- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
geoffreycaveney's Middle English theory
- geoffreycaveney's Middle English theory
-
RE: geoffreycaveney's Middle English theory
farmerjohn > 22-04-2021, 09:42 PM
geoffreycaveney, I actually liked your approach in Judaeo-Greek theory and praised you for deep understanding of the VMS. However, newer theories are not superior to my mind.
Also "dashing like an oscilloscope arrow" when developing a theory is quite a bad sign. Starting from n-th attempt to explain certain thing people (both authors and listeners) start to lose ground. And for many n is equal to 2... -
RE: geoffreycaveney's Middle English theory
Oocephalus > 23-04-2021, 03:52 AM
(20-04-2021, 09:36 PM)geoffreycaveney Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Cassytha (translingual) - "love vine: any of various Cassytha species alleged to have aphrodisiac properties"
One problem with this is that Cassytha is a tropical plant (see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. for a distribution map), which was presumably unknown in England around 1400. It also apparently wasn't called Cassytha before the 18th century, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. attributes the name to his student Pehr Osbeck. Wiktionary calls the name a "doublet of Cuscuta", so before that the word Cassytha was probably used, if at all, simply as another name of Cuscuta (dodder). The two plants look very similar although they're not related.
I also haven't found any reference to the use of Cassytha as an aphrodisiac outside the Caribbean. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. lists a number of things it's used for in the Pacific but not as an aphrodisiac. -
RE: geoffreycaveney's Middle English theory
geoffreycaveney > 23-04-2021, 03:57 AM
I have a new piece of evidence to present in support of the Yorkist theory of the Voynich manuscript.
I need to begin by presenting a brief statistical analysis of the positional occurrence of the so-called "bench-gallows ligature" characters, which are represented in the EVA transcription system as [cth], [ckh], [cph], and [cfh]. There is a curious statistical anomaly, which as far as I am aware cannot be explained by a purely glyph-based analysis of the script and the ms text. The anomaly is that EVA [cth] and [cph] occur in initial position in words with much greater frequency than do EVA [ckh] and [cfh]:
EVA [cth] : word-initial in 498 of 945 occurrences in the ms (53%)
EVA [ckh] : word-initial in 195 of 907 occurrences in the ms (21%)
EVA [cph] : word-initial in 131 of 217 occurrences in the ms (60%)
EVA [cfh] : word-initial in 33 of 74 occurrences in the ms (45%)
In my reading and interpretation of the first line of the Voynich manuscript (folio page You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. ), I identified the ligature EVA [cth] as the letter "M". It is logical that the ligature EVA [cph] may also represent "M" in the first lines of paragraphs, where it almost exclusively occurs in the ms text.
Also, these characters EVA [cth] and [cph], like [ckh] and [cfh], almost never occur in word-final position. The prominent first-line character EVA [cph], like [cfh], absolutely never occurs in word-final position in the entire Voynich manuscript.
The Yorkist theory provides an explanation for this statistical anomaly: From 1399 to 1425, the Yorkists supported the claim to the English throne of Edmund MortiMer, the 5th Earl of March. I capitalize both M's in MortiMer to emphasise that both the name itself and its 3rd syllable (with secondary stress in the word) begin with the letter "M".
============== ======= =
In contrast, the character that is coincidentally represented in the EVA transcription system as EVA "[m]" occurs with overwhelming frequency in final position of Voynich ms words: It occurs in word-final position in 1051 of its 1105 occurrences (95% of them!) in the Voynich manuscript. This overwhelmingly word-final "EVA [m]" character is well-known to those of us who study the Voynich ms text and its script.
This "EVA [m]" character is also the last letter in each of the only three words of text on folio page You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , the page with the illustration of a plant that I analysed as a symbolic representation of the House of York family tree earlier in this thread. The three words of text are written right next to the bottommost part of the bottommost leftmost leaf of the plant, which I argue symbolises the Yorkist author's view of the Lancastrian usurper of the crown and his actual low position in the family tree, in contrast with the position of the Yorkist white flowers at the top of the family tree.
As I presented previously in this thread, my analysis interprets the three words of text as "fob sib isib", which are Middle English words meaning "deceiver/cheat related by blood or marriage, closely related" and also "deceiver/cheat branch linked/kin to the root". Thus, this almost always word-final character "EVA [m]" actually represents the letter "B".
The first Lancastrian king of England, Henry IV, before he overthrew and imprisoned Richard II in 1399 and usurped the throne, was known by the name Henry BolingBroke.
============== ======= =
Geoffrey -
RE: geoffreycaveney's Middle English theory
Anton > 23-04-2021, 03:53 PM
-
RE: geoffreycaveney's Middle English theory
Anton > 23-04-2021, 06:28 PM
(23-04-2021, 03:57 AM)geoffreycaveney Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Thus, this almost always word-final character "EVA [m]" actually represents the letter "B".
How would it be then that we won't find the letter B as word-initial (since m is rarely vord-initial, if ever)? -
RE: geoffreycaveney's Middle English theory
geoffreycaveney > 23-04-2021, 07:18 PM
(23-04-2021, 06:28 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(23-04-2021, 03:57 AM)geoffreycaveney Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Thus, this almost always word-final character "EVA [m]" actually represents the letter "B".
How would it be then that we won't find the letter B as word-initial (since m is rarely vord-initial, if ever)?
esuaceB a rule of the Yorkist cipher of the Voynich manuscript, with only rare exceptions (I count only 13 in the entire ms text), is that any word that actually snigeb with "B" must eb written sdrawkcab.
I actually forgot to mention in my last post that my reading and interpretation of the center ring of text on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. -- David Jackson's House of York page (see his tnaillirb 2013 golb post You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.) -- that I already You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. in this thread has exactly two words that are intended to eb read sdrawkcab : the 5th word EVA [lam] = "sib" and the 10th and final word EVA [otasam] = "filib". As I analysed in my previous post about this ring of text, those two words are actually intended to eb read as "bis" and "bilif":
bis (Middle English) - "a precious kind of linen or cotton cloth; also, a garment made of this fabric (as worn by the nobility)"
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(perhaps referring in this instance to the flower?)
bilif (Middle English) - alt. sp. of bi-live "the means of subsistence; a livelihood (as of food, clothing, shelter)"
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
In my previous post about this ring of text, I wrote the following:
"A couple points about the cipher or cryptographic aspects of this statement: In this 10-word statement, the 5th and 10th words are read backwards. They are also the two words that end with the letter "b", and thus are really meant to be read as beginning with the letter "b". I am not yet sure whether it is their placement in the statement or their final (read: beginning) letter that is the decisive criterion for reading them backwards in this cipher."
Now we have found the answer: It is their final letter (really the first letter of the actual word) "EVA [m]" = "B" that determines that they must eb read sdrawkcab in this cipher.
Geoffrey -
RE: geoffreycaveney's Middle English theory
Helmut Winkler > 23-04-2021, 07:30 PM
EVA - m is the etc - abbr., where should it be but in the end of words? -
RE: geoffreycaveney's Middle English theory
geoffreycaveney > 24-04-2021, 08:33 AM
My primary focus is on an analysis of the text itself, in order to identify as many letter values of Voynich script characters with as precise accuracy as is possible at this stage of the investigation. But at the same time, I have also found it useful to make tentative hypotheses about such questions as the possible author or authors of the Voynich manuscript as well. Although I now realize that my previous hypothesis, posted earlier in this thread, about You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (1373-1415), as the sole author of the Voynich manuscript as his private personal diary, is most probably incorrect, it may have represented a close enough approximation of the actual authorship of the ms that the hypothesis guided me to the key insight that the Yorkist author or authors' virulent hostility toward Henry IV (1367-1413 ; r. 1399-1413), the first Lancastrian king of England, was the motive to "banish" the first letter of his name "BolingBroke" (both B's capitalised for emphasis) to the last position of almost every word in which it appears in the Voynich ms text, by writing almost every word that actually begins with "B" backwards so that it appears to end with "B" instead. (As analysed above, the Voynich character represented in the standard EVA transcription as "EVA [m]" = "B" according to my theory.)
Thus, this post presents a revision of my previous authorship hypothesis of the Voynich manuscript. But before I get to that part, it is necessary to discuss yet another brilliant insight in David Jackson's landmark 26 June 2013 blog post, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. In addition to his analysis of the House of York page You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , David also made the following analysis of the accompanying folio page You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (fair warning to the reader: long quote necessary here to give full justice to the historic significance of David's insight):
"You know say, very interesting, but what about that lizard? The supposed page of the House of York has a central figure which is a man with a crossbow, this page a central figure which is a lizard?
"Actually, it plays directly into my theory.
"First look at the women surrounding the lizard. Every single one carries a fully coloured in rose. Unlike 73v, there are no women without roses. Every single one of them is loyal.
"The “lizard” or “dragon” is the central figure of 73r. The animal is green. It has a long reptilian tail, with no pointed end (this may have been erased), which curves around. It appears to have some scales on its back, which could be folded wings. Its feet appear to be drawn with no particular care. Its head appears to be open and a line emerges to connect to the star (or rose) it is carrying.
"Let us examine that rose. Looking closely at the better quality Beinecke digital scans, it is obvious that there is a human head inside the mouth of the lizard, from whose scalp a line appears to the rose.
"The personal symbol of the future King Henry VII was the green dragon of Wales, and it was under this banner that he fought and beat King Richard III.
"The symbolism is clear: the new Welsh King Henry VII has swallowed the House of Lancaster. The families and factions of the defeated House of Lancaster surround the new King and pledge their allegiance to him (which they did in historical fact). Opposite, the House of York wait, still united, but with factions wavering and being held loyal only by the force of arms.
"Underneath the dragon is a heavily scored word which could be the Latin word unita(s) : unity. It’s mixed in with the feet of the dragon and so is unclear."
As you will see in the analysis that follows, when combined with the House of York analysis of folio page You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , this additional insight is simply extraordinary. Yes, there is one mistake, but to be fair that is (N-1) fewer mistakes than I have made in my attempts to analyse and make sense of the Voynich manuscript, where (N) is a very, very, very, very, very large number. (Reducing the entropy here.)
Almost everything in David Jackson's analysis above is absolutely, completely correct. Green dragon, yes. Welsh green dragon, yes. Welsh green dragon swallowing the House of Lancaster, yes. Human head inside the mouth of the dragon, yes. There is only one small detail that needs to be corrected: The Welsh dragon does not represent Henry VII in 1485; the Welsh dragon represents the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. of 1400-1415 against England which was under the rule of Henry IV (Bolingbroke). The human head inside the mouth of the dragon most certainly must represent the head of Henry IV (Bolingbroke!).
============== ======= =
In February 1405, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., his son-in-law You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (who was the uncle of the Yorkists' claimant to the English throne, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., whose relationship to the statistical analysis of the Voynich character ligatures EVA [cth] and EVA [cph] = "M" I have also analysed and discussed above), and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. negotiated and agreed to the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. "to divide England and Wales up among them at the expense of Henry IV" (Bolingbroke!). (The You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is truly striking.)
Meanwhile...here is where the House of York, the Duke of York, and his siblings come directly into play: At the very least, both You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., and his sister, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., were implicated in a simultaneous plot to abduct the (13-year-old) Yorkist claimant to the English throne You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., and his brother Roger from Henry IV (Bolingbroke!)'s custody, from Windsor Castle.
But alas, they were quickly recaptured. Sources then variously state that Constance of York, the Duke of York's sister, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. the plot or You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. repeats the latter phrasing "was held responsible".) Sources state that Constance then implicated her brother Edward in the plot, and he admitted to knowledge of it. Edward was arrested and imprisoned for 17 weeks at Pevensey Castle, but You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..
One significant additional biographical note: Constance of York and her husband, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., had as many as You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (!!), though You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (!). Constance of York's husband was a participant in the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. in 1399-1400 against Henry IV (Bolingbroke!) and was killed as a result. (Although Edward, future 2nd Duke of York and Constance's older brother, has been described in some histories as betraying the Epiphany Rising conspirators to Henry IV, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. states that "contemporary English sources which describe the conspiracy make no mention of Rutland [Edward, future 2nd Duke of York], and his role in it is open to doubt". Here is You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. that casts doubt on Edward's supposed role in betraying the Epiphany Rising to Henry IV: "According to a French chronicle the plot was betrayed to the King by Constance's brother, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.; however contemporary English chronicles make no mention of Edward's alleged role.")
I also wish to bring Edward's youngest sibling, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., into the picture. Richard is most famous for his role in the Southampton Plot against Henry V in 1415, but he also married You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., sister of the Yorkist claimant to the English throne Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March, in 1408. Thus, Richard of Conisburgh was the father of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., and grandfather of the Yorkist Kings You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and Richard III.
============== ======= =
I know all of that history is a lot to digest. Perhaps the most pleasant way to digest some of it is to read or watch Shakespeare's plays 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., both of which substantially feature the historical backdrop of the rebellions against Henry IV in the first decade of the 15th century. I simply note here that a prominent You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. among the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. in both these plays is You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
============== ======= =
Finally, the point: My revised hypothesis is that the Voynich manuscript may possibly represent the joint work of the York siblings: Edward, 2nd Duke of York; his sister Constance of York; and their youngest sibling, Richard of Conisburgh, 3rd Earl of Cambridge, possibly with the participation of a couple other very close Yorkist family members and friends.
The above historical summary makes it abundantly clear that Constance of York above all would have every imaginable reason to detest and despise Henry IV (Bolingbroke!).
I still maintain that Edward, 2nd Duke of York, is most likely the brilliant inventor and designer of the Voynich manuscript cipher. His linguistic talents, evident in his historic translation of The Master of Game from French into English, make that abundantly clear. But I now believe that he shared his inventive cipher with his siblings, taught it to them, and the three of them composed various sections of the Voynich manuscript. It is also possible that a couple people very close to them were involved, which would explain the as many as 5 "Hands" identified in the handwriting of the Voynich manuscript text. I am grateful to JKP for pointing out to me, earlier in this thread, that the identification of multiple Hands likely implies the involvement of multiple people, rather than merely one person writing while experiencing different "moods".
============== ======= =
One last detail: The Welsh connection described in the historical summary above is very interesting to me. To be honest, I actually stumbled across a possible subtle rebus-like reference to a symbol of Welsh culture in the very first line of text in the Voynich manuscript, but at the time I did not dare mention it, since I could not justify it without fear of succumbing to the "four-step process" and "word salad" methodological errors that led me so far astray in my previous erroneous "theories" (read: "nonsense") of the Voynich manuscript.
In my reading and interpretation of the first line of the Voynich manuscript (folio page You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. ), I read the 6th word as "tho/urK", and I interpret this word as Middle English "thurgh", which fits well enough in the syntax of the line as I interpret it. But it should also be noted that if this word is read backwards, it can also be interpreted as follows:
crwth (Welsh borrowing in English) - "archaic stringed instrument associated particularly with Wales, though once played widely in Europe"
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Geoffrey -
RE: geoffreycaveney's Middle English theory
Anton > 24-04-2021, 11:59 AM
Any idea why Englishmen would use German for their marginalia? -
RE: geoffreycaveney's Middle English theory
geoffreycaveney > 24-04-2021, 05:46 PM
(24-04-2021, 11:59 AM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Any idea why Englishmen would use German for their marginalia?
I hypothesize that it is most likely that the German marginalia was added later, perhaps when the manuscript had already made its way to Bohemia or somewhere nearby. I still stand by the following part of my original Edward, 2nd Duke of York hypothesis, as long as we revise "diary" to "York family journal":
"Edward, 2nd Duke of York, was killed at the famous Battle of Agincourt in northern France in 1415. Edward was the highest-ranking English casualty of the battle. I propose that at some point in the confusion during or after the battle, after Edward's death, a Frenchman came into possession of Edward's diary [correction: York family journal] and kept it as a sort of small spoils of war, a small consolation perhaps for the French side's defeat in the battle itself. That is how Edward's diary [York family journal] ended up in Continental Europe, eventually making its way into the possession of Rudolf II, Holy Roman Emperor, nearly two hundred years later.
"Another potential objection to this theory is that according to some reports, Edward was killed at the Battle of Agincourt after he rushed forward to save the life of King Henry V. (Henry IV had died in 1413.) However, I believe the same person could have both written the virulently Yorkist Voynich manuscript in private while still acting loyally toward the Lancastrian King Henry V in public in an important battle. Edward dedicated The Master of Game to Henry V when the latter was still the Prince of Wales during his father Henry IV's reign. Perhaps this was all just a public act on Edward's part, or perhaps Edward simply despised Henry IV but did not necessarily blame Henry V for his father's crimes."
Geoffrey
