| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 679 online users.
» 2 Member(s) | 673 Guest(s)
Applebot, Baidu, Bing, Google, sfiesta
|
|
|
| Storehouses of parchment |
|
Posted by: -JKP- - 27-08-2020, 01:20 PM - Forum: Physical material
- Replies (46)
|
 |
I have been assuming that if there were storehouses of parchment in the late medieval period, they were probably in scriptoria.
This is partly true, but I didn't know that often the person commissioning manuscripts was expected to supply the parchment. I discovered this gradually, over the years by reading historical works that discuss early manuscripts and scriptoria. The patron may have purchased skin from parchmenters as it was needed.
This may have changed when the printing press changed the creation and availability of books. There was probably a point where people realized handwritten manuscripts would soon be obsolete and parchment would no longer be needed. Some may have been redistributed or used for other purposes. I imagine this transition probably happened sometime in the late 15th or early 16th century.
So, it's an interesting piece of medieval trivia... if you want scribes to create a copy or a new work... bring the skin. Also, in the early medieval period they used the Greek word for calligrapher to describe scribes, but gradually other words were used as scribes specialized (e.g., notaries).
|
|
|
| What would a "solution" look like over history? |
|
Posted by: MichelleL11 - 26-08-2020, 04:16 PM - Forum: Provenance & history
- Replies (10)
|
|
Obviously, our generation, with their quest for their "15 minutes" has littered the Internet with "solutions" to the Voynich manuscript. Thus, in the future, if the internet or something like it stays "up," researchers could find these and take these into account (for better or worse).
But I realized, since I have never studied the history of science in anything more than a spectator's way, I did not know how would a potential solver at various times over the history of the Voynich go about disseminating their ideas.
I suppose you could look to other well known "decryptions" at different time periods and see how those were made known. I'll look into this (I imagine there is general scholarly work about this in the history of science field), but I would be interested in such parallels that other board members can provide off the top of their heads.
Are there times during the existence of the Voynich that such publication would be dangerous, suppressed, or otherwise result in no public disclosure? Perhaps for similar reasons that the manuscript might have been encrypted? But obviously not necessarily directly parallel, as I am looking for something in a different time period than during its creation.
This is clearly speculation, but can we be certain that all the places that a possible solution could be available have been completely tapped out?
Certainly there are both public and non-public places that haven't been examined . . . remember we don't have the "Voynich" key word to search on -- LOL.
I would circle back to my suggestion before -- IF there is a key that was not publicized, if it still exists, the most likely place for it would be someplace where the manuscript has been physically. That's why it is good to know.
Interested in hearing what others might have to say about this.
|
|
|
|
| What if the images are entirely like the text, various scenarios. |
|
Posted by: Koen G - 26-08-2020, 09:31 AM - Forum: Voynich Talk
- Replies (11)
|
 |
This thread is meant as a thought experiment. I like to do those as an exercise to expand the box that inevitably starts to form around my VM thoughts. It is not about what we believe to be possible, but about what we could expect under certain conditions.
I usually think from images to text, that is, if we can understand the imagery perfectly, we should in theory have a better shot at understanding the text. But what if we turn this around? There are various scenarios for what the text is like. What should we expect of the images if - just for this exercise - we assume that they are the same as the text, informed by the same principles? For example:
- The text could be an illiterate culture/language's first attempt at writing in its own writing system. In this case, and remember that for this exercise we imagine that the images belong to the same sphere as the text, what would we expect? Every culture has an artistic component, this was already true in the Stone Age. So we would expect part of that artistic tradition to shine through in the imagery. If we take into account the stylistic properties of Voynichese, chances are this culture is not European - probably Asian? So given the premise of this thread, the imagery should have Asian influences. But it doesn't, at least not in an in-your-face way. So if we have Asian text, with non-Asian images, what happened?
- A one-to-one simple substitution of a European language. Just kidding, this is an unlikely option.
- A more complex cipher. I use the word cipher here with purpose, because it carries within it the intention to obfuscate. If the same principles apply to the imagery, this would mean it is obfuscated as well, it does not speak plainly. Whether this is done out of fear, secrecy, exercise or boredom doesn't really matter. If the imagery is like a complex cipher, what can we expect of it?
- Nonsense made to look like it has meaning. In this case, given the condition that text and imagery are the same, both would be like a well-constructed Rorschach test.
I probably missed a few?
With the VM, we are facing the longest, most enigmatic pre-modern undeciphered text, and its imagery is equally hard to understand. If the entire MS is the product one one mind (or, as we know with near certainty now, a collective of minds), then may similar principles underlie the strangeness of both?
|
|
|
|
| Discussion of Voynich MS-related theories |
|
Posted by: ReneZ - 24-08-2020, 11:12 AM - Forum: Voynich Talk
- Replies (81)
|
 |
Discussion of Voynich theories with their proponents is, from my experience, a fruitless and generally pointless way to spend one's time.
Let me just present a shortlist that can be used to clarify this point.
Rich Santacoloma is strongly convinced that the Voynich MS is a modern fake by Voynich. He has been challenged for more than 6 years by now, without any visible effect. This is the one case on which I spent more time discussing than any other, well before the Voynich Ninja forum existed, and I have decided that that has been enough.
Tucker and Jannick are strongly convinced that the Voynich MS was written in the 16th century in Central America. I have had many exchanges with one of them, all very friendly, but without any impact.
Gerard Cheshire is convinced of his proto-italic theory. All discussions with him have been fruitless.
Jutta Kellner is not generally known in the various Voynich fora, but she is well known to the Beinecke, and she is as convinced of her theory as all the others in this list.
Giuseppe Bianchi is even better known to the Beinecke (in a negative way) but he is really an OK guy. His views about the MS cannot be changed.
Most of these are not (actively) present in the Voynich Ninja forum. Some that are include:
Morten St. George and his Nostradamus theory (one of the longest threads ever).
Antonio Jimenez Garcia, another very long thread and again someone who will not revise his opinion
Torsten Timm, very active in this forum and with many interesting statistics, none of which demonstrate his theory, and he is as resistant to changing his opinion as anyone else in this list.
Everyone can decide what he wants to spend his/her time on, and this is also what I do.
I have never seen that discussing any of the above theories brings anything.
Of course, all of them will argue that they are right and all the others are wrong, and it is unfair to throw their work into the same pot as these invalid theories, but that is irrelevant. It is a matter of what people interested in the Voynich MS prefer to spend their time on, and for me forum discussions have moved down the priority list very considerably.
|
|
|
|
| Scruffy notebook |
|
Posted by: Mark Knowles - 22-08-2020, 12:02 AM - Forum: Voynich Talk
- No Replies
|
|
I was just watching a video with the facsimile in it where the reader was saying the Voynich manuscript looked amateurish. This and looking at the facsimile got me thinking if I was trying to make something for sale then I would have thought it should look professional rather than amateurish. If I was trying to produce some manuscript with magical indecipherable writing for sale I would either make something which deliberately looks arcane or something which looks beautiful.
Something amateurish would be something like a notebook for personal use. This would fit with the idea that the author(s) was not particularly interested in sharing the contents of the notebook with the outside world and in fact had gone to means of making it more difficult.
This would also fit with the fact that we don't know who wrote the Voynich and why we have no record of it around the time of writing. If the author(s) had no interest in making it public and in fact had gone out of the way to conceal it from the public then it is hardly surprising that we don't know much about its early history. Also, because it is a scruffy notebook it is easily overlooked, it seems that only when one looks at the script is one struck by the manuscript.
However reconciling the idea of an amateurish creation with something hard enough to decipher that modern professionals have failed, seems difficult, though not impossible. Maybe the appearance is amateurish, but that doesn't mean the contents was. I am sure that some great scientists made their own scruffy notebooks. I am not saying the author(s) was a great scientist, but still a certain amount of the contents appears quite original.
I know others will certainly disagree, but that is my thinking.
|
|
|
|
| Decans on the rosette, 1st sphere |
|
Posted by: Barbrey - 17-08-2020, 04:27 AM - Forum: Astrology & Astronomy
- Replies (6)
|
|
Has anyone associated the quarter moon shapes lining the inside of the 1st rosette's inner sphere with decans? I thought it was an interesting number - 37 - but I associated it with moons and powers or some such. Also numerologically with the number #10, 3+7=10, or 1+0 = 1so that sphere to me represented likely both 1 and 10 as the starting and ending point for my hermeticum man's journey from the celestial as divine brother of god to his fall to earth as both mortal/immortal to his return to the celestial/immortality through hermeticum gnosis (and good medicine re the signatura rerum of plants, astral magic and natural magic of course!). A journey from 1 to 10 similar in some ways to the Sephiroth.
I became interested in decans through the hermeticum. Unlike in most astrology, decans in the hermeticum are regarded as incredibly powerful daimons/gods, second only to Logos and Cosmos, and a reconstituted divine man might even be able to join them. So I looked them up.
They number 36, governed by or governing, the 7 planets/constellations, and at least today represent 10 degrees each of a zodiac sign, and have a history going back to Egypt 2500 bc at least. I won't go into that history here - it changed considerably over the years but by medieval times they were widely and often used in medicinal astrology, particularly in regards to the body.
This association with bodily health appeared to be related to the rebirth of Ra and or Osiris, according to a few different sources, in which the decans were responsible for leading him to the underworld, then returning him, in accordance with their function in the sky.
Rebirth! That agreed with my original hypothesis.
If only, I thought wistfully, they numbered 37 not 36 and could be represented by quarter moon shapes...
As it turns out, they are.
36 only accounts for 360 days of the year and is often only quoted because it's tidy. The 37th decan accounts for the 5 extra days, before Sirius appears again after long absence and begins the procession of decans again.
Moreover, pictorially, the decans ride on quarter moon boats. The Temple of Hathor at Dendarra has a celebrated frieze on its ceiling of 37 decans riding these boats, with one of them escorting a coffin, likely Ra or Osiris, to the underworld before rebirth.
I'll try a link showing the first 18: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
|
|
|
|
| Tradition, heraldry: Encore! |
|
Posted by: R. Sale - 17-08-2020, 12:46 AM - Forum: Voynich Talk
- Replies (3)
|
|
Yesterday lelle posted:
*"R Sale,
It's hard for me to follow the line of thought in your various threads regarding tradition, white Aries, heraldry etc and how it's connected to the VMs.
Can you please summarise your thoughts on the VMs (preferably accompanied with images) and explain the above points? It would help me engaging in the discussion.
Thanks in advance."*
If I had to say in a single word, perhaps 'synthesis'. While the record of proposed VMs solutions covers a range from Aztecs to Cathars, the results of several different investigations have found apparent evidence of a more centrally located European origin. Taking these results in combination, rather than individually, promotes a stronger indication than any single item on its own.
Tradition is defined as a belief, opinion, custom or usage coming down from the past. It applies to us and it also applies to the creator(s) of the VMs. Obviously things have changed over 600 years. The recent example of this is the myth of Melusine. It is one thing to discuss whether the VMs You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. image *looks* sufficiently like a representation of Melusine to justify that interpretation. It is another thing to recognize and recover the tradition that various noble houses claimed Melusine as an ancestress, mythical or otherwise during the time that matches the VMs parchment dates.
The recovery of tradition in the VMs also benefits from the investigation of medieval heraldry - that is heraldry as it was practiced up to the time of the parchment dates. The VMs uses three different aspects of heraldry: armorial, ecclesiastical, and linguistic (heraldic canting). This investigation focuses on the first three pages of the VMs cosmos and begins with the tub patterns around the outer ring of characters on VMs Pisces. Comparison of these tub patterns with the standard patterns of heraldic ordinaries and sub-ordinaries reveals several examples of similarity. Alternating vertical stripes are similar to a paly, horizontal stripes to a barry, diagonal stripes to a bendy or bendy sinister. The chevrons are surely heraldic. There are circles, like roundels, and rings like annulets, There are tubs with a looping line across the upper portion that look like an engrailed chief. But in Pisces these are followed by more complex images that do not fit standard definitions. This gives an impression that the comparison has faltered and need not be taken seriously. Besides which, heraldry is more than just the pattern, it is a combination of pattern and color, and color (tincture) designation in VMs Pisces is problematic.
Then there is VMs White Aries, the best painted page in the VMs Zodiac sequence. This was done for two reasons. Having so much that is painted disguises the things that need to be painted. Having so little that is unpainted emphasizes the 'whiteness' of things that were not painted. This is where history and heraldry come together with the recovery of tradition. And here is the same old problem. How does the reader recover tradition if the reader has no knowledge of the tradition put forward? On White Aries the VMs creator puts forth a question which I have called the Genoese Gambit. Does the reader know the armorial, heraldic insignia of the pope that started the Roman Catholic tradition of the cardinal's red galero?
History reveals that Pope Innocent IV first granted the red galero to the cardinals about 1245. He was previously known as Sinibaldo Fieschi, and the Fieschi coat-of arms is Bendy, argent et azur, diagonal stripes of silver and blue. This was from a time long before all popes were retroactively granted heraldic insignia. Looking at White Aries reveals some blue-striped tub patterns and red hats, and a lot of obfuscation. Innocent IV appointed 2 or 3 of his relatives to the office of cardinal. Is this really a historical reference? Appearance would seem to cast doubt. In the radial presentation, the orientation of the blue stripes is wrong. However the more subtle, page-based orientation is correct for both. The combination of blue paint and ink work appears wrong. It is wrong. D[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]ifferent systems of tincture designation are never used in combination, and doing so looks like an intentional violation of rules in order to create obfuscation. Intentional obfuscation then requires a knowledge of traditional rules in order to reverse the violation. Position and placement, on the other hand, serve to confirm the Fieschi identification. Pope and cardinal are in their proper hierarchical locations in the celestial spheres - the pope is in a higher sphere. Both figures are located in the most favored heraldic quadrant, - which is the upper right - as seen from behind the insignia, looking out. The page chosen is White Aries, with white animals the only proper, traditional choice for celestial sacrifice.[/font]
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]Furthermore, back on VMs Pisces, if the investigation continues on around the outer circle of tub patterns, instead of breaking off as the odd patterns were intended, there is a dark, scale-like pattern at about 11 o'clock. This is the obscure heraldic fur, the tincture known as papelonny - the scales of a butterfly's wing. A similar pattern occurs in the inner ring of Dark Aries. This is an intentionally hidden construction. The paired papelonny patterns correspond in sphere and in quadrant with the two blue-striped patterns on White Aries. The structure constitutes an example of heraldic canting between the papelonny tincture patterns and the subsequent, blue-striped patterns of the Fieschi insignia, based on the French word for pope, which is 'pape'. It turns out that the nephew, Ottobuono Fieschi, made a cardinal in 1251 by Innocent IV, was later elected pope as Adrian V, so there was a historical pair of popes with this armorial insignia.[/font]
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]Maybe all of this is just circumstantial and hypothetical, and if the history behind it is unknown to the investigator, then it doesn't mean anything at all. Of course, there is an actual physical connection between one of the blue-striped patters and one of the two deluxe versions of Stolfi's markers found in the circular bands of text. It might seem as if this entire papal narrative was created to add emphasis to the markers and to the marked bands of text, but why would someone do that?[/font]
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]Sorry, to run on, but the topic is complex with lots of little details - intended to be tricky - a modus operandi also seen in the VMs Cosmos.[/font]
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]Willing to discuss things further. Sorry, no pictures.[/font]
|
|
|
|
| A crown and a ring |
|
Posted by: R. Sale - 14-08-2020, 04:26 AM - Forum: Imagery
- Replies (1)
|
|
Interesting to consider those seemingly insignificant details of historical tradition.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Under 'Liturgy' in paragaraph #2, the third sentence says. " The nun is also invested with a crown and a ring."
Apparently unique to Carthusian nuns.
Of course there is a potential connection to Burgundy through the Chartreuse de Champmol founded by Philip the Bold.
Also note the Carthusian symbol with an inverted T-O and seven stars.
|
|
|
|
| Transliteration and interpretation of the Voynich MS text |
|
Posted by: ReneZ - 12-08-2020, 01:36 PM - Forum: Analysis of the text
- Replies (21)
|
|
To render the Voynich MS text into a computer-readable form is called 'transliteration'.
Historically, this has been called 'transcription' but the two processes are not the same.
Take the letter from Marci to Kircher (1665). We have access to a graphical image of this letter, which is written in a known language (Latin) and a known alphabet. It can be (and has been) transcribed.
Other hand written manuscripts are more difficult to read, use abbreviations and omit characters. They can still be transcribed, but there is a set of conventions for resolving the abbreviations and omissions.
With the Voynich MS it is very different. We cannot read it and it is not Latin. The best one can do is to try to identify the individual forms, and render them in electronic form as consistently as possible. This process, which is also applied to texts in known non-Latin alphabets, is called transliteration.
This has been done many times for the Voynich MS, and different people/groups have come up with different results.
The 'easy' interpretation is that these people defined tables from the Voynich glyphs to alphanumeric characters, but the more complete and correct interpretation is that the decision rules have been different in all cases.
In the 'easy' interpretation they can be easily translated between each other back and forth, but in the more accurate interpretation this is not possible without loss of information.
This can be exemplified with the case of the character d.
It looks like an eight, so FSG transliterated it as 8, so did Currier, in Eva it is 'd' and in v101 it is again 8.
However, v101 (and also Eva) recognise several different forms. The main forms are transliterated as 6, 7, or 8.
In Eva there is the high-Ascii code &152; but this is hardly used in the LZ or ZL files.
The problem is not whether one uses 8 or 'd', but where one draws the limit.
I highlighted this last sentence, because I get the impression that even experienced Voynich MS researchers do not fully grasp this idea.
It is immaterial whether one transliterates e as 'e' or 'c'.
It is immaterial whether one transliterates Sh as 'sh' or 'Sh'.
Coming back to the title of this post, it is very tempting to map 'expectations' of the meaning of some glyphs to the way they are transliterated.
Even if we think that e looks like a 'c', it does not mean that this is what it is supposed to represent. In fact, that is extremely unlikely, but that is subjective and can be ignored for now. What should be clear to Voynich researchers is that just mapping Voynich symbols to plain text characters in some language will not work.
|
|
|
|
| Writing papers about the Voynich MS |
|
Posted by: ReneZ - 12-08-2020, 01:03 PM - Forum: Analysis of the text
- Replies (27)
|
|
If I wanted to write a paper about molecular biology, I better have a relevant degree and I better know the relevant recent publications on this topic.
The same is true for physical geodesy, history of astronomy or pediatric cardiology.
And many other subjects.
You simply cannot expect to publish anything in an area in which you cannot demonstrate prior knowledge.
This is obviously different with the Voynich MS.
New publications (almost always outside the academic world) appear at an amazing rate, and it is exceptional if they demonstrate any attempt from the author(s) to get themselves even basically familiar with the topic.
This is nothing new. I have seen this for 10-15 years now. In the earlier days, people would actually use the excuse that they did this, in order not to be biased and to have an independent view, but nowadays this is simply passed over.
There are a lot of clever people interested in the text statistics of the MS, but how can they be made to look at earlier research, and take lessons from that?
|
|
|
|
|