• Options
• Login
• Desktop Style

VALUE

• Index

  • The Voynich Ninja
  • Voynich Research
  • Voynich Talk
  • VALUE
• VALUE

• VALUE

  Diane > 22-12-2016, 11:09 PM

  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.

• RE: VALUE

  -JKP- > 22-12-2016, 11:36 PM

  Alisha Rankin discusses various reasons for keeping things secret in her book Secrets and Knowledge in Medicine and Science, 1500–1800.
  
  Here is a brief excerpt about something being enciphered that was available elsewhere if a person cared to find it:
  
  "In mid-seventeenth-century England, Sir Peter Temple created a notebook of medical recipes for his daughter Eleanor. Unusually, Temple encrypted his remedy collection... in a simple cipher. The reason for this, he explained to Eleanor, was threefold: firstly, to 'conceale it if it come in to an Enemys hand', secondly 'because Even Friends doe dispise wt they know' and finally 'to keepe ignorant persons from applying ym (too often) to the Patients prejudice'. The knowledge contained in his book, he suggested, was too sensitive to be shared with just anybody..."
  
  
  It's also noteworthy that an entire book of remedies was enciphered in a simple (very easy-to-break) substitution code in the 15th century even though the same remedies had been broadly copied in other manuscripts.
  
  I think it's perhaps like a small padlock, like those for the zipper on a backpack, the kind that's easy to break off. It might not deter the determined or stop anyone from taking the whole backpack, but it does sometimes slow people down and make them think twice. As one traveler told me, his backpack had a tiny padlock and his buddy's didn't. His buddy's pack was stolen. His theory was that a thief with limited time to grab and run will take the easiest loot.

• RE: VALUE

  Koen G > 22-12-2016, 11:42 PM

  I agree with you that the plants are ones with economic value, and that economic interestd may have been a driving force behind the manuscript's creation.
  
  Where I disagree is two things:
  - Yes, it is likely that the script is like this because they wanted to obscure information, but I can see other possibilities as well, like some original transcription effort from one or more foreign scripts.
  
  - There are still too many unknowns to allow us to select a priori what should and should not be in the manuscript. 
  
  That said, I do fully agree with the message behind this thread, if it is that a proposed solution should also explain why the information is presented in the way it is, and what could have been the motivation for anyone to present it in this way.

• RE: VALUE

  Diane > 23-12-2016, 01:54 AM

  -JKP- and Koen,
  Thanks for the responses.  Both very interesting points.
  
  What we appear to have in the VMS, of course, is not the equivalent to a 'tiny padlock' according to the cryptanalysts.
  
  But I look forward to reading Rankin's book which I've now put on order - thanks.

• RE: VALUE

  davidjackson > 23-12-2016, 09:43 AM

  Diane's question is quite cunning, as it traps anyone who answers lightly into admitting that they consider the book to be written in a simple cipher - although both Jkp and Koen managed to sidestep the trap  
  
  It is of course impossible to come up with a "solution", we can only postulate scenarios. IE the scribe didn't realise the secrets were freely available or the like.
  
  But to answer the question, we first have to answer the unasked question - is it a simple cipher or something else? And there's a hole with no end.

• RE: VALUE

  juergenw > 23-12-2016, 11:24 AM

  (22-12-2016, 11:09 PM)Diane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.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?

  
  Just a thought...
  Aristotle's work was 'rediscovered' - or better: en vogue - in the 12th century and surely standard text book or manuscript format in medieval libraries. That changed a century after the 're-birth' with the prohibition of Aristotelian philosophy and science (13th Century/end of the 13th century). Not sure how far the 'forbidden status' of all things Aristotle went (some argue it had no influence) but that surely could be one possible answer to your question (see your quote)? somewhat like a precaution to preserve Aristotle's thought on science and/philosophy?

• RE: VALUE

  Davidsch > 23-12-2016, 12:06 PM

  It seems this question and possible answers are on our mind constantly, when we're working on the manuscript.  
  Consequently, this rudimentary question is the basis for our thoughts: what if the Voynich text.....?
  
  There are so many answers possible, there is an entire book to be written on those possibilities:
  * the text forms charms
  * text forms incantations
  * text forms another religious text
  * it contains secret military information
  * it contains a recept for ...
  etc.etc.
  
  As Jurgen knows, I am also in the corner of Aristotle. The Voynich text seems to contain symbolic references to the works of Aristotle. (A.)
  There is a very interesting story to tell about the works of A.
  
  reference:  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  
  Exoteric and esoteric
  
  According to a distinction that originates with Aristotle himself, his writings are divisible into two groups: the "You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view." and the "You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.".
  Most scholars have understood this as a distinction between works Aristotle intended for the public (exoteric), and the more technical works intended for use within the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. course / school (esoteric).
  
  But, the 5th century You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. writes that Aristotle's writing style is deliberately You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. so that "good people may for that reason stretch their mind even more, whereas empty minds that are lost through carelessness will be put to flight by the obscurity when they encounter sentences like these.

• RE: VALUE

  Anton > 23-12-2016, 09:30 PM

  The consideration of danger (of exposing the contents) is also there. Although, as far as I understand, persecution of black magic (demonology) developed about half a century later - in the times of Pico, Ficino, Trithemius and others, that might have been an important concern for person(s) behind the VMS.

• RE: VALUE

  Diane > 24-12-2016, 06:30 AM

  David Jackson -
  
  Do please try to take your eyes of the phantom 'Diane' who may casually be ascribed all sorts of deviousness and evil intent.. the question is far more interesting, I think:
  
  
  If the written part of the text is enciphered, then one assumes that it is enciphered because it is considered to have some 'uncommon' value and quality, even if only for the particular group who were intended to have access to the content.  Wouldn't you say that stands to reason?
  
  So the question to be asked, surely, before people reduce the range of their investigation to the best- and most widely known Latin European texts is... why would anyone bother enciphering a well-known text? 
  
  It would be as silly as enciphering the Lord's Prayer, or the Psalter or any other work being positively advocated and which was fairly well known to most literate people, including anyone who had the educational level needed to get a degree in theology?
  
  OK  - so Aristotle wasn't as well known as Aratus, but why encipher it? 
  I might also add that since 2011-2012, I have said that the construction-method used for the imagery in the botanical section accords with the way that Theophrastus classed and described plants - and that Theophrastus' works were habitually if wrongly ascribed to Aristotle by both the Arabic scholars and those of Latin Christian Europe.
  
  So I'm not exactly opposed to the general idea of quasi-Aristotelian content.  What I cannot agree with is that the text of Aristotle would be enciphered by any sane person of Latin Christian culture, within Europe.
  
  
  
  There's another problem here, too.
  
  To accurately encipher and decipher a piece of writing, you also need to presume some standardised orthography, a fairly consistent degree of literacy and some knowledge of formal grammar.  Otherwise the message can't be reliably transmitted into and out of cipher.
  
  So what group of educated persons would need to encipher an ordinary text recommended for the Latins' curriculum?
  
  That's the issue.  One of the many very obvious issues which would be noted and considered in any normal historical study... but in Voynich studies simply overlooked.
  
  
  
  Resorting to theories that it "must" be about 'forbidden' knowledge, and then assuming that the Christian church 'forbade' whatever-it-is is not an argument ever investigated, researched or argued: it is always offered as an amateur knee-jerk reaction that is at heart informed less by study of any primary or secondary histories of the period than by personal imagination and residues of protestant 16thC propaganda.  
  
  In any case, we have the opposite judgements: of Adam McLean that the imagery is not related to 'high' alchemy and the negative judgement of Lynn Thorndike - strongly indicating that none of the manuscript's imagery or text suggests a connection to the myriad of Latin scientific, pseudo-scientific and magical manuscripts which were the subject of his own research.. and most of which were not enciphered at all.
  
  So IF the written part of the text is enciphered.. are Aratus and Aristotle really very likely to have provided the plain text?  Maybe...  I've also spoken of Theophrastus' works on meteorology, on stones and so forth.
  
  But then I don't see why any literate resident in Latin Europe would encode or encipher such an ordinary text.  Except , perhaps, the Jews.

• RE: VALUE

  -JKP- > 24-12-2016, 12:18 PM

  (24-12-2016, 06:30 AM)Diane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If the written part of the text is enciphered, then one assumes that it is enciphered because it is considered to have some 'uncommon' value and quality, even if only for the particular group who were intended to have access to the content.  Wouldn't you say that stands to reason?

  
  
  That's certainly sometimes true, but I'm not sure it is always true.
  
  Some things are hidden because a person feels vulnerable about voicing an opinion. Prohibitions about talking about (or engaging in) sex, prohibitions about poking inside the human body (anatomy, dissection), about supporting a different religion or political side, about questioning that the sun revolves around the earth... such ideas (even mundane ones) could get you jailed or hanged in those days. Sometimes people wanted to protect their reputations (like politicians having affairs or visiting prostitutes who are afraid it might get them kicked out of office, or women having sex before marriage who would be ostracized from society, or worse, if anyone found out).
  
  In the Cultural Revolution in China, just voicing the desire to have a cup of tea in a teahouse could get you put in detention for expressing "bourgeois tastes" that went against the preachings of Mao.
  
  These opinions or activities (with the possible exception of scientific inquiry that goes against the grain) have no uncommon value.
  
  The manuscript I cited earlier, that was in a simple substitution code, has the exact same information as other books of remedies in libraries and households at the time and yet hundreds of pages were written in code.
  
  
  Sometimes things are encoded to make them "look" like they have uncommon value. As has been said in many ways (and also by the author of the book of Secrets and Knowledge), if everyone has it, it ceases to be an art. People tend to value what they don't understand or can't immediately understand, more than what is familiar. That's why magicians, seers, and mystics have elaborate rituals and speak in tongues. It adds an air of mystery that wouldn't be there if you looked behind the curtain. It's one of the reasons the doctor cited for encoding the remedies he gave his daughter.
  
  
  
  
  Sometimes things are hidden or encoded to create a sense of community. Imagine a member of a secret society enciphering a simple note about something mundane to a fellow member. It's not done because the message has value, but because it creates camaraderie and sense of community in sharing a common bond. The Voynich manuscript was created by a group of people. There were at least two and possibly four (or more) people involved. And, if the marginalia on the last page is contemporary with the creation of the manuscript (it might be), then there's possibly one more.
  
  The VMS appears to be a secular document, so it seems unlikely that it was created by monks, at least I thought so at first, but the more I learn about medieval monks, the more I realize it might well have been created by monks. Many of them didn't enter the order until their 20s, 30s, and even 40s, some had traveled extensively, and some were not particularly pious (just as some of the popes were not particularly pious). It was an economic decision, or a way to avoid going to war (not everyone wanted to walk thousands of miles on crusade or die on the battle-field) and they retained many of their secular attitudes while in the abbeys and convents.
  
  Monks spent thousands of hours creating ciphers, shorthand systems (Tyrolean notes), inventing sign language (for times when they were not supposed to talk), inventing abbreviation systems and, without family pressures, they had the time to do it. They also spent a lot of time creating multi-lingual dictionaries for missionary work.
  
  
  So, perhaps it wasn't hidden knowledge, but a fun community project or... perhaps it was a translation of something in another language (imperfectly understood) or translation of sounds from another language (also imperfectly understood) that didn't have counterparts in their native tongue (or Latin) which needed a glyph-system of its own.
  
  Or maybe it was an attempt to create a universal language (such projects were popular in the 16th century, so perhaps they have their roots in the 15th century). The idea of universal languages, once they were finished, was to share them with the world, but the VMS has signs of being unfinished. Many people died during the plagues or when villages were sacked. Perhaps what we are seeing is a synthetic language project that was never completed.
• Next Oldest Next Newest