It is not important, but there are a few examples of objects that have been attached to the ends of leaves and so dangling from them. I was just curious as to what they are. I don't need to know, but it seems a bit odd to me.
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]These may be the only examples. Though there are other objects attached to plants, I think.[/font]
I can think of examples where they seems to be something like a ring around the "trunk" of the plant above the roots. I don't know what they are either.
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]Are they to protect the ends of leaves or encourage leaves to grow longer or absorbing something from the leaves or feeding the leaves or .....[/font]
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]What is the name of these? When and where were they used?[/font]
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]In case it isn't clear what I am referring to I have reattached the images with the parts highlighted in red.[/font][/font]
Hello, Ms. Davis: I read with interest your Washington Post article, and have followed your theories about the Voynich Manuscript for some time. I found your critique of Mr. Cheshire's offering one of the best, in fact... although I also rate Koen's biting commentary pretty highly, and one of the more amusing. We all share in common that unfortunate experience, and I've no doubt there will be others in short order. But about your article:
"By beginning with their own preconceptions of what they want the Voynich to be, their conclusions take them further from the truth."
The preconceptions are not usually "what they want the Voynich to be" at first, but do morph into that, either through general intransigence, or by painting themselves into a reputational corner. One thing to realize, and remember (although most don't even realize it), is that the most common preconception is that the work is old and genuine. That is a heavily promoted "starting point", so people can't be blamed. It is the base premise of almost 100% of every article (even yours) and book, even many of the claimed translations. With that as such a powerfully projected preconception, it is not the fault of many that they accept it as factual, without ever really questioning "why?" they think this.
That is, people do not, as they should, start with the blank slate of "What is it?", but rather, "What genuine early 15th century European cipher manuscript is it?". And then all ensuing investigation begins as a self-fulfilling quest, a circular investigation. And this tendency to not question is strongly supported because all encouragement and support are within that paradigm. Anything outside of it, and anomalies and inconsistencies within it, are usually not even considered, certainly not satisfactorily explained, and often ignored. That is what paradigms do to protect themselves when challenged (T. Kuhn). And at the same time, anyone, or anything, that supports the paradigm is encouraged, heralded, and even nursed along.
"... I’ve been increasingly called upon by the media in recent years to comment on various theories."
That is exciting, to be asked to do this. It is part of a powerful dichotomy, driven by the paradigm, both to only look at 1420 Genuine European; and reject modern and fake, or all other possibles. And it is easy to do, too, with so many poor "translations" being offered. But it is my contention that if one does not really care about having "a seat at the table", and is likewise somewhat immune to the powers of rejection, if they can be truly introspective, they will be freed to see it as what it probably is: A particularly bad forgery, made in modern times, a laughable mockery of the genuine history of herbal literature.
"Recent chemical analyses, however, concluded that the oak gall ink and the mineral and botanical pigments are consistent with medieval recipes, and Carbon-14 analysis has dated the parchment to between 1404 and 1438. That rules out Roger Bacon (who was already dead), da Vinci (who hadn’t been born), and the peoples of post-contact Mesoamerica."
The ink is "consistent" with inks of the age of the parchment, but the ink is not dated. It could have been prepared and applied at any time up until 1912. And in fact, in the McCrone report there are questions, such as the presence of copper and zinc, and a "titanium compound", and also a gum binder that was not in the McCrone database. There are other points within that report which have not been answered or addressed. The lack of scrutiny can be explained by the preconception I've outlined: "It must be old, and it must be genuine, therefore those things which might offer alternatives must be unimportant."
This claim about the inks dating the manuscript is often used to support "old", but it is only one of dozens of such "projections as truth" which are either still undecided, unknown, arguable, or outright incorrect: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
"I regularly receive Voynich “solutions” by email with requests for feedback. That feedback and my public comments are not always accepted in the constructively critical spirit in which they are given. I recently received an ugly and threatening direct message...".
Yes so have I, when critiquing these various theories and "translations". I actually commiserated with you back when we both... we all, probably, here... came up with very similar opinions on a certain recent theory, and suffered the wrath for doing so. Ironically, I get it from all sides, when critiquing these failures, and when discussing my own theory! So I know both sides of the sword, believe me. The critics, except for you and a few others, are often as hostile as the proposers of bad theories.
But that is the paradigm, again, protecting itself. It has a personality of its own, in defending itself against all opposing views... good, bad... none indifferent, though, in this field it seems.
"As executive director of the Medieval Academy of America, the largest organization in the world dedicated to the study of the Middle Ages..."
You are highly respected, and clearly deserve your reputation. Unfortunately, the Voynich being the "Perfect Storm of Obscure", there is a great deal of heated disagreement among a great many other qualified experts as to what the Voynich is, why it was written, when it was written, by whom, and what it contains. And the language... is it a language, a cipher, a code, or gibberish? And what language, if a language? Expert after expert disagree. My point here is, that with this problem, a degree in any of the related disciplines and about $2.50 will buy you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. The reason is clear: If you have a thousand experts with a thousand theories, only one of them can be correct... which means that nine hundred and ninety-nine experts are wrong.
So it is often claimed that this expert is better than that one, or has the correct experience, or the right discipline, to really know what the Voynich is, and what it is not. But most experts must be wrong because most disagree with each other, and it is impossible to discern which one is correct, or in fact if any are. If they are wrong on A, and we know they must be, then why should anyone assume they are correct on B? But more importantly, one of the most indicative "red flags" of forgery is a high level of disagreement among experts. Genuine items simply do not have anywhere near the level of contentious debate as forgeries, and when they do have disagreement, it is usually explainable in some context. In the Voynich, this expert disagreement is not otherwise explainable, as the item appears to come from several well documented disciplines. It should be "expertly identifiable", but it is not. This one phenomenon screams "forgery!", but there are many others.
"... undercooked solutions presented without context lead readers down a rabbit hole of misinformation, conspiracy theories and the thoroughly unproductive fetishization of a fictional medieval past, turning an authentic and fascinating medieval manuscript into a caricature of itself."
Well I would counter that the 1420 Genuine Paradigm is "undercooked", because as I pointed out, it has many contrary anomalies which remained unaddressed, and relies on items stated as facts, which are anything but. But yes, I do agree with much of what you say, although I also note that in almost all of the discussions I've had over the years, the other parties do not, or cannot through lack of study, compare the Voynich in the context of the world of historical forgeries.
But yes, of course, no one can "turn" an object into something it is not. The theorists cannot, whether they theorize it is genuine, and 15th century, or a fake modern like me, or anything in between. But I see the 1420 Genuine Paradigm as an attempt to "turn it" into that, because on the contrary, it looks all the world to me like a "caricature" of a genuine Medieval work, of a popular culture impression of what a mysterious ancient grimore would have looked like to the mindset of an early 20th century anybody. It is as though this was all very clumsily cobbled together, from a widely varied, and grossly incompatible raft of sources, mostly improperly copied, as it was poorly understood, and then rudely and crudely assembled in an amateurish sort of "Katsenjammer Kids" cartoon style. It is, in my opinion, already very much a caricature: Not of itself, but rather, of anything remotely real.
I've seen the arguments, from experts and professionals alike. My own ideas as to "what genuine thing it might be" have varied over the years, until I gave them up, one after the other. I could not "turn" the Voynich into those things, and certainly had no interest in trying to do so. And I've arrived here, at Modern Fake, probably by Wilfrid, precisely because of that, and coming to realize that the reason is that what it most looks like, when one clears their heads of the preconceptions you warn against: A really cheap fake, that should have been rejected out of the starting gate in 1912, but which has been long propped up by wishful thinking, beloved romantic notions of ancient mysteries, and an unwillingness to admit to a failure of judgment on the part of probably hundreds of individuals.
"When we approach an ancient object such as the Voynich Manuscript, we tend to bring our preconceptions with us to the table. The more we burden the manuscript with what we want it to be, the more buried the truth becomes."
I agree with you, except for the idea this is ancient. So I hope you don't mind, in the spirit of free and open discussion, that I rebut the positions you hold, and encourage you to shed all preconceptions, and look at the Voynich Manuscript again. I think that like many, you might begin to come to a different conclusion than you have, perhaps even, mine. If not, that is wonderful, too. I appreciate opposition possibly more than agreement, it is the engine that keeps me engaged.
Hi all,
I hope this hasn't been discussed here already, at least I specifically searched for the appropriate keywords but could not find any related topic.
There have been theories about the VMS having some pagan content which, for obvious reasons, should be hidden both in text and in the images. That got me thinking: If I wanted to hide pagan (or any other scientific, philosophical, etc) ideas that would surely get me in trouble in a strictly christian society, I would try to make it look very christian to the uninformed viewer.
Maybe the issue here is the other way around: A christian book which had to look like it has nothing to do with christianity. So what if the author originated from central/southern europe, but lived e.g. in the Ottoman Empire or any other place where there was a certain persecution of christians, and tried to make his work look like something that may have been more tolerated in that area?
That would fit well with the theories about hidden christian motives in the images of e.g. the plants/roots or nymphs.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is a copy of the « Somme le roi » or « Livre des vices et des vertus ». It contains an image of the Jardin des Vertus, an allegorical representation. The seven fountains/springs/wells represent the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and the trees represent virtues. The tall one in the middle is Christ. The virtuous ladies are using cups to water their virtues with the "gifts".
When I first saw this, I thought it was similar to certain VM folios, namely You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and maybe to a lesser extent f84r . When I compared them in more detail, I thought, "nah, it's nothing". And now I think that still there may be some conceptual similarity.
The similarity is that you've got a number of female figures in a row, each flanking a stream of water. In the VM, these are labelled, suggesting that they may each stand for something specific. The direction of the water is different in the VM, where it seems to come from the sky (?) and whatever is going on in f84r.
Here is an older example from Ms 870, Bibliothèque Mazarine. The relation between the women with their cups, the water and the trees is clearer here. I like how the cups are basically circles or watery rings
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
These also exist in the VM, though they are almost always connected to tubes and the nymphs kind of put their hand inside them.
I was too tired to do any actual research this evening, so I decided to try and trace the pen lines of some of the small-plants vessels in Photoshop. Keep in mind that in some areas this is an interpretation. The lines are really ruined by the horrendous paint job, and in some areas your best bet is to kind of guess what's going on under the green and (especially) blue layers. I think decorative details in some sections are entirely obscured. Someone else doing a similar exercise might get some details differently.
What I noticed is:
- In these containers, not only the shapes but also the decorative patterns are variable. One vessel is even adorned with some kind of curly, question mark-like shapes I hadn't noticed as such before.
- The drawings are a bit more well-made than I gave them credit for.
- At least one of the containers is certainly placed on a pillar-like pedestal.
Posted by: R. Sale - 10-03-2020, 10:10 PM - Forum: Imagery
- No Replies
I've recently run into some illustrations that reminded of an older investigation.
Many of the earlier examples of medieval illustrations show various backgrounds with different patterns. There is one pattern of particular of interest to VMs investigations.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
There are several illustrations in BL Royal 16 G. VI that add to the example above. f352v, f360, and f440v
This ms. is a version of Chroniquesde France ou de Saint Denis produced in Paris between 1332-1350
Additionally there is an illustration in Yates Thompson 10 f.20 with a similar background and an interesting cloud band.
This is an Apocalypse MS from Paris c. 1370-c. 1390. It also contains an Agnus Dei image, with certain similarities to the one from Liege (BNF Fr. 130996, but also with obvious differences.
The cumulative timeline shows the use of this pattern in Paris in the 1300s, and in the Netherlands in the early 1400s, and that would probably be the Duchy of Burgundy. And while the provenance overall is not highly specific, it is an independent factor and it does clearly include, rather than exclude, the sphere of Burgundy - post 1430 hypothesis.
"The text of the Voynich Manuscript is incompatible with natural human language." I have seen some variation on this conclusion in a lot of recent papers and commentary. This belief seems very much in vogue in the past ~10y, especially among scientists well experienced in wielding statistical tools to analyze information. I wouldn't say it's a consensus yet. But it does seem to be an increasingly popular view among VMS scholars who tolerate absolutely no deviation from the scientific method. Should this incompatibility come to be a consensus among those who truly understand the properties of Voynichese, a serious belief that Voynichese represents some way to write some natural human language will become an immediate indicator of someone who needs to do much more reading, and drop any cranky preconceptions, before adding anything of value to the conversation.
I have no background in coding or information science. My knowledge of statistics is rudimentary, and my knowledge of linguistics is only as a lifelong amateur enthusiast. In reading the latest by Alin Jonas, JKP, Marco Ponzi, Torsten Timm, Brian Cham, Donald Fisk, and a few others, I tried my best to wrap my head around the metrics of natural language specimens, and how these authors' specimens differ markedly from those of the VMS. I've been impressed with these efforts, and think all of these authors make a good case that Voynichese as a vessel capable of holding natural human linguistic communication is, as yet, an unsupported premise. This conclusion doesn't go unchallenged, but I've noticed that increasingly, supporters of this incompatibility are comfortable meeting most challenges with some variation of, "You don't really understand what you're arguing against." or "You don't know what you don't know." I know that I don't know. I could believe that the compatibility vs. incompatibility of Voynichese with natural human language is a false equivalence, and that proponents of compatibility are only numerous and vocal because of how few people have truly taken the time to understand how the book's glyphs are arranged. On the other hand, I'm open to the possibility that proponents of incompatibility are something like an ideological echo chamber, who reach the same conclusion only because they start from the same set of assumptions, and don't keep company with researchers who don't share those same assumptions. To someone who isn't really qualified to argue either side, it feels like a bit of a Rashomon effect.
Reddit.com has a forum called You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. The idea is admitting your ignorance, and humbly inviting an expert to provide friendly, simplified, and layperson-accessible explanations to technical questions. It seems that if Voynichese is highly unlikely to represent natural human language, there should be a way of explaining this to fledgling researchers and enthusiasts, in a way that any person of average intelligence could grasp. Incompatibalists, I know you're very tired of trying to explain your conclusion to would-be Voynicheros who just don't want to hear it. So just a link is fine. If incompatibility is indeed robustly supported, what post or other short piece of writing should be promoted as required reading for newbies who *do* want to hear it, and *don't* want to waste their time building a theory that's already been duly ruled out?
One important consideration of this issue, is what it would take to falsify the statement "Voynichese is incompatible with natural human language". To the benefit of anyone mounting a sincere and well-informed challenge to the incompatibility idea, it's a negative statement. All that's really needed to falsify a negative statement is one good contrary example. For example, if I say "There are no black swans," all one has to do is find me one black swan to prove me wrong. Similarly, all someone would have to do to falsify "Voynichese is incompatible with natural human language" is find one example of human writing (which can be reliably and replicably converted to human speech and vice versa), which measures similarly to Voynichese on all of the relevant metrics. This is easier said than done of course. It's not helped by an unfortunate paradox: Those most qualified to perform and interpret meaningful statistical analysis on written language are also likely to have acquired these skills through an education that put blinders on their ideas of typical written language, that they may not even be aware of. Human language of the written kind is used in a lot of ways that have no literary merit and seldom make it into the historical record, after all.
In summary, I think the arguments for Voynichese's incompatibility with natural human language are not as widely and well understood as they deserve to be, and I don't think that's entirely due to willful ignorance. How can this viewpoint be better worded and promulgated, so that anyone out there with the chops to dispute it (or confirm it!) understands what they're replying to?
I would like to bring your attention to the Austrian artist August Walla (1936-2001), who suffered from schizophrenia and spent most of his time in psychiatric institutions (or at least under medical supervision). There, he was encouraged to express himself artistically, and became a member of the “Gugging artists” who received praise and appreciation from modern painters and art collectors. His works now are on display in several museums. His life, and also his clinical record, are well documented.
Walla’s style involved the inclusion of text into his paintings. Some are pure text, but most of them combine text and figurative illustration. In those cases, the text is somewhat integrated into the picture and used to fill any voids between the figures, obviously following aesthetic principles as much as its inherent “meaning”.
Some of his texts are (kind of) understandable and some are not, some appear to be meaningless. To him, they were undoubtedly meaningful. In some sense, he used his art to communicate; in some sense, to follow an urge to express himself and his religious and cosmological beliefs (which are actually quite complex). Very likely, he attributed some magical component to his work.
He “chose” painting as his form of artistic expression because he knew this from his early education, and because was encouraged by his environment. In Gugging, the necessary materials were also supplied.
In his extensive oeuvre, a small number of topics prevail – family, religion, politics. Single works as well as series of his works are extremely repetitive. He even will repeat single words or letters for a couple of times.
He invented “languages”, using dictionaries. Also the words he invents are used very repetitively, or he combines them to create „new“ words. Walla even created a rune-like set of characters that he used occasionally. But mostly he wrote “plain text”, using capitals and an idiosyncratic punctuation.
Some of his work reads like this (and I will deliberately start with one that is not really representative, but really touching: #1, then introduce some “weird” ones: #2-5 and finally some “meaningless” examples: #6-8).
Quote:[Text1]
Ewigkeitvorherzeit von Ewigkeitzeit.?
WELTALLENDEFINSTERNIS UND DIE EWIGKEITENDEZEITRIESENUHR MIT ZEIT VOR DER EWIGKEIT UND MEINEM VERJÜNGERUNGSWUNSCH 11 JAHRE JUNG ZU WERDEN.?
Interlinear translation:
Eternitybeforetime of Eternitytime.? UNIVERSEENDDARKNESS AND THE ETERNITYENDTIMEGIANTCLOCK WITH TIME BEFORE THE ETERNITY AND MY REJUVENATINGWISH 11 YEARS YOUNG TO BECOME.?
Quote:[Text2]
Walla August.!
BIN DER HEILIGE GOTT SAÄRIL.! GOTT SAÄRILL.! GOTT ALLAH.
SONNE HINTERM BISAMBERG IN DEN BEZIRK KORNEUBURG AN DER DONAU?
SARARILL UND ALLAH.! KPÖ I 1 II 2 I 1 III 3
Walla August.! AM THE HOLY GOD SAÄRIL.! GOD SAÄRIL.! GOD ALLAH! SUN BEHIND BISAMBERG IN THE COUNTY OF KORNEUBURG [home of August Walla] BY THE DANUBE? SARARILL AND ALLAH.! KPÖ [=Communist Party of Austria] I 1 II 2 I 1 III 3
Stern, pl. Sterne = star; Erde = Earth. This was written on a window pane.
Quote:[Text4]
HHH
ICH BRAVER HALBTEUFEL DANKE, DEM GOTTESSOHN JESUS CHRISTUS WENN ICH HEIMKOMME NACH KORERNEUBURG
Ich lobe solchen braven Menschen die heimbringen dem braven Burschen August Walla.!
HALBTEUFLEIN AUGUSTIN ALOIS WALLA GEORG.! TEUFEL MIT BLONDEN HAAREN, IST EIN SÜSSER STROLCH, ALS STRITZIBUBE.!
Sepp.! Sepp.!
GESPENST.! SÜSSER BRAVER STRITZIBUBE IST DA GLÜCKBRINGENTER SO DUNKELBLONDER KIRCHENEHRLOSER FREUNDLICHER TEUFEL ALS SO HALBTEUFEL HIER.!
In the following translations, I had to smooth some things out for the sake of readability:
HHH I GOOD HALFDEVIL THANK, THE SON OF GOD JESUS CHRIST WHEN I COME HOME TO KORNEUBURG. I praise such good men who bring home the good lad August Walla.! HALFDEVIL AUGUSTIN ALOIS WALLA GEORG.! DEVIL WITH BLOND HAIR, IS A SWEET HOODLUM, A RASCAL.! Sepp.! Sepp.! [=short for Joseph] GHOST.! SWEET GOOD RASCAL IS HERE LUCKY SO DARK BLOND CHURCHDISHONOURABLE FRIENDLY DEVIL AS SO HALFDEVIL HERE.!
Quote:[Text5]
+ WALLA AUGUST + SO BILDL FÜR BRAVN BRAVN BRAVN HERR KURT HOFBAUER + BILDL EIN BRAVER BUNTER PAPAGEI + DU LIEBER GOTT ALLES BÖSE KOMMT WIEDER, UND ALLES BÖSE VERGEHT WIEDER + PAPAGEI MARIA + 1997.! +17
+ WALLA AUGUST + SUCH PIC FOR GOOD GOOD GOOD MISTER KURT HOFBAUER + PIC A GOOD COLORFUL PARROT + YOU GOOD GOD ALL EVIL RETURNS AGAIN, AND ALL EVIL PERISHES AGAIN + PARROT MARIA + 1997.! +17
The picture does not show a parrot, but a box of watercolors.
(all gibberish except for „Adolfe“, which is followed by a swastika)
Quote:[Text7]
KISI KOMISER SAIRE KISI OGUSTO LAP LASTIRMAK KISI KOMISER. SAIRE PUT GOTT, KOF SLAMNÜNYA SAIRE KOF EZELF.! Lied.! KITLEMEK ISLÄM. PUT SAAAHNHX PUT PUT PUT SAAAHNHX.! FAKAT FAKAT MEK ESYA=KOMISER. MEK ESYA, KOMISER.
(all gibberish except for “OGUSTO” which sounds like Italian/Spanish… = August; “GOTT” = God; “Lied” = Song; maybe “ISLÄM”?)
So, if you are still with me, I would like to bring up the question: if we would examine the texts of Walla – especially those which seem to bear no meaning - the same way we examine the VMS, would the results be similar?