• Options
• Login
• Desktop Style

New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"

• Index

  • The Voynich Ninja
  • Voynich Research
  • Voynich Talk
  • New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"
• New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"

• RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"

  ReneZ > 22-04-2024, 07:55 AM

  Dear Andrew,
  
  the Glagolitic script has already been in the attention of Voynich research, probably decades ago now.
  Its main claim to fame is that it includes one character that sort of looks llike a Voynich gallows character. Perhaps even just upside-down.
  
  For a period of time, the invention of this alphabet was attributed to St. Jerome, see for example the Wikipedia entry: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  That is clearly what Kircher is referring to.
  
  There certainly are both printed books and manuscripts using it.
  I have not seen that many. 
  
  There are some in the "Borg.Ill." collection in the Vatican and I kind of like this one (especially the occasionally cursive marginalia):
  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  Its preface says: "Codice in lingua Illirica volgare con caratteri Gerolimini o sia Glagolitici"
  
  The Latin translation of the Kircher letter was made by someone familiar with Kircher. The Latin from this time seems to be quite different from classical Latin. I am unable to judge it....

• RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"

  proto57 > 22-04-2024, 02:51 PM

  (22-04-2024, 07:38 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  (22-04-2024, 04:37 AM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view."This name was already suspected by Voynich in 1921"- but again, we have a chicken/egg problem, because just like you, and Fletcher, and any one of dozens of people with access to the letters, Voynich did research, too. We know he did, he is known for that. And in this case he admits to knowing about Barschius! Where from, but the same book, Philosophia Vetus Restituta, of course. Why is that so a problem? It actually supports my contention, that he had this information, and used it.

  
  So here I have a problem.
  
  And this problem is: I strongly suspect that you are aware that what you are saying is not supported by the evidence. And I strongly suspect that you are aware of this evidence. But the people reading here are not.

  
  To suggest that I would state anything that I would be "aware" is incorrect is both wrong and grossly unfair to me. I admit that I sometimes wonder why you and others don't see things the same way I do, but then I realize these difference of opinion simply stem from varied interpretations of the same information, and not due to any disingenuous ignoring of that evidence. I wouldn't, and don't claim this, and it is wrong to claim it of me.
  
  

  (22-04-2024, 07:38 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.That this supposedly supports your contention is just a smoke screen.
  
  He had his people research the Bohemian history after he got the MS and the Marci letter. Years after.
  Garland told him about Tepenec and Marci, while miss Howe found the reference in Philosophia Vetus Restituta. That was in 1921. 
  
  I am sure that you know that.
  The only thing that supports your contention, is your own contention (not supported by any evidence) that he did not first find out in 1921, but already knew in, say, 1911.

  
  This reflects a misunderstanding of my opinion on this issue: Yes, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. And it matters not to my point, nor the timeline, that it was after announcing the "find" of the manuscript. And it matters not that Garland told him about it, but if memory serves, he was also responded to by Prague (not positive he was, but irrelevant to this issue). And it also matters not at all how or when he claims to have learned of the Philosophia Vetus Restituta mention of Baresch. He knew of him, as I've demonstrated, he would "steer" people to give him feedback so that he could then use those people as a "source" (I think this may have been You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., in fact). And he would steer others to information he knew to be false, such as You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. was his Ugly Duckling, when his own notes tell us he knew that was a lie. How many hours and leg work did that little doozy waste for so many people, over many decades?
  
  For the Prague request on "Topencz", yes of course it was later, but why does that change my point one iota? I believe he was pointing others to his desired provenance. If he did it later, that would make perfect sense.
  
  Trusting Voynich's word is a huge mistake, when his word is provably unreliable, and his motivations to lie so great. I rather prefer to look at the timeline, and base my opinions on the actual habits and practices of the players, and the actual situation. On what we know, not what Voynich told us we should think.
  
  Related to this, I find it somewhat humorous, his pathetic "explanation" for how You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. From Backhouse, "Voynich wrote again to say that it had come to England from a dealer in the south of France. He seemed to have it either from a Basque or from a ‘Polish Count’, but the English bookseller who sold it to Voynich had said that the transaction was so long ago that the French dealer’s name and address were no longer available. This provenance, particularly the reference to a Polish count, is not very convincing."
  
  Ironic (or?) that Voynich was referred to as a "Polish Count" in at least one news article. In my opinion, his explanation here strongly suggests he knew this was a forgery. I find so many parallels in his "word" and actions, and results, in so many of his business dealings and "research". I think he was total scoundrel, and very unethical and outright dishonest. My opinion. I think his whole life was mostly fabrication, a mirage. I'll also point to Orioli's relating his conversation with Voynich in his book, "Adventures of a Bookseller": 
  
  "Just listen to this. I once went to a convent and the monks showed m their library. It was a mine of early printed books and codexes and illuminated manuscripts. I nearly fainted- I assure you I nearly fainted on the spot. But I managed to keep my head all the same, and told the monks they could have a most interesting and valuable collection of modern theological works to replace that dusty rubbish. I succeeded in persuading the Father Superior, and in a month that whole library was in my hands, and I sent them a cartload of modern trash in exchange. Now take my advice: drop your present job and become a bookseller."
  
  It comes down to this: Our differing level of reliance on the word of Voynich, which needs to be trusted explicitly in order to believe when and how he learned things. But he was a known liar, a fact acknowledged by you and others, when it comes to "forgiving" his motivations on all sorts of grounds... supposedly protecting sources of information and purchases, mostly. But then, his word is taken as fact when his word is needed to protect genuine. It is a selective application of standards to the man, in order to project a desired image of the Voynich manuscript. Again, this goes to the main thrust of this thread, and is another example in which this is done.
  
  

  (22-04-2024, 07:38 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.We know what Voynich was doing in 1911-1912, with respect to Strickland and the Jesuits. He was securing a deal that would make him millions of dollars (in modern equivalent), and he was successful.
  When the Vatican was approached by the Jesuits, they already had Voynich's bid for the lot. And the single most valuable MS had already passed through his hands and was on its way to Hungary, only to be sold to a wealthy New York banker for even more money than expected.

  
  Ok, but this is irrelevant to the issue of the authenticity of the Voynich. We know he bought and sold many real books. But I would counter that this is another example of selective use of evidence: He is being acknowledged as having a special "in" with the Jesuits, and access to rare books, and sold them, before anyone else knows; but then, he is said to have had no knowledge or access to the information in the Carteggio, that it is "impossible" for him to have seen the references to a missing book in them? Well, we disagree that we can make that distinction, and cut him off from that particular knowledge, based on his known abilities which we agree on.
  
  
  

  (22-04-2024, 07:38 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Now you also wrote:
  
  

  Quote:just like you, and Fletcher, and any one of dozens of people with access to the letters, Voynich did research, too

  .
  
  Fortunately, that's an easy one. Voynich never in his life had access to the letters.
  
  With respect to my problem mentioned above, I will not be provoked any further.

  
  Again, it is your opinion that he "never in his life had access to the letters", an assertion you make with as an absolute. It is your opinion, as it is mine that, based on everything we know, it is feasible he did. I do not state it as an absolute, which as I've said before may give a false impression that your view is fact, while mine, opinion... but the reality that both our views are opinions on this matter.
  
  I'm sorry you feel "provoked" by my questions and statements, that is obviously not my intention. We are hashing out in this discussion our strongly opposing viewpoints, and I think it is great for us and everyone. It is like "fine tuning" an understanding of why we each feel the way we do, and on what basis we each come to our opinions on all this. I consider that valuable to myself, and also to anyone who wants to know the "why" of all this, rather than just blindly accept anyone's word on it... your word, mine or anyone's.
  
  Yes it's like watching sausage made, as the expression goes, but I think it is important to know what is in the sausage we are all being fed.
  
  Rich.

• RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"

  asteckley > 22-04-2024, 03:53 PM

  (22-04-2024, 07:55 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The Latin translation of the Kircher letter was made by someone familiar with Kircher. The Latin from this time seems
  to be quite different from classical Latin. I am unable to judge it....

  
  Thanks Rene. I did not realize that.
  
  Going through all the letters in more detail, it seems there are only two letters that contain
  passages providing any identifying words regarding the manuscript in question.
  (All the other letters contain only content that may help identify the people and events, but that is only relevant after
  the connection to the Voynich's manuscript is confirmed.)
  
  Since there seems that there may be more uncertainty around the particular translations than I was aware of, I have translated
  the two relevant letters directly from the Latin using ChatGPT4 (and highlighted all the parts that seem relevant to potential manuscript identifcation.)
  
  But, to be clear, these are only useful in that they provide an indication of how accurate or inaccurate the translations
  on Philip Neal's website may be.  As I said before, Google is not a reliable translator.  But ChatGPT is also not to be
  taken at its word. Large language models like ChatGPT can produce completely incorrect answers and make up information when
  asked free-form questions. This is commonly referred to as their "hallucinating" problem. That being said, direct translations between languages is not
  commonly felt to be one of their weaknesses. On that task, the large language models can be remarkably good.
  
  So these translations should not be relied on. But the differences between them and the Philip Neal ones are sufficient to indicate
  that we can't rely on either for the level of accurate information needed in the current discussions. (This is certainly
  a case where "experts"  in Latin-English and their potential nuanced connotations should be consulted and listened to
  
  Addendum:  Regarding the quality of ChatGPT's translation of Latin in particular, here is an article, but it is still just one man's assessment:  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  
  ======================
  Translation of the Letter from Georgius Barschius to Athanasius Kircher (1637)
  
  *PUG 557 f. 353rv*
  
  Very Reverend Father,
  
  Having presented my respects, I pray for all happiness from the Author of happiness for Your Reverend Paternity.
  
  Having the chance to send these with a religious person traveling to Italy, and even Rome, I managed to have them
  brought along to remind of a certain writing, which I had sent through Reverend Father Moretus, a Priest of the
  Society of JESUS in Prague. The reason for sending this writing was as follows:
  
  After Your Reverence had made known to the whole world through the publication of the prologue to the Coptic work,
  and in it among other things, had called for auxiliary support to increase the resources for publishing your work,
  from all who might have something to enrich the work, I did not doubt that many would send not only paper missions
  loaded with such wealth to the City of the World, but also appear there in person to congratulate the Author on his
  efforts and labours, almost beyond human capacities, undertaken for the literary republic. This very welcome news,
  when it also reached me, not only informed me briefly about the admirable work soon to be published but also about
  your unheard-of skill in deciphering the most obscure writings involving sphinxes.
  
  Finding in my library a certain sphinx, a script in unknown characters uselessly taking up space, I deemed it
  appropriate to send this riddle for the Egyptian Oedipus to solve. Thus, having translated part of it, and having
  copied the script from a certain ancient book (whose bearer will be the eye-witness and informant of the present), I
  sent the script to Your Reverend two and a half years ago, with the goal that (if it pleased Your Reverence to spend
  some effort in investigating and to reveal these unknown fictitious characters with known letters) this work might
  benefit not only our Oedipus insofar as the secrets hidden in the book would be worthy of such an excellent work but
  also me and the common good.
  
  Indeed, sending the book itself on a long and dangerous journey was not considered advisable; especially since even
  the item sent last time did not reach Rome, as I infer since I have heard nothing about it over such a long time.
  Therefore, I thought it prudent to send another copy, which Father Moretus has informed me has fortunately arrived
  in the City, about which I am very glad and will be even happier if the said book by Your Reverend’s efforts could be
  opened, so that others can share in its good contents.
  
  From the pictures of herbs, numerous in the Codex, and various images of stars and other things suggesting alchemical
  secrets, I infer the entire thing is medicinal; a science which, after the salvation of the soul, is of utmost benefit
  to mankind. This work will not be unworthy of the attempt by a skillful genius, especially in the matter of an uncommon
  thing, as can be judged that for hiding common things, such industry would hardly have been used by the author. It is
  very likely that some good man, loving true Medicine, having found the common methods of healing in European parts
  less fruitful, traveled to the eastern regions and there gathered Egyptian medical treasures, partly from book
  monuments, and partly from conversations with experts, and then buried these treasures in the book with such characters.
  
  The probability is increased by exotic herbs painted in the Volume, knowledge escaping the people in parts of Germany.
  I hope that Your Reverence, who burns with the desire to publish the best for the public good, will not disdain to
  promote even this good, if it exists in the book buried under unknown characters, for the common good; indeed, here
  no one is sufficient for such a task, as such obscurity requires a unique genius and practiced skill, or at least
  some method not easily discernible.
  
  For which I will be obliged, not only by what the work contains but also by whatever else may be possible.
  
  I attach here a few lines of unknown script to recall to memory before sending similar characters.
  
  Commending myself to Your Reverence, I wish you a successful outcome in your remarkable efforts. May God preserve you
  for the literary republic for the longest time.
  
  Prague, Year of Our Lord 1639, April 27th, when I once set out for Rome, at the University of Roman Wisdom, to
  undertake the study of Medical Wisdom in the year of Our Lord 1605.
  
  Your Reverend Paternity,
  
  At your service,
  
  Most fervent
  
  M. Georgius Baresch
  
  =========================================
  Translation of the Letter from Athanasius Kircher to Theodorus Moretus (1639)
  
  *Czech National Library VI B 12b f. 73r*
  
  Reverend Father in Christ,
  
  Peace of Christ,
  
  From the letters Your Reverence recently sent to me (which I was delighted with more than words can express),
  it clearly appeared; Your Reverence seems to have declared a kind of dutiful war on me in which by a mutual
  exchange of benefits, you wish not only to conquer but utterly to captivate and bind me; indeed, in this laudable
  contest, I willingly extend herbs to you, since my modesty does not allow me to presume superiority. Furthermore,
  the magnetic observations that you included in your letters have so powerfully drawn my mind that I have come to
  agree completely with them, and the similarity of our minds clearly shows that something magnetic lies hidden in
  the world, by which, just like all those Heracleotic chains, similar minds are also joined.
  
  Since in all things you agree with me, these observations seemed particularly worthy of being made public
  with honorable mention of your name.
  
  Moreover, the small book filled with I know not what steganographic mysteries, which you sent attached to
  your letters, I have briefly examined and found to require not so much a clever as a laborious Oedipus; I
  remember having solved many scripts of this kind on various occasions and I might have attempted something with
  this one too, driven by the itch of an active mind, were it not for excessive and pressing commitments that pull
  me away from such intrusive labor. However, when I have more leisure and a more opportune moment, I trust I will
  try to tackle it, especially with the aid of inspiration and enthusiasm.
  
  Furthermore, let it be known that the other leaf which seemed to be written in an unknown character type, is
  actually in the Illyrian idiom, printed in the character commonly called St. Jerome's; this character is also
  used here in Rome for printing missals and other sacred books in the Illyrian language.
  
  Regarding the measures of various feet, which you undoubtedly eagerly await, since I have not yet received a
  reply from Sicily and other places, I remain silent for now; when I have them, I will send them to Your Reverence
  along with more detailed letters shortly.
  
  Nothing remains, therefore, but to commend myself to Your Reverence's most holy sacrifices and prayers. Given in
  Rome, March 12, 1639.
  
  Please do not hesitate to sincerely convey my regards to the Reverend Father Rector, Reverend Father Santino,
  and other acquaintances.
  
  Your servant in Christ,
  
  Athanasius Kircher

• RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"

  proto57 > 22-04-2024, 04:11 PM

  (22-04-2024, 07:02 AM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Meanwhile though, I have the following quick question that I'm kind of surprised is not discussed anywhere. (I may well be missing it somewhere on your site or Rich's writings or elsewhere.). I have not been able to find any answer myself, but that is very likely due to my limited experience in historical letters and where to even find the information. (Google does have its limits.) So I expect you or others will surely be able to provide an answer far quicker than I can find one. 
  My question is in relation to Kircher's letter of 12 March 1639 which includes:
  
  "the other sheet which appeared to be written in the same unknown script is printed in the Illyrian language in the script commonly called St Jerome's, and they use the same script here in Rome to print missals and other holy books in the Illyrian language."
  
  [Before I get to my question, let me preface it all by saying that I am taking for granted that this English translation from Latin is accurate. I wish I knew Latin to better validate it but I don't. I trust that you and everyone else quoting the letters have validated these translations. The only reason I mention this is that if one asks Google to translate the passage, it says something very different. But then Google is hardly a reliable source for translation. It actually translates the passage as:
  
  "Finally, another leaf appeared to be written in an unknown character. Let him know that it was printed in the Illyrian idiom, in the character which D. Hieronymi popularly calls; and they use the same character here in Rome in printing missals and other sacred books in the Illyric language."
  
  If this translation is more accurate, then the "sameness" has nothing even to do with the manuscript that the letters referred to elsewhere -- Kircher is simply saying there is another document (or leave of sheet) besides the manuscript in question and that IT uses the same script as is used for the missals and books. If this is the case, my question is moot, but it also brings into question all of the translations and the analysis that you and others have put forth.  So I am assuming this Google translation is just plain wrong. Easy enough to check, but I myself have not done so.]
  
  Now I have been unable to find any examples, or any information at all, regarding "St. Jerome's script".  Kircher says "unknown" script, but the script itself -- that is the "font" -- was clearly known to him, and so his use of the word unknown was either in reference to it being unknown to Moretus or to the fact it was unreadable, being either encrypted or conveying an unknown language. But in either case, he says it is in the "same" script.
  I recognize that the question that this raises is so glaringly obvious, that I am clearly just missing where the numerous Voynich researchers before me have provided the answer.
  
  Given that this script was used "in Rome to print missals and other holy books", there must surely be a significant quantity of surviving documents that we can turn to to see examples of it. (Well at least "one" somewhere must have survived?) And therefore, at least according to Kircher, those documents must provide additional examples of the Voynichese script, yet its commonly said that there are no other examples, so I am confused. What am I missing?... etc.

  
  The reference in the letters has a long an interesting history, and like everything Voynich-related, I think that history tells us more how input is handled, and to what end, than the references themselves.
  
  First of all, the view on this Illyrian reference in the letters radically changed even in the time I've been involved with the Voynich, starting about 2007.
  
  First it was very exciting to many, myself included, as it was mistakenly thought that the letter WAS referring to the script of the Voynich. It was not realized until much after 2007 that it was a DIFFERENT sample that was being compared to that script. And I still agree that the Voynich script does share many You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (yes, mostly the "gallows" but more), that hasn't changed for me.
  
  What has changed is that, since the fact that this reference is NOT to the Voynich after all, we hear less that Voynichese resembles Glagolitic. I see in these comments something about a passing resemblance to an upside down gallows, for instance. But this change came gradually. In fact, in 2015, when I wrote "Modern Voynich Myths", it was my #1 "myth" on the list,
  
  "1) Athanasius Kircher described the Voynich script as “Illyrian” in his 1639 letter to Th. Moretus: Not true, he was describing another work in this way, and possibly a printed sheet at that. In a 2014 translation of the letter by André Szabolcs Szelp, agreed upon by others, this is now clear. However, this untruth is continually repeated to support the fact that Kircher actually did see the Voynich, as many have thought the script shows a similarity to Illyrian, or Glagolitic."
  
  But this has rightly been abandoned. Why? Doesn't it still look like Glagolitic? No, I think it still does, to some extent (along with Nahuatl, Latin, transcribed Algonquin, and a smattering of other influences, too).
  
  Here is my speculation about all this, with a parallel: We know that many looked to Glagolitic because of two things: A misinterpretation of the phrasing of that letter; and two, because there is a similarity between Voynich and that script. That known error is, then, "proof of concept" to my suggesting it possible that, likewise, someone not so well versed in Latin also misread that letter, and also believed it was the "arcane book" being compared to Glagolitic. If so, when creating a forged, missing, Baresch Manuscript, might they not use Glagolitic as an influence?
  
  For my proposed parallel, consider this: A few people before me, then me, and others have noted and agreed (whether they think the Voynich is a forgery or not) that many of the illustrations are evocative of items and situations described in Francis Bacon's (fictional!) New Atlantis: Fantastical plants, grafted plants, bizarre animals, mysterious tomes, glossolalia, the similarity of the foldout maps and castles to representations of various "Utopias", and more. And I do still feel that the concept of the Utopia, as expressed in the New Atlantis, was an influence on the Voynich. Why? Well because I think it appears so, but also because New Atlantis is mentioned in what I think is the "primer" which served as the model for the Voynich, "Follies of Science in the Court of Rudolf II".
  
  The reason it is a parallel to the "Illyrian" mention is this: In the 1666 letter from Godefridus Aloysius Kinner to Athanasius Kircher, just below the paragraph in which Kinner asks about the "arcane book", he relates,
  
  "Many years ago the most noble and learned Francis Bacon of Verulamium hinted at a similar method of conducting investigations into the secrets of nature which he emphasised in several of his shorter books. He could not sample the fruits of his own advice in his own day for want of private income and lack of public funding. Instead he consoled himself by inventing the scenario of a recently discovered island of Atlantis, in which he imagined a house of Solomon endowed with the knowledge of the whole of nature to explain his ideas to the world."
  
  Of course purely speculation, but I note several coincidences here, which are not speculative: One letter references Illyrian, and many have seen good comparisons between Voynichese and Illyrian. Another mentions Francis Bacon's New Atlantis, and many have seen good comparisons between illustrations in the Voynich, and the New Atlantis.
  
  Again, I don't claim this as fact, or proof (!!!), but I consider it possible that a forger, not adept at Latin, mistakenly took both of these references to be referring to the missing Baresch manuscript, and so included them as influences when creating it, so to make it look like the forgery had a provenance in those letters. I would also point that the Illyrian reference WAS used to identify the Voynich as the book being discussed, until the phrasing was cleared up; while tellingly, the New Atlantis reference was never used. Whether the Latin of that letter was understood properly, earlier, I do not know, but do note that the book The New Atlantis is "too new" for a genuine 1420 cipher herbal verdict.
  
  It could of course all be a coincidence, but whether it is, or not, I've learned much by watching these episodes all unfold. It fits my almost constant observation that the tail always ends up wagging the dog (the desired outcome drives the interpretation), and never the dog wagging the tail (letting the evidence determine the real answer). It is like assembling a puzzle, and when the pieces do not fit, using a scissors to fit them... and if that does not work, a mallet. How is that for mixing metaphors! Sorry.
  
  Rich
  

• RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"

  Mark Knowles > 22-04-2024, 04:51 PM

  It is mistaken to associate the gallows characters with the glagolitic alphabet. There is a character which looks like "qp" in the glagolitic alphabet. However the vaguely similar looking character in the Voynich is like a "4P" i.e. the left sided loop is curved in the glagolitic, but in the Voynich the left sided loop is angular.(EVA-t)

  In cipher alphabets of the time one can find the "4P" symbol.

• RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"

  asteckley > 22-04-2024, 06:04 PM

  Thank you Rich, for the clarification that the reference to the "other" page is not believed to be the same as the manuscript in question.
  I assume that is a common consensus. (If not then my question about why there are not other examples of Voynichese or why Kircher would not know the difference between same and similar, remain unanswered.)
  
  Without the reference to the Ilyrian,  the entirety of the connection from any of the letters to Voynich's manuscript reduces to the following words by Baresch and Kircher (listed down below.)
  
  Unless there are other descriptive words somewhere that I have missed (entirely possible) then these Latin words alone,  however properly translated, must provide sufficient evidence that the two manuscripts are one and the same.
  If they do not, then none of the other discussion about possible provenance of the letters or authenticity of them or who knew what, why, or when makes any difference because it would all depend on the less than sufficient evidence being true despite its weakness. If it happens to be true, all the other stuff helps learn some interesting circumstantial facts, but if it just happens that it is not true, then all relevance of the circumstantial evidence evaporates.
  I can't stress the above enough, since it seems not to be grasped by many people.
  
  (As to whether the words below do constitute sufficient evidence that the manuscripts are one and the same, I'm making no judgement.
  To me it depends on just how common or rare it would be for other manuscripts to be floating around at the time that
  could also be plausibly described by these Latin words. And I haven't seen that question addressed by anyone with that expertise, which I certainly don't have.)
  
  I've listed the specific Latin source (in red) and the translated versions below each in green and blue from chatGPT and the philipneal.net site respectively (which agree fairly well - other than "alchemical secrets" vs "chemical symbolism")
  
  Baresch states:
  1. Scriptura in cognitorum characterum inutiliter
  chatGPT: a script in unknown characters
  philipneal.net:  writing in unknown characters
  
  2. Ex pictura herbarum, quarum plurimus est in Codice numerus, imaginum diversarum, Astrorum, aliarumque rerum, faciem chymicorum arca norum referentium
  chatGPT:         pictures of herbs, numerous in the Codex, and images of stars and other things suggesting alchemical secrets
  philipneal.net:  pi. pictures of herbs, of which there are a great many in the codex, and of varied images, stars and other things bearing the appearance of chemical symbolism
  
  3. herbae peregrinae, in Volumine depictae, notitiam hominum in partibus Germaniae subterfugientes
  chatGPT: exotic herbs painted in the Volume, knowledge escaping the people in parts of Germany
  philipneal.net: pictures of exotic plants which have escaped observation here in Germany
  
  Kircher states:
  4. Caeterum libellum nescio quibus steganographicis mysterijs refertum
  chatGPT:          the small book filled with I know not what steganographic mysteries
  philipneal.net:   the book filled with some sort of mysterious steganography

• RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"

  proto57 > 22-04-2024, 08:11 PM

  (22-04-2024, 06:04 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Without the reference to the Ilyrian,  thenthat  means that the entirety of the connection from any of the letters to Voynich's manuscript reduces to the following words by Baresch and Kircher (listed down below.)
  
  Unless there are other descriptive words somewhere that I have missed (entirely possible) then these Latin words alone,  however properly translated, must provide sufficient evidence that the two manuscripts are one and the same.

  
  Well there are more descriptions, and I think I've covered them all here: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  
  Perhaps I've left something out, but I don't think so. Anyone, let me know if I did forget a mention in the letters, or elsewhere.
  
  

  (22-04-2024, 06:04 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(As to whether the words below do constitute sufficient evidence that the manuscripts are one and the same, I'm making no judgement.
  
  To me it depends on just how common or rare it would be for other manuscripts to be floating around at the time that could also be plausibly described by these Latin words. And I haven't seen that question addressed by anyone with that expertise, which I certainly don't have.)

  
  Yes I would say that is an accurate assessment of the situation. How many, if any, manuscripts would fit the description these men gave, while wearing their shoes to get a sense of what they meant by it all. For instance, what languages were, to them, in "unknown characters", but which would also have stars, what they would see as "chemical symbols", and so on. Not what we, today, would consider fitting those descriptions.
  
  And as I've said before many times, if it is not the Voynich, it may still exist. It may be online, in fact. Or at least, in any of the places that the other Kircher books ended up. I think I looked through some of the Kircher collections, can't remember which ones or how many... but that is something I really want to get back to.
  
  

  (22-04-2024, 06:04 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I've listed the specific Latin source (in red) and the translated versions below each in green and blue from chatGPT and the philipneal.net site respectively (which agree fairly well - other than "alchemical secrets" vs "chemical symbolism")
  
  Baresch states:
  
  1. Scriptura in cognitorum characterum inutiliter
  
  chatGPT: a script in unknown characters
  
  philipneal.net:  writing in unknown characters
  
  2. Ex pictura herbarum, quarum plurimus est in Codice numerus, imaginum diversarum, Astrorum, aliarumque rerum, faciem chymicorum arca norum referentium
  
  chatGPT:         pictures of herbs, numerous in the Codex, and images of stars and other things suggesting alchemical secrets
  
  philipneal.net:  pi. pictures of herbs, of which there are a great many in the codex, and of varied images, stars and other things bearing the appearance of chemical symbolism
  
  3. herbae peregrinae, in Volumine depictae, notitiam hominum in partibus Germaniae subterfugientes
  
  chatGPT: exotic herbs painted in the Volume, knowledge escaping the people in parts of Germany
  
  philipneal.net: pictures of exotic plants which have escaped observation here in Germany
  
  Kircher states:
  
  4. Caeterum libellum nescio quibus steganographicis mysterijs refertum
  
  chatGPT:          the small book filled with I know not what steganographic mysteries
  
  philipneal.net:   the book filled with some sort of mysterious steganography

  
  That is really wonderful! That's going in my notes, for certain... it's a "keeper".
  
  Rich.

• RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"

  asteckley > 22-04-2024, 10:03 PM

  (22-04-2024, 08:11 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Well there are more descriptions, and I think I've covered them all here: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  
  I looked through your list there, but I think those four references are all that properly belong in the list. Except perhaps the single adjective "arcane"  (well its Latin source that is) and perhaps any of the variations of the noun that are used (book vs codex vs manuscript).  
  
  The other descriptions that you have mentioned that I do not have, might be well listed too but separately to keep the list only on what describes the physical item -- otherwise passages that describe conditions, people, events and such can too easily be conflated with what describe the item itself -- with either of positive or negative effects on identifying it. (The descriptions used to surmise that the author had gathered medicinal knowledge  and from where is an example.)
  
  One minor comment by the way:  I do agree with the suggestion (I think it was Rene's) that the absence of more obvious features like bathing ladies can be expected within the one passage because he is making the case for his hypothesis that the book is for medicinal purposes. Inclusion of features that didn't specifically support that idea would read as unnatural if included in that sentence.  
  
  What strikes me more than an absence in that particular passages is that, within the letters that say anything at all about the referent manuscript, there is a general sparsity of description or discussion of its content.  They seem to have found the thing worth wondering about and sending around for inspection, but they didn't seem to find it quite as unusual as so many do today. Barely a comment on its peculiar features beyond those where Barschius posits the medicinal book idea; nowhere else do the references seem to go any deeper than the equivalent of "Weird book, eh?  Now about those observations on magnetisms..." I guess it was just not as interesting to talk about as the topics at hand.  (To be clear, I don't think these speculative comments of mine have any value on the identification of it though.)

• RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"

  tavie > 22-04-2024, 10:28 PM

  (22-04-2024, 12:07 AM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The idea that those who already think the Voynich proven genuine have already, by doing so, declared it falsifiable.

  
  I know they would (or should) say it is falsifiable, but I was interested in what you would say.  I agree with you that if someone thinks with certainty that the modern forgery theory is false, then they must also agree it is falsifiable.
  
  

  (22-04-2024, 12:07 AM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.... It does not matter what you think I would say, because you have already declared the Modern Forgery theory false, and therefore, declared the theory falsifiable...
  
  ...It can't be both ways, i.e, declared falsifiable, and at the same time, unfalsifiable, based on anything... let alone, what one imagines I may or may not say in the future. It is one or the other.

  
  Rich, I hadn't declared your theory false.  I would like to have that kind of confidence but I don't.  If I had declared it as false, then as you say, I wouldn't have asked if it was falsifiable.  And I am not expert in the relevant matters in any way that would allow me to declare it false myself.  I don't have Lisa's expertise in paelography and medieval manuscripts; I don't have Rene's in the radio-carbon dating or the historical provenance or the limitations of Voynich's access to the correspondence in question.  All I can do is place a high weight on their expertise whilst not completely forgetting that experts can make mistakes, and following the logic, evidence, and credibility of the discussion as best I can without the specialist knowledge.  And while I don't want the manuscript to be a forgery, I also have an interest in not wasting even more time than I already have on something that is later found out to be a forgery.
  
  I hadn't declared your theory was certainly unfalsifiable either but I have said that when I first asked the question, I was getting that impression from the discussion. And it grew in the next couple of days.  I know technically even an unfalsifiable theory could still be true but in practice it loses a lot of credibility for me, at least when I lack the expertise to judge it on other levels.  So I asked to see if that impression of unfalsifiability was unjustified.  But when many of the responses I've got are on the lines of challenging the rival theory or saying I'm trying to discredit you, rather than confirming consistent conditions for falsifiability, it strengthens rather than corrects that impression.

• RE: New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"

  tavie > 22-04-2024, 10:32 PM

  (21-04-2024, 11:43 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I can't respond to many your statements because they are simply declarations that overtly ignore the
  explanations I provided. I am not trying to dismiss your responses - I just honestly can't conceive of how to break the logic down any further to make it easier to comprehend...

  
  Look, the only thing that's easy to comprehend here is that we're both talking at cross-purposes.  If I ignored parts of your posts, it was because they were not relevant to my specific question (e.g. about the current references not being strong enough evidence for the authentic theory.  Fair enough to mention but that's a separate track and it is already being covered elsewhere in this discussion).  All I asked originally was whether the modern forgery theory is falsifiable; I did not ask about the merits or lack thereof for its opponent.  
  
  I think there are assumptions stopping us from understanding each other.  Your assumption that I asked it in order to denigrate Rich is wrong, as is your assumption that I asked it as part of advancing the authenticity cause.  I think we can both agree that this thread has a strong adversarial current, and that it could be seen as Everyone vs Rich, but my question was a genuine one and not intended as a launch at the city fortifications from a trebuchet.  It was not a 'gotcha'.  I don't think I can make this any clearer.  I'm not sure this argument is adding value to anyone reading this thread; so, perhaps we can take this to PM if there is still anything more to be said.
• Next Oldest Next Newest