I recently pointed out, in another place, that among the numerous reasons for doubting that Rudolf ever saw or owned the manuscript is that when Marcus Marci mentioned Mnishovsky's rumour, Marci was already suffering from a condition which affected his memory.
This is known because a mutual friend (Kinner) wrote to Kircher just 18 months later, saying then that Marci " has forgotten almost everything".
I wasn't entirely surprised by the blog-holder's lack of interest in this question of how much weight should be placed on a particular seventeenth century source, or even in the philosophical issue of how much weight should be placed on any particular source.
The response was one all-too-common these days, and which we've seen employed ad.nauseum since the first mailing list closed: it sees the actual information or issue ignored, and all responses aimed only at demeaning the researcher - as a means to ensure that the disturbing evidence, information or comment will be ignored and some pet theory continue to be believed.
In this case, the ad hominem attack on me began with an entirely ludicrous argument that by referring to Marci's condition (as documented by Kinner's letter) I was "attacking" Marcus Marci - who has been dead for several centuries. The fantasy was elaborated: this supposed 'attack' was motivated by some 'ideological agenda' - a product partly of the blog-holder's fertile imagination, but mostly the result of a pretty determined effort by earlier parties to spread the idea that my involvement in this study has some devious motive. (The fact is that I was asked to comment on it, because I'm a specialist in comparative iconography and -analysis).
Of course it is funny - until you recall that just this sort of combined mindlessness and dedication to maintaining the old ideas is what history tells us leads to the worst excesses of anti-intellectualism.
We don't burn books so much, but we do (outside this forum) see propagandist methods used to have dissenters portrayed as "bad people" and then constantly flamed. The myth of the dissenter as morally evil is an appropriately superstitious and medieval idea, but we ourselves are supposed to live in more rational times.
I'd hate to see the "Ignore and flame" disease infect this forum too, so as preventative measure, I propose we adopt the following as a personal yardstick: If it is about the manuscript, or about the history of its study, it's fair comment.
and conversely:
If it aims only to degrade another member - if the message is not about the manuscript it's off-topic.
This is a bit of a philosophical question: what comes first, the imagery or the text? Should we try to understand the images better first, or try to crack the text first? Which one will offer the easiest entrance? Which one will help us understand the other better?
There are some arguments that can shoot this thread down, so I would like to get them out of the way already. Let's hypothesize that:
the text does contain some meaning (not necessarily plain text)
the text and the images do belong together
the document is genuine
This is not necessarily true, but in my opinion very likely. So let's assume for a moment that the text is meaningful and arranged in a way that it complements the imagery.
---
When I started studying the manuscript - after having read some introductory material - I first focused on the text. With some naive enthusiasm, which you probably recognize. I soon realized that there were just too many unknowns to have a go at it without any foothold, so I gradually shifted my attention to the imagery. I am now growing more convinced that a profound understanding of the imagery is required before we can figure out the text. Studying the images can teach us:
Which cultural background(s) are present, and hence which languages we may expect
When the imagery originated and when it was altered, and hence, again, which languages we may expect
Which subject matter we might look for in the text - specifically in the case of labels.
I notice though, that quite a number of people study mostly or even exclusively the text. So I wonder what your philosophy is about this issue. Can we understand one without the other? Do you focus on one because you think it offers the best chance of a breakthrough? Or rather because you feel more at home with one or the other?
A while back I counted the letters in vords and also tried to identify the "rhytm" in the words (specific letterpatterns)
needless to say that I failed in finding anything worthwhile.
But, as a mindgame I regularly go over my past theories and think about improvements.
Today I was asking myself this question: Is it possible if you count the letters in every vord, to find a pattern?
This is useful, because when the text contains a cipher, it is very probable that it has a fixed (block) length.
I am talking about the text, not specifically about the labels.
For example:
* every vord has an even amount of letters. like 64246228
* every vord has an odd amount of letters
* every significant vord -length is repeated once like 66 44 22 32648 66 44 21684 22 44
* ...
In order to do this you will have to make decisions on how to count several letters. For example you could count a gallow as 1 or 2 or count Sh as 3 or 1 or 2 etc.
A quick exercise showed me this is not so simple as it looks and should not be waved immediately.
Perhaps there are other possible patterns.
If so, we can try to find a way to rule everything out by writing a method that check every possible method.
In You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , a "Beatus map" was mentioned. Petersen referred to it in connection with the lower right circle in the Rosettes page.
Evidently, he is referring to this map, also known as the Osma Beatus map:
The rectangular part with Andrew's cross refers to "paradisus".
It is indeed a tempting likeness.
(Copied from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.by KG)
Ernest Lillie wrote:
Quote:Anything you can provide will be much appreciated. I've long hoped that someone, at some time, had either photographed or hand copied the now obscured bits of "9 Rosette" --- like the above mentioned label and the worn out gutter between the S and SE disks.
I just scanned the relevant pages of the Th.Petersen hand transcription, and realised that it includes only 8 of the 9 circles. The upper right one is missing. I will need to go through the original at home to see if it is there. After that, I will post a link. Note, however, that unfortunately the quality is particularly bad for this part of the MS.
A few words about early sources: Voynich made photostats of the entire MS, in B/W. Many of these are still preserved in the Beinecke, and are probably the earliest copies. A few of them are on glass plates, still preserved, a technique that people interested in old photography can probably explain.
The Th.Petersen hand transcription is also very early, but later than these.
Another early record is the "Friedman copy", which may derive from photostats before the Th.Petersen transcription. It is also preserved in the Marshall library, and photocopies of it have been circulated. Friedman provided copies of these to his contacts, and one of these has been digitised. I have not looked at it for ages. I may still have it. It was not better than the copyflo, as far as I remember.
That last item is a printout of a very early microfilm made by the Beinecke, I don't know exactly when, but certainly before 1976.
The VMs is a programm, not computer, but handwritten one. It must not be read, it is run and it just functions. Of course, it can be written and it is written by a medieval programmer. You could read a source code to understand the function of this program, if you know this especial programming language. As it is doubtful, it keeps and will keep on functioning to its finish line.
As my site with the article, where the theme of the hidden notes and images in the VMs was observed, doesn't work now, I've decided to place it here, with updates and corrections. The aim is to put together all existed hidden and illegible notes, pictures or symbols of the VMs, ; to systematize and to analyse them. As well, it is necessary to know, why they are here and why they are hidden.
I think that revealing of these notes is a very important task. Who knows, maybe, they include a name of the author or a date of the VMs originating, or some sacral symbols, which could explain the nature of the content. For now, unfortunately, there is no progress in proof of my and others's discoveries in this area, also there is no agreement in reading of the suspected notes, but I have a huge hope that the day of the "official revealing" will come sooner or later. 1. The first item in my list is the inscription in the left top corner of the Rosettes page (f86r). It was discovered by others before me and, later, by myself independently.
a) this fragment, edited in a few ways, with and without photofilters
b) this fragment in original look (1) and its interpretation (2, 3-4)
The last level of the interpretation was shown on my site, but I haven't include it here since it is too obscure and doubtful, although I believe it is present.
2. The notes in the right low corner of the Rosettes page (f86r).
a) the fragment of the original image
b) the edited fragment with changing of the lightening ranges
c) the tables with this fragment edited with different methods
d) the table containing the original image (1) and the interpreted one (2-3) (with burned lines)
3. The faded inscription (letter/symbol) in the right low corner of the Rosettes page (f86r). It was discovered and discussed many times. Many of us considered it the capital letter "M". This letter can mean many different abbreviations, therefore, even, if this is the mentioned one, it doesn't clarify the issue, but, there really is one more letter after it, it can be a hint.
a) the edited fragment with the "M"
b) the mentioned "M' in comparison with "M"s of the Codex Sang. 754
c) the fragment showing some letters (abbreviation?) next to the "M" with my interpretation (the last image)
4. The first page (f1r) of the VMs, top right corner. The illegible notes/ symbols/ image.
a) the edited fragment (1-2) and my interpretation with burned lines (3)
5. The notes on the figure on the f85v. Thanks to JKP for paying attention to it. JKP, even, if you are still doubt in its existing or in the reading, I find it to be very important for continuation of my examination on the hidden images of the VMs.
a) the edited fragment of the f85v
b) the next levels of correction (changed lightening ranges, photofilters) and my vision (the left low image)
c) the edited fragment with the suspected word in latin letters on the hand of the figure (1) and the two versions of my interpretation (2-3). The last letter/ symbol is not usual ("bird-glyph?), but, as I think, it substitutes by itself the letter "r"
In conclusion, I need to say that, as much as I see and understand it, the author of these notes often uses capital letters (in the begining of a word, a whole word, a separate letter). So, I'd say that this is a main difference between them and the visible marginalia. I'd note that the handwriting differs, as well.
The hidden notes could be divided in two categories: letters and symbols (sigils?) The letters are Latin, the symbols are not usual for alchemical or habitual magical sigils. I can only suppose that they are personal author's sigils or unknown to us symbols.
One question which has to be addressed by anyone whose theory is that the manuscript's content is some standard text used in medieval Latin European education is this:
Why would anyone trouble to mystify a work whose plain text was available in every scholarly library and taught as part of the ordinary curriculum?
Remember that texts did not only exist in the form of books: their content was quite literally memorised as part of their being read.
If the written part of the text is in cipher (which I tend to doubt) it indicates that the person(s) concerned considered the information valuable and presumably rare - at least rare and valued within their community.
![[Image: Beatus-of-Osma-map.jpg]](http://www.medievalists.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Beatus-of-Osma-map.jpg)
