Can't say whether this is news to anyone else, but there is a second cloud band in the VMs rosettes. The original one is in the Central Rosette, just outside the circular band of text. The one more recently added to my investigations is found in the center rosette on the right hand side. Both examples were brought to the current discussion by D. Hoffmann.
Cloud bands are relevant to VMs investigation because of the cosmic comparison of Oresme's illustration (BNF Fr. 565 fol. 23) with VMs f68v, as proposed by E. Velinska.
If this comparison is sufficiently strong to show that there was an actual, structural connection between these two cosmic representations that exists despite their visual differences, because those visual differences were intentionally created, then there should be no problem connecting the cloud band of the central rosette with the VMs cosmos of f68v. Firstly. this is because the VMs clearly has other examples of cross-page connections and, secondly, because of the high degree of pattern similarity in the designs that compose both of these examples.
The Oresme cloud band is an excellent example of the scallop-shell patterned cloud band. Technically, it is built on an exaggerated nebuly line where the bulbous extremities have been depicted in a series of small arches, to give the characteristic scallop-shell shape. These running arches are similar to an engrailed line in heraldry.
The cloud band in the VMs Central Rosette is quite similar, with the difference that the engrailed characteristic runs throughout the entire nebuly line pattern, rather than only across the tops of the bulbs. This requires the engrailed line to be flipped when crossing the mid-line.
The cloud band in the VMs Right Center Rosette is even more elaborate. Like the Central Rosette, the engrailed line continues throughout. The interesting feature that I noted was that each bulb in this example contains a second line segment that follows the engrailed pattern. So I suggest that this pattern might be called 'double-topped'.
This double-topped construction has a hint of something familiar, but I can't pin it down. Unfortunately, many of the illustrations posted to the old 'wolkenband' thread seem to have gone to URLs
Does anyone have an illustration that shows a double-topped cloud band?
Not only does the second cloud band make it a pair of cloud bands side by side, but the Central Rosette contains a pair of Stolfi's markers. Both of which help advance the pairing paradigm.
[The pairing paradigm holds that, in some areas of the VMs research, the material that is relevant to finding the proper course of investigation will be found in pairs.]
I reread D'Imperio's The Voynich manuscript: an elegant enigma (Thanks to Rene Zandbergen for reminding). Now I have time to learn more concernicng the other theories about the Elixir of life. I've found in D'Imperio a short description of professor Brumbaugh's theory: "... the manuscript as a treatise on the «Elixir of Life «, designed to interest the Emperor Rudolph II by a forger who wished to make it appear to be the work of Roger Bacon. An ”encyclopedic sequence of drugs», possibly compiled from a variety of earlier manuscripts, is followed by astrological lore: the folios featuring nude female figures may deal. Brumbaugh thinks, with «the biology of reproduction, the theology of psychic reincarnation, or the topical application of the elixir». (1975. pp, 348-349). (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., M. E. D’Imperio, p. 22)
I want to adress to Rene and to all forum members who could help. Is it possible to find free-available articles about Brumbaugh's theory in details (in English or translatable with Google)? Of course, 70's was not the time when the internet, blogs and on-line libraries existed, but, maybe, somewhere his articles are saved. I've found only article in which he was criticized for his method of deciphering (May 6, 1975, The New York Times Archives, Page 41, the article You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.) and his paid book The Most Mysterious Manuscript: The Voynich "Roger Bacon" Cipher Manuscript. Brumbaugh's theory, as I understand, was quite much-talked-of in that time. I’d like to know the details as it pretty interests me, although I don't believe that the VMs is a hoax in any sense of this word.
I guess that one of the problems with statistical analyses of the VMS is that, when comparing with other sources, one typically only has modern texts available.
My impression is that some of the strange features of Voynichese might be caused by the script, rather than by the language.
For instance, there are medieval European scripts in which the same character is written differently on the basis of the nearby characters. I expect this could result in lower entropy (but it's clear to me that this phenomenon should be very extensive to result in second-order entropy comparable with the VMS).
This is an example of a script in which 'r' has three different shapes:
* similar to uppercase R (but smaller) at the beginning of words [red]
* similar to '2' or 'z' when midword and immediately following a "round" character ('o', 'p', 'd') [green]
* 'r' in other cases [blue]
Obviously, to an hypothetical transcriber having no knowledge of Latin languages and alphabet, these three would look like different characters and each would be transcribed as such. He would have to deal with a character that only occurs at the beginning of words and another one that only occurs in the presence of a restricted left context.
UPenn You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. - Virgil - [Le livre des Eneydes] - France, late XV Century
Other interesting features in this manuscript are that 'v' only occurs word-initial (in all other cases, the same character as 'u' is used) and 's' has two different shapes (this is actually quite frequent), one only occurs at the end of words, the other elsewhere.
The example of 'v' is a simple case of ambiguity: a single symbol sometimes used for unrelated sounds. This same manuscript typically omits the dot upon 'i', with the result that 'm' and 'ni'/'in' are often indistinguishable. Of course, something similar might be happening with VMS EVA:i and EVA:e sequences (see also this You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., by Stephen Bax).
I'll keep bouncing some "essentials" ideas off you guys
It might be handy to gradually build a list of common misconceptions or mistakes made by people studying the MS. This will allow us in the future to refer to that thread and say "you have fallen for misconceptions 6, 12 and 15". The advantage is that we don't really have to go looking for anything, the material will gradually come rolling in as we go along.
Ideally each misconception or commonly made mistake should be accompanied by a short explanation or a reference. We can divide them into different categories like imagery, text, statistics, linguistics, codicology... depending on what is collected.
If it takes off, I will link this thread to an essentials thread and collect them there.
An example of what I have in mind:
Imagery
Misconception #1: green water is somehow unusual Explanation: people often think that the green water in quire 13 needs a special explanation, like herbal baths. However, it was not unusual in medieval art for (salty) water to be colored green. Examples can be found on maps and De Balneis manuscripts.
And of course any misconceptions we include can be contested at all time.
I see that there is the thread [font=Alegreya, serif]You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. on the voynich.ninja which discusses depiction of this page in the context of Winds, in particular, in the Ptolemaic system. I think that here, in the forum, must be a thread about the page f86v3 to collect all thought about its imagery in different conexts. [/font] [font=Alegreya, serif]This post includes observations on different myths containing scenes with birds and mountains, as well a part of my theory.[/font] During the study I was often surprised with that fact that many myths from different corners of the globe repeat the same stories, sometimes modified, but in the same time, include almost identical details and characters. The issue of my interest is not an exception: most part of myths about the Water of Life or the Water of Immortality includes episodes with a mountain or two mountains and birds, often – an eagle, a dove, a phoenix and a raven. I couldn’t ignore such a detail because of the same motive of the page f86v3 which contain two mountains (or a mountain and a volcano) at the bottom and certain watery or bubbling shapes (not mountains) ejecting likely fumes or mist. Birds always help to get the living water for gods and people:
an eagle and doves brought Ambrosia to Zeus helping him to win his father Cronus;
an eagle threw You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. plant to some mountain from heaven or brought it from the mountain to earth;
there are You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. about birds (eagles or doves, etc.) which brought the living water flying between two clashing rocks, as no man can do it.
As for the image of a bird (eagle, pelican, or phoenix) on a mountain in alchemy, it has no one exact meaning, since there are too many different details in alchemy which play important role in identification. For example, the white eagle means the White stone or Elixir, phoenix means achievement of successful final of the Great Work – rebirth as the Philosopher’s Stone. In general, birds in alchemy mean volatility, volatile state of the material. According to one alchemical author, «the eagle flies up to the clouds and receives the rays of the sun in his eyes.» The text of the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.says that the first Hermes built the house at the mountain of the Moon opposite the Sun to observe the level of the Nile’s waters. They say, there was five Hermeses, obviously, this implies his five incarnations. Alchemical works sometimes mention one mountain (of adepts), it can be a one- or twin-peaked mountain, but often two mountains (Sol and Luna) are mentioned. The Voynich folio You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. contains two «mountains» and two birds, possibly, eagles, one of them is sitting on the peak of the rock, another is descending from above. Descending bird almost always means the Holy Spirit. I have an impression that the left mountain here is humid or watery, ejectin moisture in opposition to the right which is, rather, of earth and accepting humidity.
This post has been triggered by two recent comments by Diane. This first of these in a recent You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , but I did not want to disturb that discussion with something off-topic.
I would like to caution people against being misled by the following statement You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. :
Quote:It would also be the civil thing to do to run a google search and acknowledge the first person(s) to suggest similarities that you repeat in your paper. If only everyone did that it would save a lot of embarrassment and no-one could possibly suggest you'd just 'lifted it'.
Anyone writing in a blog post about their original thoughts and original work should not need to worry about this. Every blog poster knows very well what is their original work and what has been copied from elsewhere. The latter should be indicated.
It only becomes a problem if anyone says that he/she is the first to do or write a certain thing. This is almost impossible to prove, so one should be very careful in writing such things. I did not read the entire blog of "Searcher" so cannot say if this problem occurs.
If one posts original work, one should not expect to be accused of 'lifting' it. The fault lies with the person making the accusations.
Equally importantly, a "Google search" is inadequate for finding out about earlier work. This was also discussed briefly in Nick's blog, just a few days ago. As useful as it is for finding things, the result is not representative for the complete picture, and gives only a tiny fraction of relevant information.
To know the history of research in any topic, one has to do a thorough literature search. This is usually outside the possibilities of someone who is not already involved in this research, because one has to start from scratch, and most important resources are not to be found by a Google search, but only in libraries and archives. Or one has them already since one is more or less deeply involved.
For the Voynich MS there are many archives like the Beinecke, the Grolier Club, the Marshall library, and numerous other repositories of correspondence. None of these can be read through Google. Again, this is only a real problem if one wants to claim to be the first in something. Still, one misses a lot of interesting, and potentially useful information.
Therefore, the suggestion to use Google to find out about precedence is not a good one, for two reasons:
1 - you know yourself (and don't need to ask Google) what is your original work
2 - Google gives you a useless answer.
Fortunately, for the Voynich MS, these archives have already been searched by different people, and one can find bits and pieces of useful information in books like D'Imperio (1978) and Brumbaugh (1978). The first is even available on-line as a PDF, but not searchable, so again Google is no help.
All of this is true for blog posts, but a completely different regime applies for academic publications. Here, one cannot just write about a topic and not worry about what others have written. One has to demonstrate that one is familiar with the state of the art of this topic. This is especially important if one wants to present an alternative to what is 'best knowledge'. So, you don't only quote people who do the same thing, but also those you are intending to contradict, if these are important.
More often than not, demonstrating this knowledge is not an issue if the author is a known authority in the field, or, if it is a relative newcomer, by having such an authority as co-author.
The second post of the two I mentioned in the beginning demonstrates some of these points. It is You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. . I wasn't going to comment on it, but it fits in perfectly with this issue.
The statements:
Quote:Apart from some vague observations which were acute enough but undeveloped (such as a couple of John Tiltman's), there was no informed comment on this imagery between 1912 and 1931, when Anne Nill made a note of some offered by Panofsky. Once again there was no explanation in detail for those observations, though that doesn't lessen their importance as the first unforced, informed commentary we have.
Thereafter there appears to have been nothing recorded of any informed observation or comment on the imagery before 2008.
are plainly incorrect. (I put an effort to avoid terminology that would not be in line with forum policy).
However, this could be the impression one gets from relying on a Google search, and not bothering to look at literature, some of which is easily available.
I was going to post it here, but in the end it turned out to be a too big material, so I've finally decided to make a new blog and to place my whole theory concerning the VMs imagery there. Here is only the introduction and synopsis.
Due to my new observations on the Voynich MS, I can continue my «lunar» theory which was begun with observations on the hidden signs of the lunar cycle in the herbal part of the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. You can find it You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. I agree it looks unconvincing in the interpretation of quite obscure signs. Now it has grown from a separate observation into a more or less complete idea.
This idea is about the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. I don’t want to say it is new, but my aim is to represent how it can be explained entirely. Actually the matter is about the «living water» from the Moon. I think the whole conception of the VMs is the doctrine about influences of the Moon on the Earth water, plants and moistures of all bodies, about moisture and vapors of the Moon as the nature of its influence.
I don’t know whether my observations and conclusions will help in deciphering of the text or will more confuse, as, it seems, I haven’t found the answer to the question about the language in which the Voynich manuscript is written.
1. Analysis of patterns in the Voynich MS imagery.
2. Image of the Moon in the view of ancient and medieval people.
3. The Eagle and the Mountain.
4. The Water of the Moon: a divine liquid of immortality or the principle of reincarnation?
--Soma and Samsara.
--Ambrosia and metempsychosis.
--Manichean «Navis vitalium aquarum».
--Alchemical transformation: the White elixir as the way to the Redness.
--The Voynich pools of life-giving waters.
5. The place of the Voynich MS in the «Lunar» theory.
6. «Rosettes» – Ros – Ras – Aqua Vitae.
This is the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. Please, use the direct link, Google Search doesn't work for it as I use free version Wordpress.
P. S. Koen, thanks for You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. It came just at the right moment.
Just on a whim I made the following image which shows the direction of the labels on the large foldout. The arrows always point to the top. So on a normal page (like this webpage) we would expect only upwards pointing arrows.
"Radial" labels, which are arranged as or along a circle, are marked in black.
Taking the orientation of the scan as the norm: GREEN arrows mark normal text. RED arrows mark upside down text. YELLOW arrows mark text which can be read when you turn the map 90° counter-clockwise BLUE arrows mark text which can be read when you turn the map 90° clockwise PINK arrows mark transitional directions.
What this diagram shows is that there appears to be a clockwise "flow" throughout the foldout which is followed rather consistently. I'm not sure what this means and I'm left with plenty of qiestions.
Does it show that the thing was meant to be rotated in one's hand?
Does it show the preferred orientation of specific parts?
Are there other documents which show this kind of behavior? (there are a few other pages in the VM)
In linguistics, Heaps' law (also called Herdan's law) is an empirical law which describes the number of distinct words in a document (or set of documents) as a function of the document length (so called type-token relation).
Heaps' law means that as more instance text is gathered, there will be diminishing returns in terms of discovery of the full vocabulary from which the distinct terms are drawn. More on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..
To put this another way, the vocabulary size in any textual stream grows according to Heaps law: it is proportional to the square root of the total number of tokens in the stream.
So if the Voynich is based on an underlying natural language text - if the word tokens we observe actually have unique meanings - then it should correspond to Heap's Law, which has extensively shown to exist in many different natural languages.
If the word tokens do not have unique meanings - ie, this is gibberish or tokens are actually comprised of morphemes with different meanings - then we should not observe Heap's Law.
I used the edu-texts-analyzer (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.) to run a test on the Voynich.
I prepared two distinct corpus using the Voynich freie literature You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., one of Currier A and the other of Currier B. I attach the transcripts, which were cleared up by turning . into spaces, and removing line end / paragraph markers.
CurrierA contained 11,558 total words of which 3487 were unique.
CurrierB contained 25,489 total words of which 4710 were unique.
Both of these results strongly correspond with the result predicted by Heap's Law, as shown in these two charts (in both cases the small line going from zero to a point shows the position of our result, against the line which Heap's Law plots):
I attach two spreadsheets with the sorted words in both Currier variants, sorted according to their frequency of occurrence.
Comparison with random text
I used an online You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. to generate gibberish to run the same tests against. The Heap's results fitted exactly with the prediction. I assume this is because the webpage -and most of its ilk - attempt to mimic the English language when producing its gibberish.
So I then put that random text into a markov chain randomizer found You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. This produced truly random text. I ran several attempts and none produced any results that were anywhere near a Heap's regression line.
However, all text produced very jerky Zipf's like results. Here's a typical chart.
These rapid tests should not be relied upon for any real conclusions, but they do seem to point towards Voynichese tokens having unique individual identities. There is more work to be done in analysing random and cipher texts, but I hope the tools I include in this post may help other researchers carry out their own tests.
After a decade, I see three major issues which seem to occupy a blind-spot in the study.
I don't mind whether it becomes a discussion, but I'd like members to think about these things in terms of the different approaches to treating the script, text, imagery, codicology, and questions of whether the text is, or isn't in cipher.
WHY?
Contemporary historians (as such) tend to have little time for this question, since in historical terms the answer to one 'why' is potentially infinite, and only leads to other 'why?' questions. On the other hand, all the disciplines chiefly interested in explaining why things are as they are expect to provide, and to be provided with discussions which recognise, enunciate and then carefully explain the 'why' of things.
I find, especially, that linguists are trying to explain why Voynichese works as it does and in their own way cryptologists are too. The same concern is paramount in my work as a comparative iconographer (I hate the word 'iconologist'). This I see as a major problem with the way the imagery is treated. It is not enough to say 'what' you think you see in an image, or 'what' you think it looks like. The picture has to be explained as a whole, and that means explaining (not hypothesising) the reason that it is drawn in the style it is, and explaining (not guessing) its purpose - the 'why' of its being made.
The second is the 'How' of the study overall. Methodology is the essence of science; method is central to discussions of script and language. But when it comes to talking about supposedly historical narratives, or talking about the pictures, I'd have to say that in the past ten years where methodology is concerned it has been ranging between the deeply flawed and the non-existent Methodology is more than 'being methodical' - it means studying the formal methodology of the discipline in question. Theorising about how to conduct a lab. experiment, or how to identify significant elements in a written text, or in a picture just won't do. Really. Plausibility is too low a standard - right results are gained by knowing appropriate means and methods.
That's the HOW.
'How Much'? Researchers tend not to spend enough time determining the relative weight of things which have been said against the hard evidence from which the ideas derive, as distinct from how many people all think and say the same thing.
Scrutinising carefully the evidence for *everything* taken for granted by others is most likely to break the 100 year deadlock. Because - let's face it - nobody has managed to read the text yet, have they? All the current theories, speculations and all the rest must be flawed in some way, and most likely flawed from the foundations upwards. How much should you take as a 'given' and use as basis for your own work? No one can tell you that, but it's worth taking time to make a list of all those things you take for granted: say, that the manuscript was made in Europe, or that the botanical folios were intended to be some sort of European-style herbal, or that the picture of a crossbowman in one roundel of the calendar makes the whole manuscript German... Where are the calendar 'nymphs' in a German calendar? Where are pictures of this style in a Latin (western European) herbal?
How much can you really take 'on faith'? I'd say very, very little. Same premises, same results, and so far the results are... zilch.
Anyway, think about it.
Also - think about what it does to the idea of shared intelligence if you block everything said by another member.