument only, let me grossly simplify and say that I'd want to argue that the VM is the result of someone in the 15thC travelling to Egypt, finding a scroll in a buried chest and having it copied back in Europe.

Obviously the scroll would not be in optimal condition, so interpretations have to be made by the poor copyists. Is this a tail or some kind of tree?

Once again, this is not exactly what I think happened, but just a hypothetical scenario. So someone finds a foreign scroll and has it copied. My question: how do I demonstrate transmission if the scenario I propose is in itself a unique and undocumented form of transmission?

Koen,

this is in principle not impossible. However, it is possible to come up with scores of similar scenarios, all of which have in common that there is no evidence for any of them. It is speculation.
Now speculation is great fun. I've done it and I'm still doing it.

But one thing I took away from the many times I have been able to talk with professionals is that they don't go into speculation a lot. When confronted with a speculative question, the answer is at the very best: "could be".

I can give a concrete example from a couple of years ago. I had been looking through many of the German MSs in the Heidelberg library, to find if there was any where the handwriting was similar to that on f116v. At the time, the best guess for the date of the MS was still 1460-1470 (Panofsky and Toresella). The most similar handwriting appeared to me to be from around 1440. Of course, having no expertise, this was just a visual thing, and I asked someone with expertise (I can't remember who it was). He basically said, "could be, not certain".
(I still think that this should be taken up by someone, by the way).


Some scenarios appear non-controversial, for example if they fit with typical scenarios for other manuscripts.
Some scenarios are, I don't know, 'unusual' for lack of a better word. All proposed solutions need some evidence
of course, but for the more unusual proposals, stronger evidence will be needed in order to convince people.

The problem is of course that the Voynich MS is unusual.

I have seen several different arguments related to that:
- It is unusual, so it is probably a modern fake
- It is unusual, so it isn't European
- It is unusual, so its author probably was unusual (i.e. mentally abnormal in some way).

Now, really, the drawings aren't *that* unusual. JKP wrote that too and I agree with him. If one looks closely at the plant drawings and those in contemporary herbals, one sees a lot of common elements.
From all the real experts who have looked at the MS over the years, I am not aware of anyone who indicated a doubt about a generally European origin. (The Talbot and Tucker paper is of course an exception, but it is finding no acceptance as far as I know, and I well remember Touwaide's indignation when he spoke about that paper).

The names of some of these experts have been mentioned many times, but there are several more that I met in Washington in 2014.

Putting it all together.... there are lots of good reasons why the Voynich MS, though a bit unusual, is a European MS from the early 15th C or the middle of the 15th C. The castle with the pronounced crenellations, the oak-and-ivy illustration, and others are clearly contemporary elements.

A direct descendance from a source of more than 1000 years before is a very challenging suggestion, and seems at odds with basically all expert opinions. Arguing for it will require very solid points.

I just had time to read the thread in full, and I'd advise to separate the discussion of the subject of the thread from the discussion of the methodology (the issue of transmission, the issues of the exact/inexact match, the valuation of expert opinions etc.). These methodological issues are very important, because without a commonly adopted approach we would ever go in circles and quite empty discussions about e.g. is the match exact or inexact - when we are not in agreement about which way it should be. Is it essential that the goat does not have ears or is it not? I have my own considerations on this, but let me not enlarge the volume of offtopic here.

(16-08-2016, 03:54 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Putting it all together.... there are lots of good reasons why the Voynich MS, though a bit unusual, is a European MS from the early 15th C or the middle of the 15th C. The castle with the pronounced crenellations, the oak-and-ivy illustration, and others are clearly contemporary elements.

A direct descendance from a source of more than 1000 years before is a very challenging suggestion, and seems at odds with basically all expert opinions. Arguing for it will require very solid points.

Well, then to look at this from a slightly different angle: what about the text?

Now, the issue of the nature of the VMS text has come up on this forum before, and I always prefer to debate the actual evidence rather than rely on expert opinions, and anyone can check this by reviewing those old threads.  So my view is consistent: neither the text nor the illustrations are so vexing that they cannot be meaningfully studied by amateurs.  Also, while I don't feel that expertise should just be casually disregarded, I also don't see that it should be slavishly adhered to where logic or evidence indicates that it is wrong.  I think it is an empirically demonstrated fact that experts are often wrong, and amateurs are sometimes correct.  So what follows here is not how I usually argue, and is written in response to what I regard as your overemphasis and selective use of "expert opinion" in this thread.

Anyway, as I'm sure you are aware, the expert opinions are very strongly against the view that the VMS text is a ciphertext of any kind.  Most notably here you have William Friedman, John Tiltman, and Jim Gillogly, all three of whom studied the VMS for decades and concluded that it was not written in cipher.  Maybe you can find a cryptographer somewhere who thinks that the VMS is a ciphertext, but you won't find many, and certainly you won't find one with the reputation or demonstrated codebreaking ability of any of these three.

As far as professional linguists go, you have Jacques Guy, James Child, and more recently Stephen Bax who, although differing in the particulars, have clearly stated that the VMS is written in some unusual natural language, and is not encrypted.  I believe there are some other linguists who have expressed this view in the list archives, and I am aware of no linguist who has ever expressed any other view.  So we have unanimity here among several experts.

So I think it's clear that if we are going to decide, based on the translation/summary of some casual remarks from an art historian posted on the web possibly even without her knowledge, that depicting Aries as a goat is nothing out of the ordinary, then surely the nearly unanimous opinion of many expert cryptographers and linguists who have put an enormous effort into researching the VMS text must carry an even far greater weight.  The VMS is not encrypted, and it is written in an unusual, otherwise unknown natural language.

Now, I know I have seen you express the view that the VMS in fact is a ciphertext, although interestingly you do not state this on your own website.  I'm sure I could dig up the references if you want.  That means that you hold a view that is completely in contradiction to expert opinion, despite your stated view that expert opinion should be respected.

So, from the standpoint of your view that the VMS text is a ciphertext, perhaps the idea that there is nothing unusual about the illustrations and no need to posit any foreign/ancient influence in the VMS might make some sense.

But how do we possibly reconcile a 100% medieval Western European origin for the VMS with the fact that it is written in an otherwise unknown language?

Should the fact that the VMS is written in an otherwise unknown language at all influence our ideas about what is and what is not possible regarding the origins and meaning of the illustrations, and of the content more generally?