+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: Provenance & history (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-44.html)
+--- Thread: Cipher or unknown language - historical perspective (/thread-4874.html)
Cipher or unknown language - historical perspective - ReneZ - 17-08-2025
Over time, people have wondered whether the writing in the Voynich MS is an invented script, as used in ciphers, or a genuine old script to represent some language.
When Voynich first presented the MS to the world, he had made up his mind: this has to be a cipher, and ever since, the MS has been called a cipher manuscript.
Nowadays, we can be certain beyond reasonable doubt, that the Voynich MS is not an example of some old writing system. No other examples have ever been found, and we know that because, in the modern world, research is accessible globally.
Did Voynich have a similar consideration, or was it commercial decision? A Roger Bacon cipher should sell for more than some unknown language.
We don't know what his reasoning was, and it does not really matter.
But what would people well before the 20th century have thought?
What was the question from Prague to Kircher?
A) please translate this language
B) please solve this cipher
This question has been asked before, and Marci's letter is neutral about this.
Barschius also does not express this very clearly in his surviving letter, which is the second about this topic.
Still, there are two hints.
First, he repeats in his letter that the reason he approached Kircher was his (supposed) success in deciphering egyptian.
Second, from Kircher's answer we know that he (or Moretus) sent Kircher a sample of a printed text in Glagolitic.
Both suggest that he was approaching Kircher for a translation of an unknown language.
Barschius certainly could not have our overview of foreign writing systems, so this is not a strange viewpoint at all.
Is this then also how people in even earlier times would have seen the MS? I do think so.
RE: Cipher or unknown language - historical perspective - Koen G - 17-08-2025
This consideration is not complete without taking into account pseudo-scripts. People had a general idea of what (a particular style of) Arabic and Hebrew looked like, and somewhat convincingly imitated these.
But I would argue that, for the Latin scribe of the early 15th century, the Voynichese script would not have looked all that foreign, apart from perhaps the gallows. Rather a bizarre use of known, mostly non-alphabetic characters. This familiarity seems to have diminished enough by the Prague era to make them contact Kircher about it.
RE: Cipher or unknown language - historical perspective - oshfdk - 17-08-2025
(17-08-2025, 01:48 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But I would argue that, for the Latin scribe of the early 15th century, the Voynichese script would not have looked all that foreign, apart from perhaps the gallows. Rather a bizarre use of known, mostly non-alphabetic characters. This familiarity seems to have diminished enough by the Prague era to make them contact Kircher about it.
To me
Ég hef ekki hugmynd um hvað þessi setning þýðir.
looks very foreign, even though most character shapes are familiar. I have no idea how to read any of it and I would struggle to guess the language.
RE: Cipher or unknown language - historical perspective - Koen G - 17-08-2025
(17-08-2025, 02:36 PM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.To me
Ég hef ekki hugmynd um hvað þessi setning þýðir.
looks very foreign, even though most character shapes are familiar. I have no idea how to read any of it and I would struggle to guess the language.
I'm pretty sure they would recognize this as a Germanic language. Without speaking any Scandinavian or looking this up, I can guess from my knowledge of English, Dutch and German:
eg - I, ik, ich
hef - probably have, heb, habe
ekki - okay, this one is weird, I know "ikke" is a negation in one of them (Norwegian maybe) so I'll cheat here and guess "not"
hugmynd - no idea but one could guess the word "mind" is in there, it feels Germanic.
um - similar to Dutch and German, might mean something like "about"
hvad - there's a strange symbol here which might throw someone off, but this word should not be a problem for an English speaker at the time: what.
þessi - same, though again similar to West-Germanic.. German MSS often say something like "disse", Dutch "deze".
setning - from context I guess this means "sentence". But again, crucial is that it looks Germanic, with the -ing suffix.
þýðir - okay, this word looks foreign, but again not to the extent that one would think it comes from Egypt. Links exist with Dutch "duiden", German "bedeutet etc, but that assumes one understands how to read the non-Latin characters.
So my guess is that you typed something like "I have no idea what this sentence means".
My point is that this script is still based on Latin writing, with one class of unusual characters thrown in. Add to that the fact that Scandinavia was connected to Europe, especially northern Germany, and I don't think this would have caused the same reaction.
It all depends on one's frame of reference. It seems clear to me that Baresch and his peers had no clear frame of reference for Voynichese. But I wonder if the same were true for someone working in a c. 1400 scriptorium.
RE: Cipher or unknown language - historical perspective - oshfdk - 17-08-2025
(17-08-2025, 03:57 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(17-08-2025, 02:36 PM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.To me
Ég hef ekki hugmynd um hvað þessi setning þýðir.
looks very foreign, even though most character shapes are familiar. I have no idea how to read any of it and I would struggle to guess the language.
I'm pretty sure they would recognize this as a Germanic language. Without speaking any Scandinavian or looking this up, I can guess from my knowledge of English, Dutch and German:
I didn't mean this as a test for the scribes, I just said that personally for me not only the meaning would be totally unclear, but I wouldn't even be sure if this is a language or a code. I'm familiar with a few Romance languages and English, I don't speak German or Dutch, and I don't recognize a single root here.
If you want a similar effect for your linguistic background, maybe the following will work:
ni vigumu kiasi kupata mfano mzuri wakati kila mtu anazungumza lugha nyingi
Is this a cipher or a foreign language? All shapes are normal Latin characters.
RE: Cipher or unknown language - historical perspective - Koen G - 17-08-2025
Agreed, I couldn't say whether this is a language or a cipher. My default reaction when reading this with no context (i.e. not on this forum) would be "African language" though. I assume Baresch etc. has a similar reaction and their mind did not go to ciphers.
RE: Cipher or unknown language - historical perspective - Antonio García Jiménez - 17-08-2025
Perhaps Baresch did not think of cipher because it was not common to have such large ciphers.
RE: Cipher or unknown language - historical perspective - ReneZ - 18-08-2025
(17-08-2025, 01:48 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This consideration is not complete without taking into account pseudo-scripts. People had a general idea of what (a particular style of) Arabic and Hebrew looked like, and somewhat convincingly imitated these.
Pseudo-scripts are interesting and quite possibly relevant, but they are part of a diffierent question.
I very much doubt that anyone looking at the MS in the first two centuries or so would have thought: this looks like one of these scripts that appear in some paintings.
In fact, people looking at paintings with pseudo-scripts could have had the same doubt: is this a strange language?
The other question is not: "what were people seeing the MS thinking", but: "what was the creator doing". Basically the core of the Voynich mystery.
If he was using a cipher, then there should be a meaningful text behind it.
But it did not really look like a cipher to later users (who did not know all the languages in the world).
So what is the alternative? We can be reasonably confident that it is not a lost language.
It could be an invented language by the author (of which the meaning is lost), a constructed language (a la Friedman), an imaginary/fake language (as in pseudo-scripts).
This goes beyond the purpose of this thread though.
RE: Cipher or unknown language - historical perspective - ReneZ - 18-08-2025
(17-08-2025, 02:36 PM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Ég hef ekki hugmynd um hvað þessi setning þýðir.
This is a good example. It looks very much like Icelandic to me, of which I have seen plenty of examples, but I cannot say whether it is real or fake Icelandic, or some rare variety. I would probably be able to find out quickly though.
Wilfrid Voynich would also not have been confused if he found this in a manuscript. In fact, he acquired some Icelandic manuscripts early prints in earlier years.
Now Barschius could have been much more confused about this. Also, had he sent this to Kircher, Kircher might have been able to tell him that it's Icelandic (if it is). We can't be sure, but there is a chance.
RE: Cipher or unknown language - historical perspectivet - Stefan Wirtz_2 - 20-08-2025
(17-08-2025, 01:51 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[..]
Nowadays, we can be certain beyond reasonable doubt, that the Voynich MS is not an example of some old writing system. No other examples have ever been found,[..]
Is there any valid proof for this/your idea here?
There were several languages even in Europe who did not develop any own alphabet until even later than the VMS.
Or who used neighboring writing systems, even changing them during the times.
Or adopted a one-man-solution as „own“ alphabet and shifted later to another alphabet.
What does that mean: „no other examples have ever been found“?
Those more peripheral languages/writing systems did not „mass-produce“, especially not before book printing era. Many minor languages did not start a regular writing culture before 16th oder even 19th century, but this does not exclude earlier stand-alone attempts.
LFD claimed that „95% of old manuscripts were lost“ so I would even expect that only 1 piece of work from a „low-producing“ writing culture was saved until today.
So, how is there „no doubt“?
Just not able to find it out is no proof.