A while ago, Watkins Publishing kindly sent an advance copy of their oncoming Voynich book for me to review. The Voynich Manuscript: The Complete Edition of the World’ Most Mysterious and Esoteric Codex is set to be released on August 15, 2017.
The volume contains:
- Foreword by Stephen Skinner, who has written more than 40 books on Western esoteric traditions.
- Introduction by Rafał Prinke and René Zandbergen
- A reproduction of the manuscript.
Readers may remember that Yale published a similar reproduction as recently as November 2016. So why another one already? Rene Zandbergen explained that, since Watkins is known in the esoteric world, this is the market that is being targeted: people who don’t know much yet about the manuscript and are attracted to its mysteries.
Foreword and introduction
Dr Skinner’s foreword starts with a discussion of a number of popular early Voynich authorship theories (Dee, da Vinci) and their problems, followed by an overview of the manuscript’s various sections.
Skinner then explains his theory that the manuscript was written by a Jewish author, but experienced Voynich researchers might find this part somewhat disappointing. I was looking forward to reading his opinion since his starting point is the fact that there are no, or very little, christian influences in the manuscript’s imagery. This is an excellent observation, and a fact which is too often ignored, but unfortunately it goes downhill from there.
I see two major problems with Skinner’s theory that the manuscript was written by a Jewish author:
- He relies mostly on Edith Sherwood’s very questionable plant identifications and her even more questionable deciphering methods. Sherwood may have once been regarded as an authority by some, but current researchers are increasingly questioning her results. At the moment, there is no reason to assume that her work can be used as a reliable basis for theory building.
- One of Skinner’s main arguments is that most of the “bathing” human figures are completely naked women “with their sexual organs completely visible” (p.12). Hence, he reasons, quire 13 could depict a Jewish bathhouse (mikvah) since this was “one of the few structures where women would wash together completely naked”. It is true that Jewish women washed together naked and that mikvoth played an important role in their rituals. But this is, again, a very thin basis to assume that the Voynich was illustrated by a Jew.
This proposal surely raises a lot of questions:
- How likely was a medieval Jew to illustrate a manuscript with five hundred naked women (including shameless display of breasts and genitals)?
- How do the Voynich drawings compare to other medieval illustrations of Jewish bathing practices?
- And what about archaeological evidence? What did mikvoth look like? Is this reflected in the VM?
In short, Skinner’s proposal is a typical Voynich theory. Starting from a plausible idea or observation, but then ignoring the rest of the manuscript and, especially, cultural norms and stylistics.
The introduction by Prinke and Zandbergen focuses on those things which are known with some certainty about the manuscript. Its physical description, traditional division into the various sections. Then the known history of the manuscript, with the fascinating Baresch-Marci-Kircher correspondence and the equally interesting story of Wilfrid Voynich himself. Finally, there is a short discussion of some more recent efforts to crack the manuscript’s text and imagery. All in all, this introduction will provide newcomers with more than enough background to dive into the manuscript itself.
Reproduction
The color prints are based on the Beinecke scans, which means that they are of a high quality. I like that quire and bifolio information is printed under each image. This is something I’ll certainly be using when I write about things like folio order.
One feature which I found disappointing, though, is that the Voynich’ infamous foldouts have been cut to single pages. The Yale edition was praised for its inclusion of real foldouts, so it’s a shame that this typical feature is missing from the Watkins version.
On the other hand, Yale’s is $9 more expensive at the moment of writing this post (July), so if you’re strapped for cash and you really want a Voynich Manuscript, Watkins is the way to go.
Conclusion
While Watkins’ The Voynich Manuscript won’t offer any new insights to long-time Voynich enthusiasts, it does a good job of introducing newcomers to the manuscript’s historical background. This edition targets those who appreciate occult mysteries, and a mystery it certainly remains. But above all, it is a good reproduction of a wonderful manuscript, which I happily add to my library.
The Voynich Temple 
Hi Koen: You write, “In short, Skinner’s proposal is a typical Voynich theory. Starting from a plausible idea or observation, but then ignoring the rest of the manuscript and, especially, cultural norms and stylistics.”
But not only the main theory in the book, but also the introduction does this. The theory that the Voynich is a genuine, early 15th century, northern European cipher-herbal “… ignore[s] the rest of the manuscript and, especially, cultural norms and stylistics”.
For the genuine theory, or any other, as you say only certain “ideas and observations” are used that support it, and the rest are “ignored”. They are ignored for presumably being “too new”, for being”added later” by someone else, or if that does not seem possible, then any observation that does not fit one’s theory is discarded as being “coincidence”, or “projection” of one’s own ideas.
As for the introduction being “The introduction by Prinke and Zandbergen focuses on those things which are known with some certainty about the manuscript. Its physical description, traditional division into the various sections. Then the known history of the manuscript, with the fascinating Baresch-Marci-Kircher correspondence and the equally interesting story of Wilfrid Voynich himself. Finally, there is a short discussion of some more recent efforts to crack the manuscript’s text and imagery…”
… I disagree. The introduction is based, in many cases, on things known to be incorrect, and/or things known to be implausible or undecided, yet stated there as fact. So rather than “… this introduction will provide newcomers with more than enough background to dive into the manuscript itself.”, it will, instead, give a very false impression of what the Voynich is, and give any newcomers a nice dark set of blinders to wear, “right out of the gate”.
Here is a list of most of the preconceptions and errors used to write the intro, and in fact, used as a starting point and elements of many theories:
There is one new one, which evolved over the past few years… from “nothing at all”, to “maybe”, to “hard and fast Voynich truth”: The 1903 “catalog reference”. I will be adding that one to the list, soon. But the value is to show how an idea, known useless, is purposefully “developed” into a new mythology, in order to support the unsupportable.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Rick
I wrote this review keeping in mind the intended audience for this specific edition. Die-hard Voynich fans will get the Yale version, while this one is aimed at a more general audience of people interested in mysteries and the “esoteric”, whatever that may actually entail. With that in mind, I think the introduction is good enough.
You may or may not be surprised that I agree with part of your comment. I also think that the current dominant paradigm in Voynich studies is a narrative, an ideological construction. This “standard introduction” helps to maintain and propagate this narrative.
On the other hand, and this is where I disagree with your views in general, I don’t think there is enough evidence to support any forgery theory. These are narratives as well, as we stand now. But I am genuinely glad that some people like you are pursuing this avenue. You never know it just might turn out to be forgery after all 🙂
LikeLike
Hi Koen:
“On the other hand, and this is where I disagree with your views in general, I don’t think there is enough evidence to support any forgery theory. ”
I would have assumed you felt that way, but in any case I left my own theory out of the comments: This, because I, like you, was sticking to the points about this book, and the points you made about it.
But since you bring it up, and not to go into all the facets of it, in my opinion the forgery theory is the only theory which does not have to ignore, hide, recast, miscast, anything we or anyone has ever seen: Every illustration, every result, and for that matter, almost every opinion about those observations, all make sense in a work created imaginatively, from “whole cloth”, about 1910.
“Die-hard Voynich fans will get the Yale version, while this one is aimed at a more general audience of people interested in mysteries and the “esoteric”, whatever that may actually entail.”
Again I disagree. The Yale Voynich book is rife with demonstrable errors, and opinion stated as fact, and even, some convoluted rationalization to explain away those feature that the authors find… confounding. One such example is the part which says that the foldouts are unusual, but… whatever. And the binding is problematic… but, whatever. And, and, and… and it is also, I think, the first time the 1903 “catalog reference” is definitively stated to be THE VOYNICH… period, end of story.
So I don’t feel either book is “good enough”, rather I strongly (could you tell?) feel that both represent bad science, bad research, but worse… done intentionally, to cover up the many very serious issues that the Voynich has… to reach a wide audience and “cut them off at the pass”, lest they notice these issues themselves, before they have been “indoctrinated” in the mythology they propagate so vigorously.
In short, these books are to assure that less people will seriously consider your ideas, my ideas, many other ideas out there, and while disguised as an “introduction to a great unsolved mystery”, actually present the Voynich as a “known entity”, within very narrow parameters, so all comers should just accept that, and go away.
And guess what happens if they are wrong? The answer, whatever that is, will be that much harder to find.
LikeLike
I mean the Yale edition is for people who really want an as close as possible reproduction of the manuscript (if they can’t afford thousands of dollars for a handcrafted facsimile). It’s got real foldouts and does a better job of reproducing the actual size of the images.
When it comes to the introduction, this is the kind of information people will want to read: what do we know about where this book comes from? Which theories are around? If I recall correctly, you are mentioned as well?
My point is, if one has to write *something* as an introduction to the manuscript, this is the kind of thing you get. An overview of possibly relevant historical documents, results of material analysis and an overview of some popular theories.
The latter is necessarily a subjective selection. My impression is that the “modern fraud” theory is generally included and at times considered possible. My views – that the manuscript is mostly a copy of an *older*, now extinct tradition, has not obtained that privilege yet.
But the fact remains that even in August 2017, the dominant view is still that the manuscript was authored by an eccentric 15th century European. Our views fall on opposite ends outside of that paradigm. So unfortunately, but naturally, this dominant view is the one that is reflected most in introductions.
LikeLike
Hello Koen,
in your replies to Rick you wrote:
-I think the introduction is good enough.
You may or may not be surprised that I agree with part of your comment. I also think that the current dominant paradigm in Voynich studies is a narrative, an ideological construction. This “standard introduction” helps to maintain and propagate this narrative.-
I see the two statements as contradictory. An essay that is supportive of “a narrative” (i.e. presents fictional events as if they were facts) and “an ideological construction” (i.e. is biased by the “dominant paradigm”) must necessarily be devoid of any scientific value. How can it be “good enough”?
I haven’t read the introduction that Rene and Rafal wrote, but I have read some of their other works. I know they are among the very few people who discovered and published primary sources about the early history of the ms. I know that Rene Zandbergen has been one of the creators of the EVA transcription (an invaluable tool to the few interested in what could be actually written in the ms). I know that Rafal T. Prinke has published a number of works mostly about alchemy and the history of science:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rafal_Prinke/publications
They are serious scholars: I don’t think they can possibly have distorted data according to some ideological agenda.
You also wrote that:
-even in August 2017, the dominant view is still that the manuscript was authored by an eccentric 15th century European.-
I don’t know of any such “dominant view” about the Voynich ms. It seems to me that most serious researchers are fundamentally skeptical, even if each formulates working hypotheses in the course of their work. On the other hand, some bloggers have strong, unquestionable beliefs…. but these “religions” are all different, each blogger has his own delusional brainchild.
I have come to know the Voynich ms through the works of Stephen Bax. His opinion is that “the underlying language is probably not European”. On Stephen Bax’ site, several people (myself included) discuss ideas that involve all kinds of possible influences, e.g. Indian, Persian, Arabic and Jewish.
You often discussed with Rene on the Ninja forum, so I think you should be aware of what he thinks.
https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-545-post-3425.html#pid3425
https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-545-post-3343.html#pid3343
His views seem to me scientific, open-minded and certainly not committed to any specific idea.
Taiz and Taiz interpret the “biological” section on the basis of classical Greek sources (Aristotle and Galen).
Tucker and Talbert’s Aztec theory has been widely discussed.
I don’t know much about Pelling’s Averlino (“Filarete”) hypothesis, but Averlino was a distinguished humanist, one of the most important figures in Renaissance architecture. He obviously doesn’t qualify as an “eccentric”.
The only scholar who suggested something similar to what you write is Sergio Toresella (the author of the VMS was a madman, obsessed by sex), but as far as I know his idea has not been widely accepted.
Isn’t the “eccentric 15th century European” idea just one among many different ideas? Why turn it into the hideous concepts of “a dominant paradigm” and “ideological constructions”?
LikeLike
Marco: Your answer, your position, reflects exactly the desired result that works such as this introduction, and these books, intend. You accept the opinion of them, based solely on the reputations of the writers… readily admitting you have not read them.
I personally know Rene, Rafal, and Nick. And I, too, can vouch for them as brilliant, well read and capible men… really nice guys, too, BTW. But reputations alone does not assure that the theories held are necessarily the correct ones, nor that their opinions will rise to factual, or even, correct. This, especially in the case of the Voynich, where facts and opinion are often confused.
“They are serious scholars: I don’t think they can possibly have distorted data according to some ideological agenda.”
… and so, you come to this conclusion. The publishers hope you would. You are the target audience for them, and reflect exactly the danger I warn against. The assumption is that most people will not have the time to research very deeply, and so will not know that there are clear errors in these works… and you have proven this. Unfortunately, at the same time, the platform they use is used to disparage and dismiss the theories and work of others, including mine. In one of these, my work is called “dis-proven”… when it is demonstrably not anything of the sort. And another person you mention plays the “reputation game”, also, saying that any “arm chair researcher” cannot have valid ideas. Another says that “other opinions are not as good” as theirs.
Really? They know that people will assume, based on reputation alone, without reading (as you admit) even the things they wrote, the ideas they hold, let alone investigate deeply enough to uncover the very serious flaws in what they propose. Read them first, and then read this:
Many of the myths I list in that post are written in these works and stated as factual. So yes, they “… have distorted data according to some ideological agenda.” It is provable in some cases, and suspect in the rest.
And the Yale book goes further… in some sections, you can see a problem brought up, then dismissed, right there in print, on flimsy, unsupportable and unscientific grounds. The “foldouts” is a great example, the cover issue is another. There are many more. And this is not even to mention the many problems with provenance, content, and more, which are purposefully left out of these works, exactly so that the reader will be unaware of them, and so, protect the reputation of the holder of the Voynich, and those chosen to protect its reputation for them.
“I don’t know much about Pelling’s Averlino (“Filarete”) hypothesis, but Averlino was a distinguished humanist, one of the most important figures in Renaissance architecture. He obviously doesn’t qualify as an “eccentric”.
Nick as I said is a great guy… I’ve had wonderful talks with him, and even shared a pizza and beer in a friendly dinner. And we have also argued tooth and nail over many large and small issues… but in all that, I note, few know his theory… an effect I see over and over, and with you, here, again. And as I’m pointing out, knowing the man and the theory, with Nick and any of us, are quite different things. Thinking his theory wild and implausible… which I do… does not, and should not, be seen as a reflection on the man or woman who holds it (and by the way, it is valid for me to point this out, as Nick has openly, and harshly, criticized my own theory, and those of others), nor vice-versa. Read his book before you decide if his theory holds a value for you. The reputation of Averlino is no indication that a theory including him should be held in the same regard… in fact, in this case, quite the opposite, as the Voynich is about the most “un-Averlino” work one might find.
And so, my point is, confusing reputation with output is dangerous, and the danger is demonstrated in your response. Yes, these are respectable, wonderful, intelligent people. But accepting what one does not know about, based on reputation alone, is not a proper, scholarly approach, and makes one a victim to ideology.
LikeLike
Marco
A “dominant paradigm” is not a negative term at all. All sciences work with paradigms, and once in a while you get a paradigm shift (when the dominant paradigm changes). We need paradigms to be able to discuss anything at all.
I also didn’t mean “narrative” in a negative way. The word “narrative” does not suggest untruthfulness, but rather that the evidence is selected and interpreted according to a certain coherent line of reasoning.
The active wording in my reply probably suggested that I think some “foul play” or conscious trickery is going on, but this is certainly not the case. I believe that everyone involved in Voynich studies does and writes what they believe is the truth, and that everybody has the best interest of the study in mind.
But when a field of study is expansive enough, one can write overviews like the ones we’re discussing. This is standard practice of course. But these overviews will necessarily be selective, and hence they will be guided by the current paradigm (which, again, is a good word) and in turn reaffirm that paradigm. When Rene and his colleagues write this introduction, they can impossibly reflect everything which is known and said and believed. So they must select.
One thing I don’t understand is that there is a strong tendency in Voynich studies to deny that any form of paradigm exists. As if we are still at square one. This is not the case. Many people believe that a central European authorship of the manuscript is almost certain, and this belief guides how they judge evidence.
Of course it depends from person to person what they believe and what not, and everybody has a different opinion. The following is what I consider to belong to the dominant paradigm, and Rene has written similar things about his own beliefs:
1) The MS was made in an area around the Alps.
2) Its is the work of an individual or small group with specific knowledge or a specific world view. That’s what I meant with “eccentric”: “deviant from the norm” rather than “wearing silly clothes and drinking their own urine”.
3) Its contents is mostly a product of the 15th century: it was authored rather than slavishly copied.
Rather than contradiction, I was aiming for nuance in my reply. There is a dominant paradigm, but this is the normal way to go for any field of study.
I disagree with the dominant paradigm, but that is a different discussion altogether!
LikeLike
Koen! You cite Kuhn’s view on paradigms, and I could not agree more. In his “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, he explains the way a dominant paradigm protects itself against challenges, and tends to dismiss and/or ignore anomalies within itself.
That is for the challengers to the paradigm… and is what I consider my job to be…. and, maybe you and many others. Keep up the good work!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello Koen,
thank you for your reply.
You wrote that it’s unfortunate that introductions reflect the dominant paradigm and yet that the dominant paradigm is normal in science. Is science unfortunate? This doesn’t make sense to me, but never mind. These abstractions must be above my head.
I am glad you mentioned three specific points about this “dominant paradigm” you disagree with. Let’s discuss these less abstract things and see each single point in detail and see if I can somehow manage to follow.
You wrote:
-The following is what I consider to belong to the dominant paradigm, and Rene has written similar things about his own beliefs:
1) The MS was made in an area around the Alps.-
Personally, I think that this might explain the German color annotations discussed by Touwaide as well as several other details, but I am more inclined to a German-speaking area rather than “around the Alps” (of course, the two areas intersect). Since you are “outside the paradigm” I guess your opinion is different. Are those who believe it was written in Northern Italy (e.g. Milan or Padua) necessarily wrong? Where do you think the manuscript was written and why?
-2) Its is the work of an individual or small group with specific knowledge or a specific world view. That’s what I meant with “eccentric”: “deviant from the norm” rather than “wearing silly clothes and drinking their own urine”.-
This statement is so vague that really anything would fit. Who doesn’t have a specific world view? Are your opinions really incompatible with such a generic idea? Don’t you believe that the author or authors had as a specific world view?
-3) Its contents is mostly a product of the 15th century: it was authored rather than slavishly copied.-
Well, of course it would be totally irrational to believe that it “was copied” without a clear reference to the source from which it was copied. One can believe that it was “copied from X”, but how can one believe that it was copied “full stop”? I think the general view is that the manuscript was influence by earlier works. Some researchers (Rene included) have pointed out several manuscripts that might have influenced the production of the VMS (e.g. BNF Lat 6823, BAV Reg. lat. 1283). From which specific work(s) do you believe it was copied?
LikeLike
Marco
Though I don’t believe we have enough evidence to pin down a location, I think Northern Italy is reasonable, as well as the French/Spanish border region. So this part of the dominant view is not one I find the most problematic. I believe a location that is too much inland, like Switzerland for example, is much less likely.
About the second point, this is a critical one, though again it seems hard to find an unambiguous way to phrase it. The Voynich is an unusual book, so its strange aspects must be explained somehow. The dominant view does this by making the author himself somehow different than his peers, in a variety of ways depending on who you ask: a genius, a madman, a secret society, a heretic, and so on. But the author(s) is seen as the cause of the uniqueness, not his source material.
When I was just starting out in Voynich studies and my ideas were still somewhat more bold and unpolished, Rene once answered the following: “The relative uniqueness of the drawings implies a personal view or interpretation of the world, but there are clear signs that at least parts of the MS have been taken from, or were inspired by existing documents.”
So I think that exemplifies point two: yes, there are parallels in other works, but the manuscript is weird, and this weirdness is a result of some characteristic or view of the 15th century author.
I rather believe, and this answers (3) as well, that the manuscript is the result of an undocumented transmission. Since it was clearly not one of those standard traditions which were kept in rich people’s libraries, the source material and any other medieval branches are now lost.
I believe it very likely that the copying of source documents was commissioned, and that the scribes and other craftsmen may not have known what it was they were copying, though the patron likely did.
Of course, the transmission of manuscripts is never perfect and seldom conservative, so along the way things get added, misinterpreted, updated or otherwise altered. Some sections of the manuscript have been altered more than others.
LikeLike
Thank you again, Koen! This level of conversation is easier for me to follow 🙂
In my opinion, the views of Bax and Tucker/Talbert are not so remote from yours. There is a mainstream thread in Voynich research that considers the peculiar “characteristic” of the 15th Century author to be the in-depth knowledge of an “exotic” culture (Indo-Persian for Stephen, Aztec for Tucker/Talbert). Your view seems to me mostly a special case of this “cultural peculiarity” thread, in which this knowledge was largely embodied in a written source. Do you believe this “cultural peculiarity” idea to be part of the “dominant paradigm” or do you think the paradigm requires the author to be a genius/madman?
If the patron was able to understand the book, he was “special” for cultural reasons: he knew how to read an Egyptian(?) script unreadable to others. Are we all (Bax, Tucker/Talbert and myself) outside the paradigm?
About point (3) copy / not-copy, as Rene wrote, the only way to tell is to discuss the evidence, i.e. the candidate sources. If there are no candidate sources, simple logic tells us that it cannot be considered a copy.
Other researchers that clearly fall outside your definition of the “dominant paradigm” are Marraccini and Taiz&Taiz (and maybe Touwaide) who see the ms as not-so-weird and rooted in the Western scientific tradition: more copying than genius (and definitely no madman or heretic).
This “dominant paradigm” doesn’t seem so “dominant” after all….
LikeLike
Marco
The fact that a dominant paradigm exists does not necessarily mean that there are dozens of people who openly embrace it – after all our field is small and many people speak with care when it comes to their own beliefs. The paradigm is not an agenda or program that is carried by a group of people, It’s more of a set of ideas around which most research gravitates.
Touwaide has not written enough about the manuscript for me to say much about his views. What does he think about the nymphs? The Strange Zodiac cycle? The same goes for Marraccini. I would love to read more of what they have to say about the manuscript.
But if one were to argue that the VM is not that exceptional for a 15th century medieval work, I’d certainly see a large overlap with the dominant paradigm there. However, I am of the opinion that such a view would have to ignore a number of peculiarities which are hard to explain within the framework of normal European traditions.
I’m not entirely sure about Bax’s current views, but I think he sees the contents as “imported” in some way, so this would be outside of the dominant paradigm. In fact he influenced my view on the manuscript, since his research was the first I read about.
One point of overlap with the paradigm is, if I’m not mistaken, that he believes the contents of the manuscript to have been produced mostly in the 15th century.
I don’t understand your point about the sources. If I say the tradition is undocumented, that means the direct sources are now lost. I can point to a far ancestor and say look, the VM derived from this, but the steps in between are unknown to us.
An example of an image I have once shown:
Those are Roman era mosaics found around the Mediterranean. In other words, the type of the Venus with mirror was a common one. And indeed, when I showed this image on the forum, others showed some examples of it having survived in other medieval manuscripts. But in the Voynich, and that is the important part, the image is closer to the original than to a standard medieval figure. So my view is that these contents were important enough for some people to be preserved. Along the way, the stylistics changed, making it hard to recognize it right away. But it didn’t become medievalized either.
Hence, undocumented transmission. This clashes with the dominant paradigm because this requires attestation within the medieval European corpus. Otherwise the author could not obtain these images, let alone work with them in a meaningful way.
LikeLike
Narratives are what Voynich theorists use to distract attention from their lack of both evidence and external referentiality.
Any time you hear a narrative being spun – whether about mystical polyglot languages wafting in from the unknowable East, or the late John Stojko’s nationalist fantasies – run a mile, and you won’t go far wrong.
Lock down the details, and maybe you’ll stand a chance of making genuine progress.
LikeLike
One of my pet peeves: weasel words (also known as anonymous authority).
One may find great examples of this in discussions about the Voynich MS.
I have no issue at all with the post – the book review. The thought came up when reading the comments. And it comes up relatively frequently when reading blogs in general.
The box ‘examples’ in this wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word
is quite clear. It’s interesting to have this clearly in mind when reading blog posts and their comments.
Another pet peeve, an even more important one, is the frequent use of non-sequitur.
One may argue:
we have observation “A” and therefore draw conclusion “B”,
but in reality B does not *at all* follow from A (the principle of non-sequitur).
This will probably not be clear without an example.
Let’s say that someone observes that something in the Voynich MS (or related to the MS) is “unusual”. So far so good. This happens all the time.
Now person X may argue that this unusual thing clearly suggests that the MS is a modern fake. Person Y may argue that it suggests that the MS is non-European. Person Z may argue that it means that the author had a mental issue.
The same observation but three wildly different conclusions. It is clear from this diversity that the conclusion does not follow from the observation. While one of them *could be* true, it is not a logical consequence.
LikeLike
Speaking of fallacies, this is a perfect example of what’s known as a straw man argument.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you, Sam.
The statement is a straw man argument, because of course it ignores the actual, real, arguments made by X, Y and Z. They have different values… those values may be factual, they may be subjective opinion… but it is incorrect to lump them together like this. They are all three different, and of course one may very well be correct, while the others might not.
LikeLike
Sam G, I stand corrected.
“Person X” never concluded from the strangeness of the Voynich MS that it is a modern fake, “Person Y” never concluded from it that the Voynich MS is not European and “Person Z” never concluded that the author had a mental issue.
I put these words in their mouths.
Shame on me 🙂
LikeLike
Hi Rene: Of course you are being sarcastic now, but the point still stands that your statement is incorrect, and unfair to me, my work, and to others in the field, for that matter.
““Person X” never concluded from the strangeness of the Voynich MS that it is a modern fake…”.
It is a straw man argument to simplify my case into these terms. I didn’t “conclude from the strangeness” that it is modern fake, rather it is from what I, and many others, believe represent objects and styles far newer than the C14 dating of the calf skin, along with many specific problems with the provenance, and other related factors.
You have chosen to, and I respect your decision to, withdraw from discussing (arguing, whatever) the mutual advantages of both of our (mutually exclusive) positions. That is your choice. But then it is not fair of you to misstate my ideas, my motivations, from a “safe distance”, where I cannot rebut the inaccuracies you use to describe my work.
Here is a rare case in which I am able to do so, and of course, I will not hold back my correction.
LikeLike
This after you just got through explaining how “weasel words” are one of your pet peeves?
Words fail me.
LikeLike
Hi Rich,
no hard feelings from my side, but indeed, I have long decided to stop discussing the “Voynich faked it” theory in fora of any nature.
Since it is most obviously your opinion that the Voynich MS is a modern fake, I hardly believe that my saying so is a mis-representation of your ideas.
I won’t argue that “Person X” in my earlier post here was a reference to you.
I best leave it at that…
LikeLike
Hi Rene: I have no problem with your stating, here or anywhere, “Since it is most obviously your opinion that the Voynich MS is a modern fake, I hardly believe that my saying so is a mis-representation of your ideas.”
Clearly I would not, and was not objecting to that statement, and if you had said that to begin with, I would not have needed to correct you. I do believe a modern fake by, or at Wilfrid’s direction, is the most plausible theory for the creation of the Voynich Ms..
If you scroll up, you will see the statement you made which I actually do object to, which is, “Person X” never concluded from the strangeness of the Voynich MS that it is a modern fake…”, which was a version of your earlier statement, “Now person X may argue that this unusual thing clearly suggests that the MS is a modern fake.”
To which I responded, “It is a straw man argument to simplify my case into these terms. I didn’t “conclude from the strangeness” that it is modern fake, rather it is from what I, and many others, believe represent objects and styles far newer than the C14 dating of the calf skin, along with many specific problems with the provenance, and other related factors.”
You are welcome to refer to my theories any time you like, but misrepresenting them is not welcome. Further I would wonder why you would feel a need to do this? It is far from the first time you have. If there is no merit to my ideas, as you seem to feel and often write, then why not explain them properly?
And while I have you, why did you feel the need to emphatically state, as you did in the introduction to the Skinner book, that my theory has been “dis-proven”? Of course it has not at all been dis-proven. You may not like the theory, but it is your opinion, and not known to be incorrect. You don’t know what the Voynich is, and you do not know it is not a modern forgery. For you to make such a statement, and so dismiss my careful and thoughtful years of work, which is considered possible by many, does a disservice to me, and anyone picking up that book who might have an open mind about it, and would want to explore the possibility for themselves.
LikeLike
This blog post of Koen concerns the publication of a Voynich MS facsimile, and not the question whether the Voynich MS is a modern fake or not.
The introduction, written by Rafał and myself, represents *our* views and our understanding of many aspects related to the Voynich MS. These are based on our reading of many sources, talking to many people, and our own investigations.
LikeLike
Hi Rene:
“The introduction, written by Rafał and myself, represents *our* views and our understanding of many aspects related to the Voynich MS. These are based on our reading of many sources, talking to many people, and our own investigations.”
Of course you have your views… we all do. They are called opinions. The danger is when you or anyone state opinions as facts, especially in publications such as this, and in the Yale book. Many of your statements, and the statements of others, in these books, are about things which are either unproven, or suspect, or clearly known to be incorrect. And yet, they are put into print as being known, factual, features of the Voynich or its back story.
This kills discussion outside of whatever opinions these books project, because people will assume that you are giving factual statements. Many will stop looking at other theories outside of yours, outside of the limited parameters these books describe. And people reading these books, thinking they are not opinion, and tell the complete story, may stop there, and not look for any answers which lie outside of the opinions presented.
Since the Voynich is not solved, the implication is the answer very well may lie outside of what you believe it is… so if your opinion is stated as fact, it has a very good chance of limiting the effort toward solving it. That’s the problem I see, and furthermore, I think it has been a problem for a long time…. and in fact is an important factor in this not being solved: A well-protected and undeserving bastion of assumptions, projected as facts, and accepted as gospel by the un-knowning.
LikeLike
>> The introduction, written by Rafał and myself, represents *our* views and our
>> understanding of many aspects related to the Voynich MS. These are based on
>> our reading of many sources, talking to many people, and our own investigations.
> Of course you have your views… we all do. They are called opinions.
It is completely false to try and pass all this off as ‘my opinions’.
The statements of the Beinecke library are not my opinion.
The insights of countless conservators and historians are not my opinion.
The results of half a dozen forensic tests are not my opinion.
(I could go on, but won’t).
LikeLike
Well Rene, herein lies the problem:
“It is completely false to try and pass all this off as ‘my opinions’.”
It is true you do cite the few facts we all know, or some of them, within your opinion pieces. But it is not correct to call my observation “compeletely false”… because you take those few facts, and like all of us, opine on them… speculate that is. Nothing wrong with that… but they are your opinions, and you incorrectly state them as facts. Then people like Marco above, and probably thousands of others, based on your well deserved reputation as a scientist for the ESA, incorrectly assume that your opinions on matters of the Voynich hold any greater or lesser weight than other serious researchers.
So I hold firm that it is incorrect of you to present your opinions as facts. Now you use as examples:
“The statements of the Beinecke library are not my opinion.
The insights of countless conservators and historians are not my opinion.
The results of half a dozen forensic tests are not my opinion.
(I could go on, but won’t).”
You do understand my complaint, this is clear… because in that list above, you cite those things that are factual… and no-one argues the forensic tests, or disputes that a statement by the Beinecke was not stated (although I can and do take issue with the accuracy of many of them). But you leave off the list those things you have formed as opinions, but state over and over as facts. The Yale book you advised on, and wrote in, and the Skinner book intro you co-wrote, are rife with your opinions stated as facts. There are dozens, but I can give one good example:
You cite the 1903 catalog reference, and admit on your website that it is not known that this is referring to the Voynich. Good, because it basically could describe tens of thousands of other books, of all types. But by the time this reference appears in print, you state it as a fact that it is the Voynich manuscript being referred to. Because of this, it is fast becoming a “fact” that present and future VMs scholars will rely on, much like so many others have. But it is one we can see unfold in real time.
I can.. and intend.. on doing my own review of this problem in both of these books. I can and will back up the validity of my position on this.
You have been supporting a (popular) construct of the Voynich, roughly stated as an early 15th century northern Italian cipher herbal, but it is only a construct, an opinion. It is based on your opinions of what we do know, but also on questionable information, limited information, and some incorrect information. To present it as factual, in print, does this scholarship a disservice, and hampers the search for the truth of this ms., whatever that turns out to be.
LikeLike
To my mind, this modern forgery notion (i.e. that Wilfrid Voynich had access to all the letters in the Kircher archives relating to a strange unknown manuscript many years before anyone else, and then forged a document to match that manuscript’s properties using closely-dated 500-year-old vellum sheets, and then spent the rest of his life trying to pass it off as something by Roger Bacon) is possible… just extraordinarily unlikely.
To be precise, “Diary of a stranded alien” kind of unlikely.
LikeLike
Hi Nick! I appreciate you disagree, and even more appreciate that you do not feel the need to misstate elements my theory in doing so. Thank you. But on these two points:
“To my mind, this modern forgery notion (i.e. that Wilfrid Voynich had access to all the letters in the Kircher archives relating to a strange unknown manuscript many years before anyone else”
Although it was incorrectly asserted that the letters of the Carteggio were “under lock and seal”, and so inaccessible to Wilfrid, there is zero evidence that was the case. It was a projected assumption, or wish, or whatever. The fact is that the letters were actually in the Villa Mondragone, under the care of Strickland, and the very Jesuit staff that Wilfrid also claims sold him the Voynich Ms.. That is the short version, but there are many reasons to further assume that access to these letters would not have been as unlikely as some have had us to believe.
“… and then forged a document to match that manuscript’s properties using closely-dated 500-year-old vellum sheets”
They are not so “closely dated”, the range of the sheets varying at least 60 years. But still I accept they roughly coincide with the early 15th century, despite the spread in age. But I think you are referring the often stated situation in which is assumed Voynich would have had to “pick the right age vellum (calfskin of course)”. But in fact, he picked the wrong age, which makes sense considering there was no C14 dating on the horizon. Only a couple of experts gave a date matching the vellum, while the majority gave dates decades to centuries off… the ratio is something like 2 to 16.
“… and then spent the rest of his life trying to pass it off as something by Roger Bacon) is possible…”
Yes he did back the wrong horse, didn’t he?
“… just extraordinarily unlikely.”
To be precise, “Diary of a stranded alien” kind of unlikely.”
Yes, but is it Averlino unlikely? Jk… and thanks for the feedback.
LikeLike
Any discussion of Beinecke 408 which does not agree to its being a first half of the 15th c. European manuscript is a waste of time and resources,
LikeLike
As Nick said two comments above:
“…. is possible… just extraordinarily unlikely.
To be precise, “Diary of a stranded alien” kind of unlikely.”
There is a long road between “Extraordinarily unlike” and “dis-proven”.
I’m a no one in the VM world, although a long time rider.
There are issues in key points where I see scholars taking at face values when a closer look would extremely important. Sometimes, when they do, it is as if only to dismiss it.
Considering a book like the VM, everything should be taken into account, even if extraordinary unlikely.
LikeLike
Alex: if there’s a better way of proceeding than prioritizing good research leads over bad research leads while trying to avoid making mistakes, I don’t know what it is. But not everyone shares this worldview.
LikeLike
I don’t mean to speak for Rich, but I don’t think he expects that a mention of the modern forgery hypothesis would be included in an introduction at this point. He strikes me as realistic enough to acknowledge that it probably strikes many people as being as far out in left field as Bax’s theory, or Skinner’s theory, etc. He’s not asking for that much.
I think Rich’s only minimum expectation was that, in cases where there actually isn’t proof about something, to replace every instance of “we know [X] about the Voynich” with “most modern Voynich researchers conclude [X] about the Voynich.”
For example, instead of something like:
“These letters in the Kircher Carteggio clearly refer to the Voynich Manuscript.”
say: “According to most modern Voynich Manuscript researchers, these letters in the Kircher Carteggio clearly refer to the Voynich Manuscript.”
Seven additional words needed. Not an exceptionally high price to pay in order to do due diligence to the truth. And the truth is, we really don’t know this as a fact in the same sense that we know that Barack Obama was the previous President of the United States. A lot of evidence would seem to make very very plausible and even likely that the VMS is being referred to in the Kircher Carteggio, but it would take something like Marci or the others asking, “What do you think about the woman next to “den mus del”?” or “I am in particular interested in your interpretation of the women bathing in the pipes” to really tie the two together.
And, more importantly, this is just one example (among many!) of something that is often repeated as an open-and-shut case about the VMS that deserves at least a little bit of recognition that it is merely “most modern Voynich researchers” that consider it an open-and-shut case.
And say what you will about Rich, but he is not some Johnny-come-lately with a crackpot theory that he put 15 minutes of thought into before posting it on an internet message board. Yeah, I’ll grant that if those were the only types of divergent opinions we were dealing with, then I wouldn’t have a problem with just ignoring them and saying without hedging or qualifying statements, “We know X about the Voynich…[despite what unmentioned crackpot theorists might speculate].”
Let’s use the moon as an analogy. It’s a bit like if Rene had said, “We know that X crater has X amount of frozen Helium-3 in it,” and along comes Rich saying, “Well, some theories predict that we would find those amounts of Helium-3 there, and most lunar researchers consider it very likely, but we haven’t actually sampled the ground there yet, so it remains an open question. I happen to think not for these reasons….” And then meanwhile there are crackpots asking, “Do we even know if the moon is real? Could it be just a CIA hologram? Did the U.S. even land on the moon? We don’t know that for sure.” I don’t think Rich would object to dismissing those skepticisms and just boldly stating in an introduction about the moon that, “American astronauts landed on the moon in 1969,” full-stop. What I think Rich would object to is the statement, without qualifications, that “The moon possesses copious amounts of Helium-3 in this region…”
(But meanwhile Rich’s warranted skepticism about certain “known facts” gets lumped together with crackpots’ unwarranted skepticism about things that really are known facts.)
Of course, it’s inherently a matter of judgment whether any dispute about “known facts” is founded on reasonable doubt or crackpot paranoia. Some Voynich researchers probably think that they have proven the 15th-century herbal provenance beyond a reasonable doubt, and that it is time to move on. I disagree. Ultimately, it’s a matter of judgment.
LikeLike
In principle I agree with your comments. A proper degree of (un)certainty should be reflected about unproven elements, and this is can be a problem in the dominant discourse.
When it comes to the dating of the vellum I do share Nick’s thoughts. I find the evidence strong enough to assume the manuscript was made in the 15th century. In order to make progress, we need *some* solid ground under our feet.
That said, Rich is clearly intelligent and well informed, and I like how honest he is about his beliefs. I’ll stick to the 15th century date, but I’m glad he’s on the forgery case 🙂
LikeLike
The introduction to the Watkins volume addresses several theories about the Voynich MS, but the ‘modern fake’ theory is the only one (to my best recollection) that is rejected in two essays (independently) of the Yale volume. These don’t go into any kind of detail and the authors do not have the wide background on this specific MS that would allow them to be more firm.
Some time ago, I collected the most important points here:
http://www.voynich.nu/extra/nofake.html
I would also like to highlight the link in part 5:
http://www.voynich.nu/extra/sp_solvers.html#voynich
Of course, after all this, one may still believe that this is all show by Voynich, and one may still disbelieve all the evidence.
LikeLike
Rene: So in your answer to me, you are now citing others to back up your own claim that my theory of a modern fake has been “disproven”. There are a few problems with this: First of all, you are the authority used and cited in many works, so of course your opinion will be reflected in this. You are an adviser to the Beinecke/Yale, you were an adviser to, and wrote for, the Yale publication, and you co-wrote the introduction to the Skinner book. In addition, your website, which also has much opinion (but stated as factual), and much that is unproven and speculative, and many omissions of serious problems with the Voynich, is often used as a source for all the above.
I spoke with Mr. Clemens after the introduction of the Yale book, and he admitted that he was a relative newcomer to the field, and relied on you to a great extent. I had a nice talk with him at the “wine and cheese” in the Beinecke, and it was clear… and I was somewhat surprised… that he had no idea of the many problems and anomalies the Voynich, and the provenance, and so on.
And you advised and spoke at the Folger talk, with similar omissions and errors. And also, the University of Arizona, and I think the Beinecke, forwards questions on the Voynich to you, to answer.
So it is a vicious cycle, because you are using your influential position to color the Voynich story with your own opinions and prejudices, and failing to tell the whole story. This is bad for science and scholarship.
About this:
“Some time ago, I collected the most important points here:
http://www.voynich.nu/extra/nofake.html”
Your points there are for the most part incorrect, or irrelevant to the issue, or unproven… at the best, your personal speculation applied to the little that is known. It is an opinion piece, not a factual analysis. But this blog of Koen’s is not the place to branch out into that… and I’m typing this from a campsite, with limited battery anyway… I will rebut your points when I get home, and post a link to them.
So it is your prerogative to choose not to discuss my Modern Forgery Theory, as you said above, and said before… and why you left the VMS-list. But the problem is, you do discuss it… only you choose to do so in any forum, such as print, or other discussions, in which you can state your opinion, state it as factual, and meet no rebuttal when doing so.
LikeLiked by 1 person
First thanks to Koen Gh for this post, it sure got the conversation going!
To Rich Santa Coloma, about the Voynich forged it hypothesis:
I may have missed something on your blog, but I would like to ask: do you claim Voynich forged it alone or were Ethel and Anne Nill complicit in this scenario?
I find it hard to believe that Wilfrid could have concealed the creation of this MS from two intelligent women, who both apparently lived and worked closely with him, especially Anne Nill. Considering how long it would have taken to create this MS, it is difficult for me to accept that neither of them would have seen/suspected anything… What is your take on this?
Anyway, whether or not it is a modern hoax, I thank you for the wonderful 3D rendering of the 9 rosette foldout you created, I really enjoyed that video!
LikeLike
Hi Voynichviews: Yes thank you to Koen for not shutting this down, although we have drifted so far from the review and the book itself.
“To Rich Santa Coloma, about the Voynich forged it hypothesis:
I may have missed something on your blog, but I would like to ask: do you claim Voynich forged it alone or were Ethel and Anne Nill complicit in this scenario?”
After reading every scrap, note, letter I could… two full days in the Beinecke, and several at the Grolier Club to read everything in all eight boxes, I have to say that I still do not believe that either Ethel or Anne knew or suspected that the Voynich was a forgery (if it was, that is the context of my answer). I found Ethel’s careful notebook, for one thing, on the plant identities (which I had copied, and is available here: http://www.santa-coloma.net/voynich_drebbel/general/ELV_plant_notes.pdf ). But beyond that, from everything I read, she was consumed by the mystery of it, and tried hard to solve it. The closest hint of suspicion I found was the underlined note Ethel made, after W’s death, which said emphatically “How do we know THIS???”, referring to the whole Dee/Rudolf/Tepencz story (here are some other “concerns” about his story: http://www.santa-coloma.net/voynich_drebbel/general/ethel_concerned_1933.jpg). But that might have just been her questioning, annoyed, surprised, or suspicious about his stated provenance, and I don’t think, about the ms. itself. Remember, until he died in 1930, she was not all that interested in the VMs herself…
Anne, likewise, was clearly interested in the mystery, and asked questions of others about it, and set up appointments with experts, and so on. In her letters to Garland it was clear she had no suspicions at all. One of the more dramatic finds, which I’ve not seen anyone make note of, is her very elaborate notebook in which she made some VERY nice pencil and pen copies of all the characters. There must be over a hundred hours into it…
Now to Wilfrid. I actually first went to the Beinecke collections because Rene assured me that if I did, I would see that W was innocent, because he clearly, also, tried to solve the mystery… meaning, he would not have, if he knew it to be fake. But I came away with a very different impression… unlike Anne and Ethel, there are no personal notes and musing, no private research. What I did find were several instances of possibly disingenuous “phishing of experts”. He would write to them, consult them, with little hints here and there, of what he “though it might be”, and then, in response, would be “corrected” by them. See? Now he has an expert opinion as to what it is… he does not have to say it, the expert does. A good example of this is the Tepencz “signature”:
If you look at his presentation, and responses, about the provenance of the forged Columbus miniature, it is very similar. And this is a common tactic of forgers, and sellers of them. Thomas J. Wise was notorious for this: He would write to celebrities, writers and poets, and experts and so on, about some find or another (which were really forgeries), and then, when they responded, he would quote them in catalogs… using that quote as expert certification.
“I find it hard to believe that Wilfrid could have concealed the creation of this MS from two intelligent women, who both apparently lived and worked closely with him, especially Anne Nill. Considering how long it would have taken to create this MS, it is difficult for me to accept that neither of them would have seen/suspected anything… What is your take on this?””
Now the premise of your question means it might seem I just undermined my own argument: For how could it be a forgery, and Anne and Ethel be unaware? First of all, the motive to keep it from them: I believe that one reason for its creation was marital hegemony, and Voynich had managed to make a name for himself, matching and surpassing his wife’s. He would not have wanted to ruin that. But how to do it? Well I do believe the work was probably made in the Libraria Franceschini, and there were blocks of time in which the place was closed, and it was always isolated from the London store. He saw to that… read Sowerby, in which she explains the fish story W gave her, to keep her from Florence. Certainly the work could have been made there, or elsewhere. So whether the thing is real or not, since Ethel and Anne thought it real, I don’t think this is a problem. If fake it fooled many at the time, and still does, and they would probably not have been near production anyway.
As for how long it would have taken to make, I think it is incorrect to assume it would have taken much over a couple of months of spare time. Gordon Rugg quickly made a quite nice page in about an hour, and I made a simple one in 13 minutes. Most of the content has long been considered sloppy, or “amateurish”, and this fits well.
Well that is the short version, believe it or not. Write anytime if you are interested in the week long blab fest… something Koen will probably insist on in the future…
LikeLike
These comments seem – mostly – to have little to do with any mutual interest in a manuscript manufactured in the fifteenth century, containing material of largely unexplored date and provenance. What they have in common is an apparent belief that we will understand this manuscript best by having a sort of theory-joust in which (presumably) the one Gd prefers will beat all contenders.
Apart from the pleasure of reading Koen’s neatly balanced post, and of seeing a comment from Sam G., the most interesting point here is Marco’s mention of how Stephen Bax’ research progresses. Must visit.
LikeLike
Sorry Koen, let me add a nicer sounding comment.
When I hear that someone has a ‘theory’ or as Marco sweetly puts it ‘a working hypothesis’, my first instinct is to read the evidence from which that hypothesis emerged.
When the theory relates to cryptography or linguistics, it’s easy, transparent and the lines of investigation are beautifully clear (right or wrong).
.. and I’ll stop there.
LikeLike
Koen,One last note.
Anyone who has been involved in this study knows that if one wishes to have an essay written on the subject of the ‘fake; theory it is wrong – in every sense – to ask some other writer with insufficient knowledgr of the manuscript to cobble together some effort to duplicate Rich’s original theory.
That this should have been done at all – and even, frankly, that Rene should be so presumptuous on his own site – I find quite infra dig. The theory is Rich’s. He is the expert on the evidence and argument. He should be the person invited to write the paper – otherwise, it could look like an effort to launder stolen goods through a third party.
Wouldn’t want that sort of reputation, myself, and I daresay no-one else would seek it either.
Rich – you have my sincere sympathy. (and Koen, knowing what a peace-loving man you are, if you chose not to publish this, I shan’t mind. It’s your space.)
LikeLike
Diane, comments get published here automatically so no worries. I trust in people’s own judgement. It’s good to see that you still come by once in a while, and thanks for noting my attempt at balance 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mr Koen, please allow me to chime in to congratulate your unbiased and neutral moderation of such a dense dialog
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you, Diane. You are correct this all went dangerously off topic, but the point you note… someone deciding for me that my theory was dead, without allowing my own input… started with the fact that I was mentioned by name, in the intro of the very book Koen was reviewing.
So I share your concern, and offer that as an explanation, and also thank Koen for letting me address it here.
LikeLike
As promised, I’ve written a careful rebuttal to Rene’s claims, in print and on the web, and here, that my Modern Forgery theory has been “disproven”. As you used your page, “NO FAKE” to back up your assertions, Rene, and since that page is to my knowledge the sum total of your “NO FAKE” argument, I have addressed your points in it… referencing Koen’s blog here, and your “disproved” comment in the Skinner book, as the reason this is necessary:
http://www.santa-coloma.net/voynich_drebbel/general/Rebuttal.docx
LikeLike
Hi Rich, that’s quite some rebuttal. After having read it, my opinion remains the same. You’ll have to hope for some very strong, direct evidence being found in order to prove your theory. Until then most people, including myself, will probably accept that the VM is a genuine historical document. The carbon dating points to genuinely old vellum, and to go from there to Voynich using a blank stack of sheets is, as things stand now, a leap of faith.
On the other hand, I do of course agree that a number of commonly held beliefs are passed off far too often as facts, which I understood to be the main point of your text. This is a problem I run into as well, so I can sympathize.
LikeLike
Koen!
“… that’s quite some rebuttal. After having read it, my opinion remains the same. You’ll have to hope for some very strong, direct evidence being found in order to prove your theory.”
Of course… and the purpose of my rebuttal was not specifically to promote my own theory, or convince you nor anyone. The purpose was to rebut Rene’s claims that forgery was “disproven”, and that it was by the points he listed. It is important to me that the door to alternatives to the projection by Rene/Beinecke are not shut, certainly not on the grounds they present… when examined closely, they are really not that good.
Good enough to convince you it is still genuine, OK. But not proof. And it will help others, I hope, outside of any believers in my theory, to know the projection is flawed, and not proven. You might feel it is genuine, and a 100 years out from the C14, for instance… or of that time, but not Northern European… or of that time, and genuine, but not owned by Rudolf II, or the book described in the Letters… and so on, you get the idea: Don’t give up on alternatives, just because anyone tries to tell you they KNOW what the Voynich is, and they KNOW what the Voynich is not. They don’t know anymore than you or I. Furthermore, everything, and everyone, should stand scrutiny for their claims, or those claims should be viewed as suspect. Questioning, discussion… argument even… is vital to solve the question, and even to question ourselves.
Because one-sided discussions are not really discussions at all, they are simply preaching, and we have churches for that.
LikeLike
With that I can only agree 🙂
LikeLike
Koen, there was a blip which lost part of the comment above. I’ll add it again and ask if you could remove the first, if convenient.
Koen, further to your comment on Nick Pelling’s blog that the Voynich ms may not only be – as I hold – a work of the pre-Christian era maintained outside Europe before about the middle of the thirteenth- to early fourteenth centuries – but as I think you believe, a classical(?) text recovered/obtained by Latins by the early decades of the fifteenth century, I thought I might quote a little from the Etymologiae.
I have already quoted most of this passage when explaining my opinion that the drawing at the top of one of the folios represent a non-European (and thus non-classical Mediterranean) description of a five-elements’ system.
I’ve also given some of my reasons for thinking its source may be Manichaean. However –
and with the proviso given that copies of the Etymologies, or extracts from it were the most common medieval text apart from the Vulgate, here is the critical bit (sorry can’t include the diacritics):
“Concerning the Elements : HYLE is the Greek word for a certain primary material of things, directly formed in no shape, but capable of all bodily forms, from which these visible elements are shaped, and it is from this derivation that they get their names. This HYLE the Latins have called “matter,” materia , because although altogether form-less, that from which anything is made is always termed “matter.”
[Here’s the vital bit..]
For this reason also poets have named it “timber,” silva, not inappropriately, because materials, materiae, are of timber.
The Greeks, however, have named the elements STOICHEIA.
—
Now, what you see in the ‘5-elements’ diagram calls on this same parallel conception of the elements as both formless AND ‘like timber’, and while I have not really looked terribly hard to find whether or not the custom of likening the raw material from which the elements came to ‘silva’ was maintained in any Latin medieval imagery, Isidore himself does suggest that it was a custom of old – and specifically of the pre-Christian era, and even then one limited to poets (rather than the scholars or writers of prose).
Of course, everyone who copied or read Isidore’s paragraph through the period from his time to the fifteenth century (and later) would have known about that idea, but I have yet to find a single medieval Latin work which uses that expession in imagery; the norm is an angular geometric diagram having four elements as the world’s building blocks.
Admittedly this detail of the 5-elements as hyle/silva is just one grain on the scales – but it is one of a great many that I had recognised before giving my opinion( in 2010) that the foundation for the manuscript’s content – to judge by the imagery and page-layout – is Hellenistic, with a first major phase of additions which date to between the 1st-3rdC AD. This stratum is chiefly evidenced in the ‘leaf-and-root’ section but also of course the style of the ‘bathy-‘ section’s tyche-crowned figures.
Details of this sort, and the fact that the information conveyed and the way it is conveyed (i.e. the visual language employed) are *both* consistent with what we now know from post-1930 archaeology and textual studies (not in Voynichland so much as in the wider world), had convinced me early, as they still do, that the content in this manuscript’s imagery cannot be an invention of any medieval Latin ‘author’ and, too, that it cannot be supposed all an expression of medieval Latins’ knowledge or worldview.
My observations and conclusions,as you will know, did not prove terribly popular online so far as responses would seem to show, but then I wasn’t always diplomatic in rejecting illfounded theories, either, regardless of how long or how determinedly (or successfully) promoted. So friction on both sides. 🙂
LikeLike
Diane
I can’t disagree about your diplomacy skills 😉 Though of course in an ideal world, straightforward communication would be all we need.
About my comments on Nick’s post, I mean “undocumented transmission” in a broad sense. I started using the term hoping that people will start realizing that there are other possible forms of transmission than those most commonly referred to.
There’s something which really bothered me there. Nick finds it completely plausible that the “Voynich author” saw a one of a kind manuscript and copied and expanded upon it. But he *cannot* imagine the same scenario where that one of a kind manuscript has been lost to the ages. The reason why I wrote this thought experiment in his comments is to show how naive his rejection of undocumented transmission is.
As to my ideas at the moment, I still largely agree with you. One key difference is that I think the *original* documents, or at least part of them, had been designed for perhaps a more bookish/educated audience than you have in mind. But this is only about the original composition, which appears to have had a strong didactic intention. To teach a person with an average “Greek” education about less average things.
As far as I understand, you’d think this unlikely and believe the transmission has always been in a practical context, among “professionals”. (It’s hard to find the right words here, I hope you understand what I mean).
Let’s say that I think only the base layer is half-classical, and references to for example Ovidian myth are possible. But I follow you on the later evolution of the material and its likely route of transmission.
While I still favor the Roman period, I think the large plants have an older origin. I remember you believe that they were altered later, but could you remind me again where you place their origin?
About the elements and timber, I must say that I was skeptical at first but it’s growing on me. It would really be a good explanation for the bow.
LikeLike
Koen,
I think there has to be a reason for older material’s preservation and transmission, even if in writing, but for imagery’s being preserved and transmitted with so very little alteration that it remains legible in the original (non-Latin) visual language there has to be a most pressing reason. It simply wasn’t the practice of the Latins, or of the ‘Greeks’ or the Islamic hegemony to maintain untranslated imagery which spoke in the language of other cultures and times.
‘Translation’ was absolutely normal, and perfectly understandable. An image is a made thing which is meant to convey information through form and line: closely analogous to the way in which written communication does. Until the modern era, and chiefly in the western industrialised world, the image was a means to communicate shared ideas and culture with the audience; it was not perceived as the means for an individual to express their private emotions and feelings or to attack/’challenge’ the viewer.
As example of translation – the story of Troy survives, but Priam, Hector, and all the rest are shown in clothing, and gesture, and face and emblems (crown and so forth) just like a medieval Latins. Naturally enough. The imagery had to be legible, just as the text did.
But the Voynich imagery isn’t speaking ‘Latin’ except in a few late additions which are identified easily enough: they are the very few items over which newcomers (and some oldies) obsess – because in the great mass of items which simply don’t make sense in those terms, these are the very few that nearly do.. : the ‘castle’ (which isn’t); the archer (whose bow is Spanish and whose costume is a bizarre, but probably not a-historical combination of Aegean, Byzantine and probably Catalan; the supposed ‘zodiac’ – again, which isn’t.
But the important issue, for me, was why the imagery should be still so clearly communicating in its earlier visual language and the answer came down to two things: first, it hadn’t been long enough within the Latins’ horizon for the translation to occur and, secondly, that the information contained in the imagery had such intrinsic value that it had been maintained outside Latin Europe over centuries fairly much intact.
Purpose.. and a purpose to the compilation as we have it. What the disparate sources had in common comes down to Hellenistic origin, and relevance to the east-to-west trade. The three sections of the manuscript are (1) the map (2) the botanical section with associated leaf-and-root section and (3) the ‘ladies’ pages. The environment in which (2) was preserved was markedly different from that in which (3) was preserved. But someone knew enough to bring them together around.. well, not later than the mid-twelfth century. And they brought them together for a purpose. The information is technical; it’s explicable in terms of Latin interests during the late thirteenth to early fourteenth centuries. ‘Nuff said.
LikeLike
Thank you, Diane. That does make a lot of sense. I admit that some of the things I propose would not have been understood (I think by anyone) after, say, the fourth century.
An example is the Silenus/Pan profile in the tendril on f17v. See this thread for a recent discussion: https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-2044.html
It is appropriate to have such a vine-crowned Dionysian figure there, if the message was “this plant is like the vines you know”. BUT this visual communication would only be relevant for someone used to such imagery. Bearded, vine-crowned, stub-nosed hedonists disappear from the record after the 4th century, though mosaics and other “visible” art forms have been preserved.
So clearly it cannot have been invented by someone during the middle ages. Medievals are quite predictable as to the kinds of images they like and understand. The more “translations” I see, the more I agree with you on this matter.
I do think the images were copied only a few times. Otherwise there would have been more erosion. Even when the intention of the scribe is to make a faithful copy, little mistakes or adaptations accumulate over time and successive copies.
On the other hand though, if the scribe was skilled at making precise copies, then it didn’t matter whether every aspect of the drawings was still understood, only that the assignment was to make an exact copy. If, as you say, the images were preserved because of their value, then it doesn’t matter if certain cultural aspects were no longer understood after a while. I’d think this is unavoidable if no translation takes place. That after a while some significance of details is lost.
On the matter of the castle, I also agree. It’s a walled city. This representation is not that uncommon, since on charts and maps there are plenty of cities which look like castles (to us). Like on the Catalan Atlas. I even think the “swallowtail merlons” aren’t single merlons at all, but rather complete towers drawn in a perspective where one corner faces the viewer. I haven’t written yet about that I think they aren’t Ghibelline merlons since it would almost feel like bullying 😉
Anyway, your identification as Byzantium looks plausible.
By the way, I don’t know to what extent you still check your gmail, but I just sent you something 🙂
LikeLike
Koen, Forgive me if I don’t accept the ‘tendril portrait’ won’t you? And thanks for mentioning the email. That address only served the voynichimagery blog, and after having let all my correspondents know it wouldn’t be used again, I haven’t looked at it. Will do so.
LikeLike