Archive of
communications of the Journal Of Voynich Studies
Index of
Subjects in all Volumes
Vol. I, 2007
1
From : Berj N. Ensanian <>
Sent : Monday, February 26, 2007 1:34 AM
To : journalvs@highstream.net
Subject : J.VS: Beginnings
Hello to All
I thought it a good idea to comment very briefly, for the record, on
the beginnings of the Journal Of Voynich Studies.
J.VS came out of private email exchanges between myself, Greg, Jan, and
Dennis / N3ZCK. These emails concerned the growing need
for a Voynich study forum focused on precision approaches to the
Voynich manuscript problem and its associated valid fields, with
the forum restricted to such a focus, and not encumbered with
smorgasboard Voynich interests, however valid. Jan, Greg, and I, have
been variously active members of the venerable Voynich Manuscript
Mailing List.
In looking over the many email exchanges that resulted in the founding
of J.VS I have determined that the de facto birthdate is 23 FEB
2007. We have been busy setting up the temporary mechanics for
operation, presently they are manual rather than automated, but we
have now put together sufficent mechanics to return to actual Voynich
study and try out the mechanics and fine tune them, while also
working toward an efficient automated communications system.
It is a rather complicated challenge setting up something like this.
Each of the four of us, located in widely different parts of our Earth,
thought of critical things that were necessary to get started. I
sincerely thank Jan, Dennis, and Greg, (age before beauty :) for being
inspiring in addition to being effective.
It is my sincerest hope that J.VS will gather the energies of the best
Voynich students in the world, and through their combined efforts
build a communications circuit and Journal that will answer admirably
the most advanced requirements of this fascinating field of study.
Thank you.
Berj / KI3U
CM J.VS
EPI, Northwestern Pennsylvania
******************
2
From : Jan Hurych <>
Sent : Monday, February 26, 2007 4:35 PM
To : journalvs@highstream.net
Subject : J.VS: Welcoming the Journal
I would like to welcome the Journal and wish it a good start and
Godspeed,
Jan
********************
3
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 23:51:13 +0100
From: Greg Stachowski <>
To: "J.VS:" <
journalvs@highstream.net >
Subject: J.VS: Re: Beginnings
A new standard in on-line research publication, and a return to the old
values of Voynich research. Here's to the future of the J.VS,
may it be long and fruitful.
Greg Stachowski
******************
4
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 02:23:58 -0500
From: "Berj N. Ensanian" <>
To: journalvs@highstream.net
Subject: J.VS: Just Latin, or something more? - Marci vs
Marcus vs Marcius etc.
I have noticed that among the 38 "Marci letters" addressed to Athanasius
Kircher, S.J., that we know of, the name / signature of our
person-of-interest "Joannes Marcus Marci" appears in a great variety of
guises.
For example: J Marcus Marci, Joannes Marci Marci + sine
Is this merely unimportant switching between different language writing
forms, say between Latin and Czech, or are there two persons "Marci" ?
This question adds to the analytic problems already encountered with the
Marci letters - which are original and which are copies, who exactly
wrote
them, who exactly signed them, when were the letters, or their
components,
penned, what is the significance of the presence or absence of the
monogrammatic sine along with a particular signature, why are there some
major differences among the sines, what is the significance of the
arm-star
diagram on one of the letters [1], are any of the watermarks
significant,
and how does Marci's alleged throughout-life-steadily-deteriorating
eyesight
square with the penmanship?
And of course, Marci's "last letter to Kircher" is the main pillar upon
which the standard history of the Nine Rosettes Manuscript rests, as
originally given by Wilfrid M. Voynich; and that history has been very
problematic from the beginning on to this day, for its inability to
generate
much in the way of illuminating the overall mystery. Nevertheless, a key
element in the standard history is a supposed connection between the
manuscript and Fr. Athanasius Kircher, S.J.
Of the 38 letters, 37 are in the archive of the Pontifical Gregorian
University of Rome (APUG), and one, the so-called "last Marci letter",
written on apparently quite different paper from the others, is the
letter
that Wilfrid M. Voynich said he found with the Voynich manuscript, and
it is
today together with the VMS at the Beinecke Library of Yale University.
[2]
I think that it is quite possible that Marci wrote other letters to
Kircher
that are yet to be discovered: the known letters have conspicuous gaps
in
the long time period that Marci and Kircher corresponded with each
other.
They were friends.
I have not been able to find a discussion concerning that "Marci Marci"
could be a simple substitute for "Marcus Marci" or "Marcius Marci" and
that
the difference is indisputably trivial relative to our concerns and
points
to a less dramatic possibility than: two different persons, or, say,
some
form of secret signalling by one and the same Marci. In light of the
other
analytic problems mentioned above, I would be interested in reading some
opinions on this.
We generally think of "Joannes Marcus Marci", but in surveying the
letters
we find also: Joannis, Jo, J. and more variations in the components of
the
name as scripted.
From the addressing side of some letters it appears that Marci would
also
use the Latin abbreviation "9" = "us" : Marc9 Marci = Marcus Marci
In some cases I am not sure if it is "Marcus" or "Marcas".
To look into this systematically, we need an inventory of the Marci
letters,
focusing on the signatures. I constructed the TABLE 1 following from two
sources. [5]
TABLE 1
The 38 Marci letters with brief observations on the signatures:
1640's:
3 August 1640 APUG 557 124r : J Marcus Marci + sine
12 September 1640 APUG 557 127r : Joannes Marcus Marci + sine
12 January 1641 APUG 557 64r : Joannes Marcius Marci + sine
2 March 1641 APUG 557 92r : Joannes Marcus Marci + sine
5 October 1641 APUG 557 65r : J Marcus Marci + sine
25 January 1642 APUG 557 82r & v : J. Marcus Marci + sine
15 March 1642 APUG 557 71r : J Marcus Marci + sine
10 May 1642 APUG 557 69r : J Marcus Marci + sine
6 December 1642 APUG 557 86r : J Marcus Marci + sine
28 March 1643? APUG 557 88r : J Marcus Marci
19 September 1643 APUG 557 107r : J Marcus Marci + sine
7 November 1643 APUG 557 90r : J Marcus Marci + sine
28 November 1643 APUG 557 102r : not available
26 December 1643 APUG 557 105r : J Marcus Marci + sine
13 February 1644 APUG 557 104r : J Marcus Marci + sine
3 September 1644 APUG 557 113r : J Marcus Marci + sine
29 October 1644 APUG 557 115r : J. Marcus Marci + sine
25 February 1645 APUG 557 111r : J. Marcus Marci + sine
10 June 1645 APUG 557 116r : ?Marcus Marci + sine
10 March 1646 APUG 557 120r : Joannes Marcus Marci + sine
8 September 1646 APUG 557 117r & v : Joannes Marci Marci + sine
8 September 1646 APUG 557 100r & v : D. Doctoris Joannis Marci Marci
Protomedici - (not a signature)
29 December 1646 APUG 557 128r : J Marcus Marci + sine
15 August 1647 APUG 557 109r : Jo Marcus Marci + sine
11 July 1648 APUG 557 84r : J Marcus Marci + sine
19 March 1649 APUG 557 118r : JM. Marci + sine
1650's:
23 July 1650 APUG 557 122r : J. Marcus Marci
5 August 1650? arm-star letter APUG 557 130r : J M Marci + sine
10 December 1650 APUG 557 123r & v : ambiguous images, but tending
to
support J Marcus Marci + sine
GAP
8 March 1653 APUG 557 126r : Jo Marcus Marci
9 July 1655? APUG 557 97r : JM Marci
7 August 1655 APUG 557 94r : J Marcus Marci
October 1655 APUG 557 95r : J Marcus Marci
11 December 1655 APUG 557 96r : J. Marcus Marci
GAP
19 August 1658? APUG 557 99r : Jo Marcus Marci
23 February 1659? APUG 557 62r : Jo . Marcus Marci + sine
GAP
1660's:
10 September 1665 APUG 562 114r : Joannes Marcus Marci a Cronland
19 August 1666? Beinecke 408A : Joannes Marcus Marci a Cronland .
One can get the impression that something akin to Ligatura
Steganographia is
operative in the signatures and sines. [3]
We lack solid data on the dimensions of the letters, and therefore on
the
size of the signatures. I have previously suggested that we might look
closely at the hands in these letters toward the possibility that a
woman
did some of the writing, and perhaps it is the same hypothetical woman
who
wrote some of the Voynich text of Beinecke MS 408. [4]
Eliciting some comments on that intriguing thought was really the main
motivation for this communication.
Berj / KI3U
[1] vms-list thread: VMs: The arm-star diagram on APUG 557 130v;
Thursday,
February 15, 2007 10:05 AM
http://www.gameszoo.org/voynichmonkeys/viewthread.php?gr=1&root=7846&num=7846&numre=43#m7846
[2] images of Marci's last letter to Kircher are reproduced in
D'Imperio's
book, in the 1928 Newbold-Kent book "The Cipher Of Roger Bacon", and
online;
for example, Dana Scott has different images of it:
http://www.voynich.us/
[3] vms-list post: Re: VMs: Possible Voynich text in a Kircherr letter;
Monday, February 19, 2007 5:51 PM
http://www.gameszoo.org/voynichmonkeys/viewthread.php?gr=1&root=7944&num=7944&numre=7#m7944
[4] vms-list post: Re: VMs: The Mysterious Miss Nill; Wednesday,
February
21, 2007 8:52 PM
http://www.gameszoo.org/voynichmonkeys/viewthread.php?gr=1&root=7517&num=7981&numre=64#m7981
[5] I used the old handwritten indexes:
"TOMUS IIIus continet Epistolas Litteratorum Externorum" : APUG 557 1v
and
2r
"INDEX Literarum et Rerum in Tomo 8uo contentarum" : APUG 562 1v
Note that in these it is always "Marci Marci".
I also used the list of the Marci letters constructed by Philip Neal:
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/philipneal_vms/
To directly view an APUG image, say APUG 557 118r, construct the url as
follows:
http://archimede.imss.fi.it/kircher/557/large/118r.jpg
Background information on these images, as well as the much larger
scope of
the Athanasius Kircher Correspondence Project, is online here:
http://193.206.220.68/kircher/
**********************************
5
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 00:48:47 +0100
From: Greg Stachowski <>
To: "J.VS:" <
journalvs@highstream.net >
Subject: J.VS: Re: Just Latin, or something more? - Marci vs
Marcus vs Marcius etc.
Having now had time to think about it, it seems to me that what you
term 'sine' are examples of 'manu propria' [1], that is marks
indicating that the letter was written by Marci himself (or at least
directly verified by him), whereas the others were written indirectly
on his behalf by scribes or secretaries. This is also consistent with
most of the signatures both without manu propria and showing more
variation in style being later in his life. An analysis of the
handwriting (which I don't have time to do at the moment) should
confirm
all this.
The 'Marci Marci' is simply the genitive case (that is, possessive). In
each case it should be read as 'of Marcus Marci', for example:
" Ex Libris D. Doctoris Johannis Marci Marci " (APUG 557 f100r)
is
" From the books of D. Doctor Johannes Marcus Marci ".
Similarly in the indexes, where the implied meaning is "[Letter of]
Marcus Marci", or, more naturally in English, "Marcus Marci's letter".
Greg
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manu_propria
*****************************
6
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 08:16:14 +0100
From: Greg Stachowski <>
To: "J.VS:" <
journalvs@highstream.net >
Subject: J.VS: Re: Just Latin, or something more? - Marci vs
Marcus vs Marcius etc.
My apologies, the text on APUG 557 f100r is of course
" Ex Literis D. Doctoris Johannis Marci Marci "
not "Ex Libris ..."; "from the letters" rather than "from the books".
Of course, the rest (genitive case) is the same.
Greg
*************************
7
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 04:44:40 -0800 (PST)
From: Jan Hurych <>
To: journalvs@highstream.net
Subject: J.VS: Re: Just Latin, or something more? - Marci vs
Marcus vs Marcius etc.
I would like to summarize here the background of the problem, which may
appear to non-regular student of Voynich Manuscript (in
short the VM) as only marginal. It goes however to he core of the
existing provenance of the VM, which was lately compromised by
new discoveries.
The Voynich manuscript was found in villa Frascati in Italy and was
bought by Wilfrid M. Voynich, the antique dealer and scholar. It
was originally there as a part of Jesuit scholar Athanasius Kircher's
collection and it was found together (tied together?) with the letter
from Ioannes Marcus Marci, once a rector of Prague University. The
letter was confirming that the Manuscript was once in Prague and
was sent by Marci to Kircher as a gift. Also, Voynich later found in
the manuscript (invisible, but revealed under ultraviolet light) the
erased name of Jacobus de Tepenec, famous Prague Court official and
later the heytman of the Melnik castle and county.
So far the provenance and those two items were - until recently -
considered the only iron-clad facts about the VM. Since the author,
the script and the language of the VM was not known (and still is not),
it was popularly called the Voynich manuscript.
Later, however, the facts started to appear throwing some doubts on
those facts as well. Should the letter was not found tied with the
manuscript but elsewhere, both items would not support each other in
the provenance and there will be no proof that Marci's letter is
talking about our VM manuscript. The only confirmation would be the
erased name of Horczicky connecting it to Prague, but we do
not have any other proof either. So the other options still open: the
letter may be talking about another manuscript and the whole
provenance may fall apart,
The doubts I mentioned are now supported by two finds: the letter was
not written in Marci's hand and after the recent discovery of
Horczicky's signature in Prague, by joint efforts of Rafal Prinke and
Peter Kazil ( supported by another sample of the signature found
in Melnik archive) lead to investigation of the one in teh VM. We are
now almost certain that the name of Horczicky, hidden in the
VM, was not written in Horcizcky's hand.
There may be some acceptable explanations for both cases but again,
they are only indirectly supported and questionable as well. The
name of Tepenec could have been written there by anybody, say the
archiver (or even by Kircher). However, we know that Horczicky
had a habit to exlibris his books in his own hand (Prague signature is
actually his exlibris and Melnik signature is his official
signature). The doubts are also supported by the fact hat the signature
was found already erased - or to look like it was erased. The
research in this problem might follow, thanks to excellent scans of the
VM by Beinecke library (the scans are on the Net), but until
more facts are found, we seem to be at standstill.
The only opened avenue is of course Marci's letter and again, it is not
written in his hand. The explanation may be that - according to
Czech sources - Marci was losing his eyesight and eventually went
completely blind. That would explain while the letter was written
by somebody else, apparently his scribe. But again, it might have been
written by anybody, even after Marci's death. So only verifiable
detail there is Marci's signature, which Marci always used to confirm
by his "sine" next to his name. To make things more
complicated, that particular letter has no "sine".
For the above reasons, the collection of other Marci's letters in
Carteggio Kircheriana at the Gregorian University in Rome (again, the
scans are on Internet) by Berj Ansanian. I consider his work very
important for the provenance of the VM and I anxiously following
his results.
Jan Hurych
References:
1) The VM, Wikipedia summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voynich_Manuscript
2) Fletcher, John E. "Johann Marcus Marci writes to Athanasius
Kircher", Janus, 59 (1972)
* * * * *
Correction communicated to J.VS by Jan Hurych 28 FEB 2007:
"For the above reasons, the collection of other Marci's letters in
Carteggio Kircheriana at the Gregorian University in Rome (again, the
scans are on Internet) was studied by Berj Ensanian. I consider his
work very important for the provenance of the VM and I am
anxiously following his results."
***********************
8
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 01:02:08 -0500
From: "Berj N. Ensanian" <>
To: journalvs@highstream.net
Subject: J.VS: Re: Just Latin, or something more? - Marci vs
Marcus vs Marcius etc.
I think that directly, or indirectly, we are saying that we believe
that the
last two Marci letters:
10 September 1665 APUG 562 114r : Joannes Marcus Marci a Cronland
19 August 1666? Beinecke 408A : Joannes Marcus Marci a Cronland .
were neither written, nor signed by Joannes Marcus Marci, the friend of
Kircher, but that it appears that these two letters were at least
signed by
the same hand. And, we really do not know if Marci was cognizant that
these
two letters were written. Of course it is possible that he directed
them to
be written on his behalf, because he was unable due to poor health and
eyesight or something.
The outstanding difference between these two letters is that the 10
September 1665 letter was among Kircher's papers, and was recorded as
existing in Kircher's papers when the old TOMO 8uo INDEX was penned
(APUG
562 1r & v).
In that index (APUG 562 1v), the entry for this letter (APUG 562 114r)
reads:
Joannis Marci Marci . Praga 10 Septembris 1665
The letter itself is signed Joannes, not Joannis, and also it includes
the
"a Cronland".
In the old indexes there is quite a lot of variation in how letters are
recorded. It would take a lot of work to go over it all and see if
there are
any possible peculiarities of interest to us.
However, aside from the difference in paper the two letters were writen
on,
the similarity of the hands between these last two Marci letters is a
strong
case for: a "Marci letter" long extant in Kircher's papers, and the
"Marci
letter" that Voynich found with the ms, and of which there is no other
record that we know of, appear to have a connection - the person who
penned
them. (Discounting the thought that the 19 August letter is a fake by
someone, sometime, somewhere.)
So far, that is old territory. Lets try to go further.
Now, the writing, and the signatures in these letters is quite small.
As is
the writing in the VMS. Do we have any strong logical reasons why it is
impossible, or highly improbable, that whoever penned these letters also
penned some parts of the Voynich manuscript? A woman perhaps?
What do we know about the women in Marci's life? Wife, sister, daughter,
housekeeper, friend ?
Berj
***************************
9
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 07:45:01 -0800 (PST)
From: Jan Hurych <>
To: journalvs@highstream.net
Subject: J.VS: Re: Just Latin, or something more? - Marci vs
Marcus vs Marcius etc.
In regard to Marci's last letter ( I called it " last ", since no later
letter to Kircher was found, irregardless the fact he died on
10.4.1667)
I went back to the book of Mary d"Imperio " The Voynich manuscript - An
Elegant Enigma " and found another interesting doubts.
In Chapter 1.1. of the above book it is said " a letter, found between
the pages of the manuscript " while in Chapter2.1 is quoted
Voynich himself:
" It was not until some time after the manuscript came into my hands
that I read the document bearing the date 1665 (or 1666), which
was attached to the cover. Because of this late date I had regarded it
as of no consequence and therefore neglected it during the first
examination of the manuscript ".
We can assume that Voynich description is more accurate and the other
statement, the letter " being found between the pages " was
apparently only the figure of speech and not a reference to other
description of the event. Similarly, the statement " tied to the
manuscript " that I we can see sometimes quoted on Net, is probably
just a figure of speech.
It makes for the whole difference where and how the letter was found -
inserting of the letter inside the manuscript could have been
done any time later while the attaching of the letter to manuscript
could have been done be even by Kircher himself.
The quite important is also the fact that Voynich haven't read the
letter before his examination of the VM (but he did see the date :-).
In
another quote by Voynich in the above book (Chapter 2.1) he claims that
he did the brief examination and the " the vellum, the
calligraphy, the drawings and the pigment suggested to me as the date
of its origin the latter part of the thirteenth century ". He further
asserts he was thinking right away about Roger Bacon and was surprised
when he later read the letter also confirmed the name.
So Mr. Voynich admits he read the letter much later. It is however hard
to believe that the expert as he was was not looking into the
letter first. The curiosity aside, he surely must have read the letter
before he was buying the VM - the price of the manuscript depends
on its provenance. The find of the letter attached right to the book
was an event the anriquarists were only dreaming of. Why it was
necessary to mention that he first thought about it and then it was
confirmed by the letter? To enforce the rumor about Bacon
mentioned in the letter - or was it just a interesting coincidence
worth mentioning?
As for other data in the book (Chapter 2,1), d'Imperio concludes that
the VM " must have come into Marci's possession sometime
before 1644 ", since Marci talked about it with Mr. Missowski who died
in that year. However, Marcimight have known about the Vm
before he inhereted it. He stated in his letter that "This book,
bequeathed to me by an intimate friend, I destined for you, my very
dear
Athanasius, as soon as it came into my possession... " True, he did not
say exactly when he got it, but it must have been after
Barschius sent his first (or even after his second) letter to Kircher,
since Marci says in his letter " The former owner of this book once
asked your opinion by letter ".
Those two letters were sent by Barschiusint 1637 and 1639
respectively). And Marci surely got the VM after Barschius's death,
estimated by Rene Zandbergen as being " before 1662 " (and it is a
general consensus that it was not too much before). Marci then
owned the VM for some short time and apparently tried to solve it (he
did some decrypting works before). It would be interesting if
we can find his scribbles in the VM .
The situation is more complex since Marci knew Barschius since " before
1622 " (as per Rene) and they were friends, therefore Marci
could have seen the VM soon after that date. In the same year,
Horczicky died and it is also the latest date he could have had the VM
in his possession. Marci surely did not have the manuscript in 1640,
when he was with Kircher in Rome (says John Manly). Moreover,
Marci did not say the year when he got the VM, he only said that since
that day he destined to Kircher, not that he really sent it as
soon as he got it. Apparently, when he lost his eyesight, the VM had no
use for him. The dating of the letter fits closely to the time he
lost his sight, that is shortly before he died.
Note: D'Imperio apparently did not know about the name ' Barschius ',
since she mentions that Manly suggests Marci got the VM
from Miserone, his father in law. As for Voynich, there is a good
possibility he knew about Barschius - he corresponded with Czech
archives. Or he could have got the name from Marci's book " Philosophia
vetus restituta " (1662).
References:
1) Mary d"Imperio " The Voynich manuscript - An Elegant Enigma ",
Aegean Park Press
2) The translation of the last Marci's letter by Tiltman (as published
in the above book)
3) The Internet website of René Zandbergen, http://www.voynich.nu/
jbh/jan
*************************
10
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 19:56:49 -0500
From: "Berj N. Ensanian" <>
To: journalvs@highstream.net
Subject: J.VS: Letters to Kircher by Baresch and Marci
Standard VMS history identifies M. Georgius Baresch as an owner, post-
de
Tepenec / Horcizcky / Sinapius, of the book now residing at the Yale
Beinecke Library as MS 408, our manuscript. [1]
How positive is this identification of Baresch as an owner of the book?
I have some fair attack-questions designed to probe the precision and
solidity of the indentification.
Among Athanasius Kircher's papers at the Pontifical Gregorian
University of
Rome (PUG), is recorded a letter to him, written in Prague, on 27 April
1639, by one M. Georgy Baresch. [2]
The actual letter, signed "M. Georgius Baresch", exists in the archives
of
the PUG. [3]
In this letter Baresch tells Kircher that the letter is being delivered
to
Kircher by one Fr. Moretum, S.J.
Baresch says that a year and a half earlier (therefore in 1637), he
sent to
Kircher a careful transcript of portions of an old book of unknown
symbols.
And Fr. Moretum has seen the transcript.
Now, in standard Voynich ms history, it is proposed that Baresch, a
friend
of Marci, is in this 1639 letter talking about our manuscript.
We have no other letters from Baresch to Kircher. The first letter from
Marci to Kircher that we know of, is dated not quite a year and a half
after
the Baresch letter: 3 August 1640. [4]
The critical last Marci letter to Kircher (1665 or 1666) [5] mentions a
friend that Marci received the book from (the book that Marci is now, in
1665 or 1666, sending to Kircher), but Marci does not name that friend.
I am interested in stimulating commentary on these questions:
1.) Baresch in his letter introduces the subject of the transcript (he
wants
Kircher to solve it) by first starting off paying homage to Kircher's
ability to read the "Sphinx" of Coptic (Kircher has become famous for
that), and pointing out that Kircher, in his famous 1636 book, Prodromus
coptus sive aegyptiacus, invites readers to send him additional
(similar?)
material to work on.
It seems to me that Baresch implies that the transcript he has sent
Kircher
is similar to Coptic script.
How does this square with the VMS script, which is not at all similar to
Coptic script?
The individual VMS glyphs are not even mysterious - they are common,
even if
only as ligatures, in European writing, at the time-of-interest. The
anomalous character of the VMS script derives from its alphabet being
constructed of those particular glyphs, not because the glyphs by
themselves
are particularly strange.
Why would anybody, Baresch for instance, think that the challenge of
deciphering Voynich script involves advanced and inspired knowledge of
ancient Coptic?
2.) Baresch tells Kircher that the mysterious book (which Baresch has
partly
transcribed) was uselessly taking up space in his library.
But Marci, in his last letter to Kircher, says that the former owner of
the
"Sphynxes" book devoted unflagging toil in trying to decipher it (he was
unsuccessful), and reliquished hope only with his life.
In standard VMS history, if the VMS provenance hypothesis has:
Baresch = the former owner of the book that Marci mentions in the last
Marci-to-Kircher letter
then how does one reconcile the book uselessly taking up space in
Baresch's
library, with Baresch unflaggingly toiling unto death over it?
Or, is it hypothesized that there is another owner of the book between
Baresch and Marci?
3.) In his letter Baresch conjectures that the mysterious book's
subject is
totally of medical essence, and he mentions the book's numerous herbal
pictures, and diverse images, and stars, and apparently chemical
secrets.
As I have written before, altogether one can get the impression that
Baresch
is talking about an old Egyptian embalming herbs manual, perhaps a copy
of
an original, especially when one takes into consideration the
conceptions of
links between life and death in ancient Egypt.
Baresch seems to think similarly, but more along the lines of Egyptian
medical practice. He reinforces this assessment by mentioning the book's
exotic herbs, that the German intellectuals do not know of.
How can Baresch, a university-level thinker, view Voynich herbal pages
like
f2r and f52r, and think of them as exotic Egyptian, rather than just
unusual
late European medieval style alchemical herbal with symbolic content?
I believe Baresch is German. Kircher is German. So a German telling a
German
that f2r and f52r are depictions of exotic Egyptian plants?
Why doesn't Baresch specifically mention the grand dramatic nine
rosettes
foldout when he describes the book to Kircher?
I've often written that in my opinion the nine rosettes foldout is the
climax of the entire book, and it is the very first item one would
logically
mention in any characterizing description of the mysterious manuscript.
That
is why I often refer to Beinecke MS 408 as "The Nine Rosettes
Manuscript",
9RMS.
I suppose one could conjecture that Baresch subsumed the 9 rosettes
foldout
under "diverse images", or that the foldout was added to the book later
than
when Baresch wrote - that could save Baresch as an "identified" owner
of the
ms, while raising new questions and possibilities for the origin of MS
408
as we have it.
4.) Why doesn't Baresch mention the numerous unusual images of naked
women,
both in astrological diagrams, and even more unusual, in pictures with
tanks, pipes, and rainbows etc. - the so-called balneological pictures?
Is
Baresch just being discreet, and again subsuming these under "diverse
images"?
The main unifying question is: if Baresch and Marci, in their letters to
Kircher, are talking about the same book, and that book is our ms,
Beinecke
MS 408, then do the emphases of their descriptions of the book make
sense in
some way? For example, are they purposefully being vague with their
descriptions for some reason? If yes, then what reason?
Standard VMS history sometimes invokes the idea that people tricked
Kircher
with respect to manuscripts and scripts. What would be the risk, to a
fellow
Jesuit, or a non-Jesuit, in attempting to trick Athanasius Kircher?
It seems to me that the standard history of the VMS ought to have some
answers here if Baresch as "identified" book-owner is to be regarded as
a
likely reality.
Berj / KI3U
[1] Jan Hurych mentions Baresch / Barschius in another current J.VS
thread:
J.VS: Re: Just Latin, or something more? - Marci vs Marcus vs Marcius
etc.;
Thu, 1 Mar 2007 07:45:01 -0800 (PST); com. no. 9
[2] APUG 557 4v
[3] APUG 557 353r & v
[4] APUG 557 124r
[5] in the Beinecke MS 408A material.
*****************************************
11
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 13:12:45 +0100
From: Greg Stachowski <>
To: "J.VS:" <
journalvs@highstream.net >
Subject: J.VS: Re: Letters to Kircher by Baresch and Marci
Without commenting further at the moment, it seems to me that one of
the most important things to do is to find the original Baresch
transcript which he sent to KIrcher. This would confirm the later
letter, and decide the issue of Baresch's ownership once and for all.
Where is this transcript? I find it hard to believe that Kircher would
throw it away, he seems the sort to archive everything.
G.
**************************
12
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 09:11:55 -0800 (PST)
From: Jan Hurych <>
To: journalvs@highstream.net
Subject: J.VS: Re: Letters to Kircher by Baresch and Marci
It is true that we cannot positively tell that our VM if the manuscript
once owned by Bares. All we know is that Bares had some
manuscript (see his letter) and that Marci sent it to Kircher, the
manuscript I would rather call the " Prague manuscript " - since the
manuscript stayed for long time in Prague and we still have to prove it
is really the VM and both mean the same thing. All so far
presented evidence is only circumstantial or even speculative.
The appearance of the VM in Kircher's possession and Baresch sending
his Prague manuscript to him could be two different events
and their connection purely coincidental. If the samples sent by
Baresch were (apparently) lost, so could have been the Prague
manuscript. Again, only the exceptionally lucky presence of Marci's
letter makes the necessary connection between those two
manuscripts. However Marci's letter is not in Marci's hand and the
signature there can be a copy as well, the letter cannot be
considered as a scientific proof (and definitely not as a proof in the
court of law - that's why the last will also needs a witness, to
confirm the signature of the deceased, since dead man tells no tales
:-). Since we do not even know the name of the scribe, we do not
have any admissible verification. Besides, the "sine" is missing there
as well, while other Marci letters have it.
There can be objected to this that Marci and Baresch really existed,
but that does not mean the things went the way they are so far
presented in the provenance. For instance: if it is true that Marci
inherited Baresch's library, but that information could have been
known to the forger of the letter as well. As for switching the
manuscripts, there are many possible scenarios: say Kircher had in his
possession many manuscripts and he - by mistake or intent - substituted
the Prague manuscript by another one (i.e. by our VM). We
may not know the reason but the possibility was there. Or even more
credible: after Kircher's death (or during the hasty evacuation of
the Jesuit stuff from Rome), somebody found the letter and fixed it to
the manuscript by mistake. Or one really humorous story: when
selling it to Voynich, the seller knew that the VM without provenance
would not sell so well, but he happened to have one isolated
manuscript without any documentation and one letter without manuscript
. . .you get the picture.
Now back to reality: we cannot say which scenario is more possible, we
can only guess. We may even go back to believing that the
letter was attached to the manuscript by Kircher himself, even if he
forged it - who else would know that letter talks about the Prague
manuscript and not about the VM? That also makes for high possibility
for some other possibility: maybe Kircher planned to use it for
another book of his but died before he wrote it and did not tie them
together either - and by honest mistake somebody later believed
the VM is the Prague manuscript and fixed them together. All that of
course if we believe that those two were really attached when
they were found by Voynich and we have have only Voynich's word for it.
We have his own statement that he read letter only later,
after the thorough investigation of the manuscript :-). This does not
mean there was no letter at all - his public statement could have
been challenged by the seller later but it was not.
As for Baresch's letter: all we know about Baresch is that he was
educated in university (in Prague and in Sapienza, Rome), that he
was the Magister or Mister, professional chemist (meaning apparently
the 'alchemist', in Marci's book " Philosophia vetus restituta "
he is using the word 'chemist'). Also, that he was a Marci's friend (
per the same book) and spent the great part of his life trying to
solve the VM (or Prague manuscript, if you wish). When we study his
letter, we find however some very suspicious points (some of
them already pointed out by Berj):
1) He did not want Kircher to have the original so he sent only the
sample copies - even the second time when he wrote to Kircher.
He did not even sent any original pages, but the truth is some pages
are missing. Too careful or not too trusting?
2) While he did not sent the whole the original, only few lines copied,
he wanted badly for Kircher to solve the VM. How could he
believe that only few lines could suffice? Was he afraid Kircher would
solve the mystery as well?
3) He in reality did not want Kircher to find the mystery itself (we
feel he would never part with the book for that reason) otherwise he
would copy major part of the book (see above, 2)
5) He suggested medical secrets as a content and it was a poorly masked
attempt to get Kircher's attention. There is much more in the
book than some medical recipes if any. Also, he is talking about the
benefit for the people which sounds a lot like a cliche and we
feel he was more interested in the benefit for Baresch.
6) He suggested hieroglyphs and even admitted he knew Kircher wrote a
book about hieroglyphs ('Prodromus Coptus'), but the script
in the VM is not in Egyptian hieroglyphs). Again, purposeful
distortion.
7) It is obvious that the he expected some great benefit from the
mystery for himself (say transmutation of metals or even making gold
or elixir vitae). Maybe he wanted the recipe of Aqua Sinapia by
Horczicky that made Jacobus so rich, but then he would have to know
about Horczicky's ownership - or authorship - but he never told about
it to anybody.
8) He said the book only collected dust in his library to look like he
does not care but we know he was obsessed by it for years. Why
he was hiding the fact? Again, why not to send the whole book if he
would not care?
9) He suggests that author made a trip to Orient, something which was
then (and still is, for some the a synonymum for mystery :-).
10) He is smartly using Kircher's offer (in his book Kircher asked for
more material and help with his new book) as an introduction to
his letter, pretending he sends it for Kircher's benefit. However later
in the letter he is more concerned about the benefit of the mankind
(and in one place even the benefit for himself :-).
11) Baresch does not mention how he got the book. If he knew, he
apparently did not considered it useful or proper. Or he simply did
not know, not even about erased Horczicky's name there ( if the name is
not of the later date :-).
We can probably find even more there, but it is sufficient to say that
there is a lot of insincerity felt in the letter. In second part of the
letter, he even forgot what he said before. We have to admit however,
that this letter would be much better proof that the VM is
Prague Manuscript, since Baresch described something the content in
more the details the than Marci did. One can attach Marci's
letter to any unknown manuscript and its content would not raise
suspicion.Some Baresch's explanations are of course pure
inventions.
As for Marci Marci's letter: if somebody wanted to forge Marci's
letter, the Baresch's letter and some rumors would be enough
information for anybody. And closer to Marci's time, the better.
Kircher, who survived Marci (Marci died 1667, Kircher died 1680)
comes here in mind. He knew the content of Baresch's letter and from
Marci, he might have know the rumors (not via letters, but they
have met once in Rome). There is a possibility, that Kircher actually
worked on the solution and was preparing book about it. We
know he was saving all letters as well as all artifacts for his "
gallery of curiosities ", today's Museo Kircheriano.
All in all, the highest probability still rests with assumption that
Marci's letter is real and the VM is really being the " Prague
manuscript " . The conspiracy theory requires some other actions that
are more complicated and cannot be proven either. The Occam
razor rule still applies here and it is simpler to assume that pieces
nicely fit together, unless of course they were to be made to ' nicely
fit together ' :-).
Until more facts are found, we cannot prove but neither disprove the
existing provenance. We can only doubt it. But if somebody
happens to solve the VM . . .
jbh/jan
************************
13
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 22:50:20 -0500
From: "Berj N. Ensanian" <>
To: journalvs@highstream.net
Subject: J.VS: Re: Letters to Kircher by Baresch and Marci
Greg wrote in com. #11 :
" Where is this transcript? I find it hard to believe that Kircher would
throw it away, he seems the sort to archive everything. "
Indeed. And, if it is true that Baresch sent a transcript of the
mysterious
script to Kircher in 1637, and yet another one in 1639, then Kircher (d.
1680) would have known about the mysterious script, and the mysterious
book,
for more than 40 years!
But as far as I know, the single solitary only scrap of any evidence of
any
kind that Kircher was aware of the mysterious script, is the recently
discovered possible Voynich word in a draft? of a letter written by
Kircher
himself in 1664 to the astronomer Fr. Schall in China. [1]
Jan wrote in com. # 12 :
" It is true that we cannot positively tell that our VM if the
manuscript
once owned by Bares. All we know is that Bares had some manuscript (see
his letter) and that Marci sent it to Kircher, the manuscript I would
rather
call the " Prague manuscript " - since the manuscript stayed for long
time
in Prague and we still have to prove it is really the VM and both mean
the
same thing. All so far presented evidence is only circumstantial or even
speculative. "
Well we don't even know positively if the book Marci sent to Kircher is
Baresch's book. However, I agree - until positively proven otherwise,
it is
best to distingush between the "Prague manuscript", and the "Voynich
manuscript" that we know of as Beinecke MS 408.
It is remarkable that according to the standard VMS history, so many
people
are supposed to have been aware of the mysterious manuscript, yet there
is
for evidence only the problematic: the 1639 letter of Baresch, the 1665
or
1666 last letter of Marci, and the 5 January 1667 letter of Kinner:
TABLE I : Persons theoretically cognizant of the Prague ms, as
indicated by
extant handwritten letters in ()
1. M. Georgy Baresch (APUG 557 353r & v)
2. Fr. Moretum, S.J. (APUG 557 353r & v)
3. Fr. Kircher, S.J. (APUG 557 353r & v, & Beinecke MS 408A)
4. Dr. Raphael (Beinecke MS 408A)
5. Joannes Marcus Marci (Beinecke MS 408A)
6. Godefridui Aloysius Kinner (APUG 562 151r & v)
Have I left anyone out? I left Rudolf et al out because the Marci
letter is
somewhat ambiguous on that, and Baresch is silent about it. But Table I
could be fine tuned, depending on its purpose.
All these people, and possibly more, supposedly knew about the book,
but we
find no solid evidence other than the possibility of [1].
I think Kircher still is the hub of everything. His papers that exhibit
his
sine also underneath his signature, seem to be curiously rare. Here are
two
such papers:
4 March 1651 letter to Herzog (i.e. Duke) August of Wolffenbuttl
BA-II-5-353
http://diglib.hab.de/edoc/ed000005/srcBA-II-5-353.htm
30 January 1666, a formal statement of some kind?
APUG 563 259r
http://archimede.imss.fi.it/kircher/563/large/259r.jpg
Berj
[1] vms-list thread: VMs: Possible Voynich text in a Kircher letter;
Sunday,
February 18, 2007 2:31 AM
http://www.gameszoo.org/voynichmonkeys/viewthread.php?gr=1&num=7921&root=7921&numre=5#m7921
*******************************
14
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 00:47:56 -0500
From: "Berj N. Ensanian" <>
To: journalvs@highstream.net
Subject: J.VS: Re: Just Latin, or something more? - Marci vs
Marcus vs Marcius etc.
Jan, in com. # 7 you wrote:
" ... ( supported by another sample of the signature found in Melnik
archive) ... "
Can you give some details about this - I know it is all scattered out
there
somewhere, but it would be useful to have it here in this thread.
Thanks.
Berj
***********************
15
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 21:04:28 -0500
From: "Berj N. Ensanian" <>
To: journalvs@highstream.net
Subject: J.VS: Ligature double-looped symmetric gallows in a
Kircher paper
In [1] we have the only known possible candidate for a piece of Voynich
text
in Fr. Athanasius Kircher's papers (APUG 563 292r). The main problem
with
making analytic progress with it, is that it is visible only as a
bleed-through of the ink from the verso side of the paper, or it is some
kind of transfer shadow, and we have not yet located an image of its
own-side page.
We do know that it is hard to imagine any person of the 17th century
more
likely than Kircher to have been familiar with Voynich text: daily,
every
imaginable hand and script and set of symbols was coming across his
desk,
those writings exhibiting here and there the common elements, even if
only
as ligatures, that someone organized into the Voynich script alphabet
seen
in Beinecke MS 408. Of all persons on Earth back then, it seems that
Kircher
would have been the likely one to at least imagine a Voynich-like
script,
without even trying. But, we also entertain the possibility that the
Voynich
script was a highly secret well-established one, perhaps a block-print
version of a Ligatura Steganographia, and drawing heavily upon Latin
abbreviations forms for its alphabet design. [2]
Toward making progress with the analysis of the APUG 563 292r fragment,
it
may help to gather examples of Voynich-script-like ligature forms in
Kircher's own hand, for comparison. I have already noted previously,
that
one can get the impression that Kircher, whose hand had great
calligraphic
range, seems to avoid the gallows forms; but without knowing for sure
that
he knew the Voynich script, we can't make much of that observation.
Nevertheless, among the Kircher papers images, online, of the Pontifical
Gregorian University of Rome, luckily I have just come across a very
nice
gallows ligature, of the classic Voynich-text-trademark "gallows"
double-loop tall letter, appearing over Kircher's name, and possibly
his own
hand:
APUG 558 091r
http://archimede.imss.fi.it/kircher/558/large/091r.jpg
This document likely may be a draft (it has strong corrections),
apparently
for a letter to one "Fabius". It is dated 25 March 1667, and is signed
only
"Athanasius". There is no immediately sure way I can tell if it is
indeed
Kircher's own hand, but I think there is a good chance that it is.
The ligature in question occurs on absolute-line 14, approximately
one-third
in from the right end of the line. The gallows form occurs as a
ligatured
abbreviation at the end of the word "Cardinalis" (so I take it with my
limited Latin skills).
Expressed in Voynich studies transcription systems, this ligature is
similar
to the gallows letter / symbol / glyph:
TABLE I
VMS transcription system: the symbol
Tiltman: H (first symbol)
First Study Group: H
Second Study Group: B
Currier: P
D'Imperio: A
Bennett: H
Frogguy: qp
EVA: t
GC: k
In this line 14 example we can see how naturally the gallows just flows
right out of the hand, presumably Kircher's hand.
I did some quick blinking (using IrfanView) of this ligature gallows
against
the left-right-reversed possible VMS text group in APUG 563 292r. I was
expecting the blinking experiment to lean me toward the conclusion that
the
group in APUG 563 292r is just a ligatures construction, and not a
piece of
text directly genetically related to Voynich script. However instead,
the
blinking had me note even more than before how much like the common
symmetric gallows, as found in the VMS, the 292r gallows is. The form
of the
558 91r example is also found in the VMS, but we think of it as a
variation
of the basic design form. The 563 292r example appears more like the
standard of its type in the Voynich manuscript.
Have a look.
Berj / KI3U
[1] vms-list thread: VMs: Possible Voynich text in a Kircher letter;
Sunday,
February 18, 2007 2:31 AM
http://www.gameszoo.org/voynichmonkeys/viewthread.php?gr=1&num=7921&root=7921&numre=5#m7921
[2] vms-list post: Re: VMs: Possible Voynich text in a Kircher letter;
Monday, February 19, 2007 5:51 PM
http://www.gameszoo.org/voynichmonkeys/viewthread.php?gr=1&root=7944&num=7944&numre=7#m7944
*****************************
16
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 10:22:08 -0500
From: "Berj N. Ensanian" <>
To: journalvs@highstream.net
Subject: J.VS: CM: New Journal contributor-member
The Journal Of Voynich Studies welcomes aboard Robert Teague, well
familiar
to us as a fellow Voynich Studies researcher.
Berj / KI3U
************************
17
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 13:45:20 -0400
From: "Berj N. Ensanian" <>
To: journalvs@highstream.net
Subject: J.VS: official Library
Dear All
How do we deal with reference materials?
This has had some off-J discussion, and action on it is becoming
urgent. In
particular Robert is nearly ready to provide a valuable list he has
compiled. Here I want to discuss on-J a solution I've proposed off-J.
First, I want to emphasize that J.VS is not designed to be an ordinary
online "list", much less an online "Group", and least of all the seed
for
some sort of future Voyn-Mart. It is designed to be a proper balance
between
a Journal, for advanced workers, and today's online instant electronic
communications and publishing. Online publishing tends to informalize
even
material that is properly formal. A balance solution is needed, and
J.VS is
so designed. J.VS is pioneering in that sense, and we are learning what
works and what doesn't, as we go along.
Every J.VS communication ("post") must conform to the published Rules,
and
these include that only plaintext ASCII formats are posted.
So what do we do about reference material, especially reference material
that cannot be expressed in ASCII plaintext?
In my own case, I often have to reference my own earlier work, most of
which
was published to vms-list. As we know, the disfunctionality of the
vms-list
archive causes problems when anything later than 10 OCT 2006 is
referenced.
In addition I've published reference-able stuff elsewhere than
vms-list. So
I have Voynich stuff scattered all over the web, including the PM-curve
on
crosshairs picture - I need to have it all in one reliable library!
Needless to say, in the context of J.VS, such material must be reliable
for
J.VS reference purposes, and therefore the collection of such reference
materials must be operated by J.VS.
The simple solution I've proposed to the CM of J.VS is the establishing
of
an official J.VS Library.
Basically it amounts to a permanent library operated by J.VS.
Web-locations can change - that is not a problem. But J.VS and its
resources
(presently these are mostly computer files) remain forever unified, and
reference-able, under the J.VS banner. Presently we have under the J.VS
banner the Journal, with its web-presence: consisting of the
front-page, the
rules page, and the archive of J.VS communications.
It is simply a matter of officially creating the J.VS Library, and
giving it
a web-page. Material to be deposited in the Library by a J.VS member is
simply sent to the J.VS librarian, a CM, and the librarian places it in
the
Library, where it becomes reference-able. The Library's holdings are
mirrored online, as much as is practical. If it is not practical to
have a
Library catalog item online, say because it is too huge in terms of
webspace
size and bandwidth, it can nevertheless be retrieved by a simple
request to
the J.VS librarian.
So, lets say I want to communicate to the Journal a list of things that
is
best presented in a .doc format, say: identifiedVMSwordslist.doc
1.) I send identifiedVMSwordslist.doc to the J.VS librarian (this is
not a
communication/post to J.VS) and request that the librarian deposit it
in the
Library.
2.) I wait until identifiedVMSwordslist.doc becomes deposited in the
Library - I get a confirmation from the librarian, and/or see it on the
Library webpage.
3.) I post to J.VS a simple notice that identifiedVMSwordslist.doc has
been deposited in the Library.
Or:
I just include a reference to identifiedVMSwordslist.doc in a J.VS post,
when it becomes necessary to reference it. This eliminates
un-necessarily
communicating to J.VS every Library acquisition.
The mechanics of all this is very simple. I think it can be operational
within a few days - it is just a matter of getting CM to adopt the
policy
officially, designate the Librarian (most likely me to begin), find a
website to mirror the Library, put links to the Library on the J.VS web
front-page, and announce the Library in a J.VS post.
Comments anyone?
Berj / KI3U
**************************
18
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:09:51 +0100
From: Greg Stachowski <>
To: "J.VS:" <
journalvs@highstream.net >
Subject: J.VS: Re: official Library
Indeed, the need for a library for materials referenced in posts to
the VMS is clear. Further, these materials need to be kept safe and
central so that if in the future the J.VS is made available in print
the materials (say, images) can be added as necessary.
The mechanics for an archival Library with a designated Librarian seem
reasonable; any kinks can be worked out in practice.
Greg
*****************
19
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 13:49:53 +0100
From: Greg Stachowski <>
To: "J.VS:" <
journalvs@highstream.net >
Subject: J.VS: 1924 Christian Science Monitor article on Anne
Nill
In 1924, the Christian Science Monitor published an article about
Anne Margaret Nill, Wilfrid Voynich's secretary and assistant and the
person responsible for the Voynich Manuscript after the deaths of
Voynich (WMV) and his wife, Ethel. It is the source of the photograph
of Anne Nill posted to the vms-list by Dana Scott [1],[2]. Despite
Miss Nill's obvious importance in tracing the history of the VMS,
little has been known about her until very recently [3], and even now
she remains the least well-researched owner of the VMS. This article,
as a first-hand account by someone who spoke with Miss Nill (and,
presumably, WMV himself) is therefore extremely valuable.
The article, titled " Something More Than a Secretary " and
dated " Sep 30, 1924 ", is available to buy in scanned form from the
Christian Science Monitor archives [4].
It is approximately 1000 words long, and includes the aforementioned
photo. Unfortunately the scan quality is very poor, and the photo is
much worse than that posted by Dana Scott. (The scan appears to have
been made from a photocopy f the article, rather than an original.)
The article itself is actually more of an interview with Miss Nill
(AMN), written in a fairly literary style reminiscent of literature of
the period (Wodehouse, for example). The unknown female author (from
her use of pronouns) usually refers to herself in the third person, as
" the author ", and quotes her questions as reported speech. The
conversation (as it is) revolves around AMN's background and
education, her duties with Voynich, her interest in books and gentle
inquiries about clients and income -- both of which AMN answers very
discreetly.
We learn (from the author) that :
" Mr Voynich [...] regards her as a highly qualified assistant "
" Miss Nill is [...] enthusiastically eager to learn the
technique of the business as well as to inform herself of all its
details. "
" Though still in the twenties (sic), she has been with Mr.
Voynich for several years and for the last three summers [...] has
accompanied him abroad on his annual visits to his London office. "
Of her life, that AMN was born in the city of Buffalo and went to
public high school there, where she " took German ". She knew that
college was financially impossible (although she wanted to go), so
additionally studied stenography and typing while at school. However,
once she arrived in New York she enrolled at Columbia -- which
suggests that either WMV was paying her fees, or that her pay in his
employ was sufficient for her to do so herself. Indeed, towards the
end of the interview, AMN gives " a frank smile " and says:
" ... work done for a business firm usually offers better returns
than that done under academic conditions, as in a library or musuem. "
At Columbia, she studied " a number of things , including
languages -- Latin, French, and Italian [...] as well as literature,
history, etc ". She chose these subjects deliberately because of their
bearing on her work for WMV, who (in her words):
" confines himself almost entirely to mediaeval manuscripts
illuminated missals, etc, and to incunabula [...] Mr Voynich deals
more in the incunabula of the continental countries than in English
literature. "
Her work for WMV covers all aspects of the business. Of particular
note is her description of " collating ":
" It means the careful inspection of every page of a book or
manuscript to see if it is perfect, or whether there are any pages
missing or any portion injured or mutilated "
Further, AMN admits that:
" one finds [...] a manuscript which costs only a few hundred
dollars [ yet ] its value [ is really ] reckoned in thousands "
For reference, the buying power of the US dollar in 1924 was about 10
times that of the dollar in 2006 [5]. This gives a sense of the scale
of WMV's business and, therefore, his likely clients. These, according
to AMN, include " libraries, museums, and private collectors ".
Indeed, her work:
" intensely interesting and it constantly offers fresh avenues of
inspiration to study, and new incentives for the gaining of
information. "
It:
" brings one in contact with various sorts of peoples (sic), both
dealers and clients who are interesting, entertaining, or amusing. "
Which again, I think, hints at the range of WMV's social and business
network.
Lastly, her own comment on her work:
" I enjoy examining, handling and studying the many rare and
beautiful books which come into our office. "
The final paragraph of the interview is the only one which refers
to the VMS directly. In full, it says:
" One of the works which has occupied much of Miss Nill's time
and thought during the last three or four years is the history of the
famous Roger Bacon cipher manuscript, so romantically -discovered-
(hyphens sic) by Mr. Voynich. "
As can be seen, the article is disappointingly light on specific
details. However, we do get the impression that AMN was very closely
involved with WMV's business, both including detailed study of the
books themselves and in the social network of clients and other
dealers, and further, that she was well trained and educated for the
role (probably with WMV's help). Moreover, the last paragraph,
combined with the details of her time with WMV given earlier in the
article, show that she must have had extensive knowledge of the VMS
and likely studied it in detail, both as part of her work and simply
because of how intrinsically interesting it must have been to her. She
was indeed " Something More Than a Secretary ", and it is one of the
failures of VMS research that she has for so long been dismissed and
ignored. It is almost inconceivable that she did not research the VMS
with WMV, that she was privy to information about its provenance
known only to him, and that she left notes and papers relating to it
besides those by WMV himself. These need to be found, if they exist.
The recent discovery of her relatives [6] gives a belated but
important opportunity to do so.
Greg Stachowski
References:
[1] See vms-list thread " The mysterious Miss Nill ", approx Jan. 30,
2007.
[2] available at http://www.voynich.us/photo.htm
[3] vms-list discussions approx. Feb. 3, 2007 to Feb. 9, 2007
[4]
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/csmonitor_historic/access/300212532.html?dids=300212532:300212532&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&type=historic&date=Sep+30%252C+1924&author=&pub=Christian+Science+Monitor++%281908-Current+file%29&edition=&startpage=8&desc=Something+More+Than+a+Secretary
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_dollar#Time-relative_value_of_U.S._dollar
[6] vms-list thread " Anne's Niece ", Feb. 4, 2007.
*************************
20
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:50:01 -0400
From: "Berj N. Ensanian" <>
To: journalvs@highstream.net
Subject: J.VS: Re: 1924 Christian Science Monitor article on
Anne Nill
Greg
Thanks very much for that excellent information. There is a lot there
that
can be mined further I think.
One immediate thought I have, concerns the statement:
" Though still in the twenties (sic), she has been with Mr. Voynich for
several years and for the last three summers [...] has accompanied him
abroad on his annual visits to his London office. "
The CSM article is dated 30 SEP 1924. Suppose we assume that the actual
Nill
interview took place no sooner than three months earlier - the summer of
1924. Then, if Miss Nill is still in her twenties in the summer of
1924, we
would expect her to have been born no earlier than the summer of 1895.
Recent posts to vms-list delt with the problem of Miss Nill's birthdate,
with years 1894 and 1895 available. [1]
The most secure date seems to be from the "List of United States
Citizens"
at the arrival of the S.S. MAJESTIC at the port of New York on 21 NOV
1923.
[2]
This list gives the birthdate of Anne M. Nill as January 12, 1894. So
this
has me wondering - the mysterious Miss Nill continues to mystify.
I had another thought: perhaps Wilfrid found Miss Nill because he
specifically went looking for a suitable aide at Columbia. I am
guessing,
but it seems that Miss Nill may have come into the Voynich world in the
critical year of 1921, when Wilfrid Voynich, with Prof. Newbold at his
side,
formally presented his cipher manuscript at the College of Physicians of
Philadelphia.
Berj
[1] vms-list threads:
VMs: Anne's Niece; Saturday; February 3, 2007 2:51 AM
VMs: The mysterious Miss Nill; Tuesday, January 30, 2007 12:51 AM
[2] An image of this document was for a while available on a website
operated by Rafal T. Prinke, but the url for it no longer functions.
Many
advanced VMS students have a copy of this image of the MAJESTIC list.
**************************
21
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:53:58 +0200
From: Greg Stachowski <>
To: "J.VS:" <
journalvs@highstream.net >
Subject: J.VS: Re: 1924 Christian Science Monitor article on
Anne Nill
On 3/22/07, Berj N. Ensanian wrote:
" Recent posts to vms-list delt with the problem of Miss Nill's
birthdate,
with years 1894 and 1895 available. "
It should be possible to obtain Anne Nill's birth certificate from the
Buffalo public records office (or equivalent), now that we know where
to look and the names of her parents, etc.
Greg
************************
22
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 11:26:03 -0400
From: "Berj N. Ensanian" <>
To: journalvs@highstream.net
Subject: J.VS: Re: 1924 Christian Science Monitor article on
Anne Nill
In response to Greg's com. #21,
the website of BuffaloResearch.com is here:
http://www.buffaloresearch.com/vital.html
and it has information and also url's for researching persons born in
the
Buffalo, NY area. These leads seem to be the ones to start with for Miss
Nill. Unfortunately, it appears that it may not be easy to find Miss
Nill
born in the 1890's, unless there is a stroke of luck. In any case, some
planning is called for before embarking to where the microfilms are
kept.
Berj
****************************
23
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 11:54:28 -0400
From: "Berj N. Ensanian" <>
To: journalvs@highstream.net
Subject: J.VS: Re: official Library
Greg
From off-J discussions so far, as I understand it, the launch of the
library
system goes like this:
1.) A temporary J.VS library holdings webpage is provided by one of us.
1a.) This library page is separate from the rest of the provider's
personal
website, and his normal webpages do not mention or link to it.
2.) The main J.VS website gives the official link to the library
holdings
page.
2a.) Once bigger web space becomes available, the holdings page is moved
there, and the link to it on the main J.VS website is accordingly
changed.
The foregoing mechanicals are transparent to library users - at worst
they
have to change their "Favorites" when a move is made.
3.) Library depositing procedure:
3a.) A J.VS member wishing to make a deposit, contacts the J.VS
librarian
with a request to deposit, giving a very brief description of the
nature of
the deposit, and also its file-size.
3b.) The librarian issues to the requesting depositor a deposit header
consisting of a deposit number, and an official deposit date:
J.VS Library Deposit #n, 5 APR 2007
3c.) The depositor adds the header exactly as received to the top of the
document that is to be deposited.
3d.) The depositor converts the deposit document to html format, and
names
the html file like this:
JVSLndate5APR2007.html
3e.) The depositor sends the deposit html file to the librarian.
3f.) The librarian uploads the ready html file to the holdings web
page, and
notifies the webmaster of the J.VS main website to add a link to the new
deposit.
Is this prety much what we are agreeing on? It has the advantage of the
workload being well distributed. Of course the librarian may insist to
the
depositor to be efficient with the construction of the html file so
that it
is not bloated in bytes size.
Additionally, the librarian, and the webmaster of the holdings page,
need
not be the same person.
In the far future, if non-electronic items are to be deposited, the
sytem
can be easily adjusted to handle the situation. For example, the
physical
deposit is made, but the foregoing is still done - the html deposit
file in
that case is then a description of the deposit, like a normal library
catalog item description.
Berj
References
J.VS communications #17, 18
***********************************
24
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 14:16:21 +0200
From: Greg Stachowski <>
To: "J.VS:" <
journalvs@highstream.net >
Subject: J.VS: Re: official Library
Berj,
I agree with your suggestions regarding the library (and also the main
website). I now have space available and ready, so we can get going.
I do however have a couple of suggestions to make. First, we shouldn't
restrict the library to files in HTML. Part of the point of the
library is to allow access to stuff which cannot be distributed as
text or HTML, such as images. So we should allow any reasonably
portable document format: PDF, JPG, PNG, TIFF, DOC, XLS, ODF, zipfiles
with VMS fonts (for example) etc.
Secondly, we should allow for packages which may consist of multiple
files: for example an HTML document with associated images. This is
easy enough to do, we just make a subdirectory rather than a single
file.
Through off-list discussions we are agreed that the filename of the
deposited material should include a deposit index number and an
identifier for its source, such as a sequential member number. This
can be made to tie in very nicely with my suggestions above: rather
than renaming the file, for each deposit we make a subdirectory with
this naming scheme and place the file in there, under its original
name, even if it is just one file. This allows
(a) multiple files where necessary and (b) allows us to add metadata
to any given library holding, for example a text file with more
detailed information (author, date, short description, details of
file format etc). It also allows updated versions of submissions to be
easily added while preserving the original file and number. Further,
for non-electronic objects the directory could be created as above,
and the readme.txt file would contain the information on where the
physical object is held, thus preserving the universal scheme.
So, lets say that hypothetical member number 56, Arnold Badger, wishes
to add a spreadsheet which contains calculations of VMS statistics.
This is best left in its original format, as then anyone can easily
use the formulae in the spreadsheet, rather than just seeing a table
of results. Arnold sends it to
the Librarian (following your suggested procedure) and eventually it
ends up in the Library as submission no. 172 on 1 May 2007. The file
itself is called stats.xls.
In the library it would then be visible as:
http://.../jvs/library/172-56-2007-05-01/stats.xls
and alongside it would be:
http://.../jvs/library/172-56-2007-05-01/readme.txt
which would contain the metadata. In this way the information is
easily accessible by submission number (which is unique), by member
number (also unique) and by date, and any potential reader can easily
see what their getting by examining readme.txt.
I've used hyphens rather than any other symbol, as other symbols may
be meaningful in regular expressions used by programs we might created
to look through the data. Also I've used the ISO date format as it is
also easier for a computer to process automatically.
What say you?
Cheers,
Greg
****************************
25
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 00:43:03 -0400
From: "Berj N. Ensanian" <>
To: journalvs@highstream.net
Subject: J.VS: Re: official Library
Greg,
Concerning your comments in J.VS comm. #24 on the library file system:
I like the system. Only one thing I'm not yet clear on - what does the
library master index, or main catalog webpage look like? Is it simply a
list
of consecutive entries like this:
http://.../jvs/library/172-56-2007-05-01/stats.xls
http://.../jvs/library/172-56-2007-05-01/readme.txt
etc.
If yes, that is ok with me, since a search function will be used anyway.
I had intended to email you an initial library deposit for a test, but
the
recent disastrous crash of my computer resources require me to start
from
scratch. In that vein I made a discovery of possible important interest
to
vms-list archives file holders, and will note that in a separate
communication.
Berj
**********************
26
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 00:51:13 -0400
From: "Berj N. Ensanian" <>
To: journalvs@highstream.net
Subject: J.VS: possible virus problem in 1999 data file
There have long been available for download here and there on the web
.zip
files of vms-list posts. I just discovered that one of the ones I have,
1999.zip, 1334 KB, containing the vms-list posts during the year 1999,
may
have a virus infection.
The latest free edition of "PC Tools AntiVirus" [1] reports this file,
as it
exists on my computer, as being infected with a "SKA" virus. I recently
transferred this file from one computer where it had resided a long
time, to
a newer computer, so it is quite possible the original zip file was
clean
and only became contaminated during the transfer. However, PC Tools
found no
other viruses in this same computer.
Unfortunately I don't remember when and from where I downloaded that
file.[2] Apparently I never unzipped it.
If any members have this file I think it would be good if you run a
virus
scan on it and report what you find - it would be very helpful all
around.
Berj
[1] http://www.pctools.com/anti-virus/
[2] possibly from here:
http://www.voynich.net/reeds/vmail.html
***************
27
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 10:37:11 -0400
From: Robert Teague <>
To: Journal of VMs Studies <
journalvs@highstream.net >
Subject: J.VS: Re: possible virus problem in 1999 data file
I have available the Zip files from 1991 to 2002, all virus-free.
Robert
Law of Cartoon Physics #9: Everything falls faster than an anvil.
*******************
28
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 11:38:43 -0400
From: "Berj N. Ensanian" <>
To: journalvs@highstream.net
Subject: J.VS: Cosmological dualism / polarity in the zodiac
The so-called zodiac section of illustrated pages in the Voynich ms,
f70v2 -
f73v, is notorious for its own puzzles, not the least of which is: are
these
diagrams really primarily depicting something directly related to an
astronomical zodiac of any kind of any era?
Traditionally calling them "zodiac" does not automatically make them so.
Whatever these diagrams really are supposed to represent, I do notice
the
possibility that some of them seem to project a ying-yang like emphasis
on
the dual of male - female, that is an emphasis on the idea of
eternally-bound polarities.
The two fishes (some have them as sturgeon) in the Pisces panel are
different enough so that one can ponder a male and female projection,
perhaps even a projection of courting.
Then we have the two "Taurus" panels, side by side, and although both
animals are horned, the deep red colored one clearly exhibits
unmistakable
male characteristics in contrast with the other one.
Also, the two Taurus panels are connected with the "Gemini" panel,
f72r2,
that in its center shows a man and a woman with their hands joined. I
have
commented in the past, in connection with the Christine De Pizan ideas,
that
I think this image is one of the more important ones in the entire nine
rosettes manuscript: it projects a notion of partnership between
opposites,
between woman and man.
Saggitarius doesn't need much comment to point out that its symbolism
fits
in with this observation.
Even the scorpions on page f72r3, connected to each other by some kind
of
line giving a similar impression as the Pisces, project first, if not
male -
female, then duality, do they not? I mean to say that the figures
resemble
scorpions, is secondary to the projection of the concept of bound
duality.
The zodiac pages are rich in data. And it is difficult to argue that in
the
end they will not have something to do with astrology and astronomy.
However
I suggest that, it may be worthwhile to view them from an even broader
perspective - cosmology. That is, it may be fruitful to review their
data
with the question in mind:
Do these pages mean to project a cosmological view, a cosmological
philosophy?
That is quite different from the question: is this a certain horoscope?
But, the two views could be connected also:
Is this a cosmological horoscope, concerned with eons and the birth,
life,
and decline of entire worlds at all levels, rather than the birth,
life, and
death of any particular person?
Berj / KI3U
*************************
29
Date: Sat, 05 May 2007 23:15:31 -0400
From: "Berj N. Ensanian" <>
To: journalvs@highstream.net
Subject: J.VS: Re: official Library
Dear All,
I have completed assembling my first J.VS Library deposit, with the
catalog
identification as per Greg's suggested system in communication #24, and
have
emailed the material to Greg to install in the Library's webspace. So we
will see how this works out.
The meta-data for the deposit (readme text-file) is simply this:
- - - - - - - - - -
5 MAY 2007
Meta-data for J. VS Library deposit:
1-1-2007-05-05
This deposit contains, in addition to this meta-data text-file, four htm
files:
1JVSlibKI3U.htm ~147 Kb
2JVSlibKI3U.htm ~270 Kb
3JVSlibKI3U.htm ~702 Kb
4JVSlibKI3U.htm ~357 Kb
These files contain on-line posts by Berj N. Ensanian / KI3U concerning
his
work on the Voynich Manuscript (Beinecke MS-408) over the period 18 MAR
2006 - 22 FEB 2007.
Most of the posts are to the vms-list (now defunct).
Berj / KI3U
- - - - - - - - - -
It should be easy making references to the deposited material I think. I
double-checked the files to make sure private email addresses were
removed.
Re-constructing this personal archive of the last year was a very
tedious
job, but also very interesting: following the trains of thought, and
also
observing the sudden out-of-the-blue ideas. I am looking forward to
browsing
similar deposits by other members to see how their thoughts on the
manuscript progressed.
Berj
***********************
30
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 10:40:48 +0200
From: Greg Stachowski <
>
To: journalvs@highstream.net
Subject: J.VS: Official Library deposit
The first J.VS Library deposit, made by Berj in parallel with comm.
#29, is now available online at:
http://www.as.up.krakow.pl/jvs/library/1-1-2007-05-05/
In the near-ish future I shall set up a proper indexing system for the
higher-level directory.
******************
31
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 13:57:47 -0400
From: "Berj N. Ensanian"
To: journalvs@highstream.net
Subject: J.VS: Re: Official Library deposit
Thanks Greg. I think the system will work fine.
I added a link to the Library's index-page near the top of the J.VS web
front-page.
As for my first deposit, it isn't pretty in html format, and I hadn't
then yet figured out how to make the background color plain
white,but the important thing is that it is easily reference-able and
searchable.
Berj
*********************
32
Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 11:03:55 +0200
From: Greg Stachowski
To: journalvs@highstream.net
Subject: J.VS: Re: Official Library deposit
On 5/10/07, Berj N. Ensanian wrote:
"... but the important thing is that it is easily reference-able and
searchable."
Indeed. With the links in place, Google should start indexing it soon.
We can add out own search scripts at some point as well, which will be
useful once the volume increases.
Greg
*********************
33
Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 19:55:38 -0400
From: Berj N. Ensanian
To: journalvs@highstream.net
Subject: J.VS: What happened to Miss Nill's remains?
Earlier this year, January - February, there was in the old vms-list considerable interest devoted to the mysterious Miss Anne Margaret Nill. A notable carry-over into J.VS was Greg Stachowski's communication #19 in March - Greg's information establishes about as well as presently can be, that our Miss Nill was indeed born in Buffalo, New York, and sometime in the 1890's. [1]
During the Jan-Feb-March period the general mysteries surrounding Miss Nill saw some progress toward clarification, but also new mysteries emerged. [2]
Some fundamental questions about Miss Nill continued to resist precision determination, notably her birth and death dates. It is generally assumed that Miss Nill was born in 1894 in Buffalo, New York, but uncertainties spread the time 1893-1895. In that investigative vein, well-known VMS researcher Dana Scott produced information that Miss Nill was related to a family named "Seilheimer", and that Miss Nill's final resting place is the Forest Lawn Cemetery in Buffalo, New York. [3]
These days being in the area, I went to Forest Lawn Cemetery yesterday, and again today, and investigated Dana Scott's new lead, with the hope of finding Miss Nill's grave, and dates. I photographed all Nill burial plots I could locate. Unfortunately I must report to the Journal that my visits there only compounded the Miss Nill mystery.
Forest Lawn is situated on the northern periphery of Buffalo's downtown. I count this as one of the two most impressive major cemeteries I have seen, the other being adjacent to the Olympic Stadium in Berlin. Even with Voynich research in mind, one can nevertheless become distracted by the world-class grave art and the landscape. The main office is at the main entrance at Delaware and Delevan. There, I had the very helpful attendance of Mr. Larry Macks, and Miss Mili Picone, who went through all available relevant records for me, several times during my two visits, including the closely guarded original paper records. Some 160,000 persons are buried in Forest Lawn, and the records vary widely in detail, and are only partly computerized.
From the records, computer and paper, the following was obtained:
Table 1
BUF Forest Lawn Cemetery
Name; date of death; Section no.; Lot no.
Nill, A;
Nill, A;
Nill, Agnes M.; 12/24/1896; 40; 376
Nill, George J.; 9/20/1926; 27; 399
Nill, Lillian K.; 7/10/1957; 27; 399
Nill, Helen B.; 4/13/2001; 8; 428
Nill, Robert C.; 10/20/1994; 8; 428
Nill, Bernhard; 6/3/1940; 8; 436
Nill, Margaret; 4/30/1950; 8; 436
Dana Scott had identified Lot No. 436, Section 8, as our Miss Nill's
grave. But, the Cemetery records, and my actual inspection,
indicate that Mrs. Margaret Nill, d. 4/30/1950, is buried there, next
to her husband Bernhard. Notwithstanding the name problems in
Miss Nill research, this immediately rules out our Miss Nill, who
remained Miss until her death, so far as we know, and was alive at
least as late as 1953 [4], and is commonly believed to have survived
Ethel Voynich as the co-owner of the Voynich Manuscript and to
have sold it to H. P Kraus in 1960 or 1961. [5]
At the graves I looked hard for any clues, like symbols inscribed upon the stone markers, that might suggest even the slightest hint of our Miss Nill, but I perceived none.
Dana Scott's information had included that our Miss Nill's niece was the just-deceased Anne Seilheimer. Indeed, now that the ground is no longer frozen, the burial of Anne Seilheimer was in progress, yesterday and today. The Seilheimers are buried directly above (north of) the # 428 and # 436 Nill Lots in Section 8. After the burial is completed (presumably by the end of today), I plan to return sometime and complete my inspection of that area, although there are no records in the Cemetery office suggesting I will find anything of interest. I will report to the Journal after I have had the chance to do this.
We come now to the new puzzles.
The computer record brings up two instances of "Nill A", but with absolutely no other information. The office staff, looking into this, at first thought it might be a reserved Lot, with the person, A Nill, still alive, but on finding absolutely no other records, concluded it must be errors when the data was keyed into the original computer data-base, long ago. The bottom line is that over two days of pursuing this "Nill A" I hit a dead end, no pun intended. It was not lost on me that this sort of thing is right at home in Miss Nill research.
I encountered one last puzzle today in one of the Cemetery's
for-the-less-wealthy Sections: Agnes M. Nill, died 1896, and having the
same initials as our Miss Anne Margaret Nill, has at her grave two
adjacent, but set at a right angle to one another, different stone
markers, bearing the identical inscription:
AGNES M. NILL
DIED
DEC. 24, 1896,
AGED 62 YEARS.
_____
The only difference between the inscriptions I could see was that the
taller stone's has a period chiseled after the "NILL". It also has a
large "NILL" on its base and it is a fancier marker - it resembles a
stubby obelisk, with "N" near the top on all four sides. It gives a
somewhat mathematical geometry impression of a huge quartz crystal -
the kind of marker that would appeal to a mineralogist. The
smaller marker is a panel stone set on a base, rather plain and common,
but not at the bottom of the cost scale.
Whether or not this oddity of two orthogonally placed grave stones
for Agnes M. Nill has anything whatsoever to do with our Miss
Nill I don't know, but I am still looking into it, and if anything
relevant comes up I will report on it. One can conjecture that the
taller,
fancier marker was installed later when more money was available, and
the original was left in place for one reason or another. Or,
perhaps two relatives were at odds honoring Agnes separately. But, I
recall saying more than once on the old vms-list, that in the
pursuit of precision information in the overall mystery: leave no stone
un-turned.
So, where does this leave us concerning our Miss Nill's remains? For
sure the indications are that they are NOT in Section 8, Lot #
436. I told Forest Lawn's staff why I was there, and the significance
of our Miss Nill. They were confident that they had records on all
persons buried at Forest Lawn. In other words, barring some new twist,
our Miss Nill's remains are not in the Forest Lawn Cemetery.
Then where are they? Was she cremated and were her ashes scattered? Was
she buried besides her parents, wherevever they are?
To my knowledge, no-one in VMS research has produced a copy of Miss Nill's death certificate, so we do not have the minimum basic facts of her end. We might assume she died in New York State and try Albany. Then, somewhere in some funeral home there must be a record. Presumably also somewhere there is an obituary - the funeral home might well have a copy of it.
To place this in overall perspective: Miss Nill was a major 20th
century co-custodian of the world's most mysterious manuscript. And
she remains nearly as mysterious as the manuscript.
Berj / KI3U
[1] J.VS: 1924 Christian Science Monitor article on Anne Nill; com. #19, G. Stachowski, 22 MAR 2007
[2] For example, the Lone Ranger Mask - see J.VS Library, deposit
1-1-2007-05-05, 4vmsKI3Ulab.htm
[3] The disfunctionality of the old vms-list archive continues to make
for some difficulties in referencing. Around 3 FEB 2007 Dana
Scott posted his most recent findings, which along with his website
material on this, became the source for the lead that our Miss Nill
is buried in Lot No. 436, Section 8, of the Forest Lawn Cemetery in
Buffalo, NY. Some of Dana Scott's posts material, including his
identification of Forest Lawn, can be found in the J.VS Library,
deposit 1-1-2007-05-05, 4vmsKI3Ulab.htm, and his original
web-pages relating to this are still online:
http://www.voynich.us/Forest%20Lawn.htm
[4] D'Imperio, 4.2(1), pg. 25
[5] D'Imperio, pg. 2. This is a rare instance of problematic
information in D'Imperio - Kraus could not have donated the VMS to Yale
in 1960 if he did not own it before 1961. As for the Yale Beinecke
Library MS-408 website, its front-page says that Kraus gave the
VMS to the Beinecke in 1969, which would have been after 1968, that
date being the Tiltman reference that D'Imperio cites. The
Beinecke web-page, with its breath-taking discriminations between
demonstrable facts and conjectures, still has Miss Nill's name
spelled "Nills". Sad to say this, but the venerable Beinecke, otherwise
indispensible to Voynich research, remains one of the most
visible examples of the enormous global problem of LACK OF PRECISION
INFORMATION in Voynichology.
***************************
34
Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 12:23:49 -0400
From: Berj N. Ensanian
To: journalvs@highstream.net
Subject: J.VS: List of Journal communications Subjects
Dear All
I have begun maintaining a List of the Subject lines of the Journal's
communications, and placed a link to the List on the Archive
web-page.
This Subjects List is one more aid in locating information quickly.
Berj
*******************
35
Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 23:41:04 +0200
From: Greg Stachowski
To: "J.VS:"
Subject: J.VS: Re: List of Journal communications Subjects
Good idea with the subject list. Perhaps you could make each one a link
to the first post in the series? That would make it even better,
I think.
Greg
********************
36
Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 19:50:27 -0400
From: Berj N. Ensanian
To: journalvs@highstream.net
Subject: J.VS: (Was: Re: List of Journal communications
Subjects)
Greg wrote in com. #35:
" Perhaps you could make each one a link to the first post in the
series? "
Hi Greg. Yes eventually. Currently, you've probably noticed, my html
operations are not polished. In fact they are marginal and,
frankly, bothersome - it is tedious doing all these operations
manually, and without adequate knowledge of html editing (for which I
have little learning time presently, and even less interest).
However, we are doing pretty well with the design of Journal operations
I think. Your Library system has really proven its worth
already, and I took full advantage of it with com. #33 (Miss Nill's
remains).
My next Library deposit, hopefully this week, is a set of images that
are referenced in the current Library deposits, things like the
PM-curve, Voynich's cane, the blinking pictures for Miss Nill's Lone
Ranger Mask, and so on.
I would like to see deposited in the Library the image of the 1923 SS
Majestic List of U.S. Citizens - that is the List from which the
nominal birthdate of Miss Nill (Jan. 12, 1894) is usually taken. But we
can't just deposit the image of that document fragment without
providing its source-chain. Does anyone know how this image originally
got into Voynichville circulation?
Speaking of com. #33, this afternoon I received an email back from Mili
- apparently she too thought the Agnes M. Nill gravesite
sufficiently odd so as to forward my report to the Cemetery's
historian(s) for investigation. My report included a short synopsis of
our
Miss Nill's significance:
' The motive in researching Miss Nill is that she, known to have been
born in Buffalo, 1894 ?, was for years co-custodian of "the
world's most mysterious manuscript" - The Voynich Manuscript (VMS).
Miss Nill was an antiquarian working for the manuscript's
discoverer, Wilfrid Voynich, husband of world-famous author Ethel
Lilian Voynich. Miss Nill became Ethel's steady companion after
Wilfrid died in 1930. Miss Nill is as mysterious as the VMS! She is
known to have been alive at least in 1953, and most probably also
in 1961. True experts in VMS study number only about a hundred or so in
the world, and a great deal of public VMS information is
outright inaccurate. A couple of months ago one of the VMS experts
developed the lead that Miss Nill was buried at Forest Lawn.
Being in the area these days, I took the oportunity to investigate, and
yesterday I was helped by Larry Macks, and today you. I plan to
return one more time to look around Lot # 436, Section 8, after the
burial (in progress today) of Anne Seilheimer, she being assumed
to be the niece of Miss Nill. '
About 0.1% of the 160,000 persons buried at Forest Lawn are famous, and
apparently my visits have alerted the office to the
possibility of another becoming-famous Buffalonian buried there. We'll
see. Perhaps in some roundabout way, via Agnes, we'll find
out something more about our Miss Nill. If you want a copy of the Agnes
gravesite photo that was attached to my report to Mili, let me
know off-J and I'll email it to you.
Berj
*********************
37
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 11:42:53 -0400
From: Berj N. Ensanian
To: journalvs@highstream.net
Subject: J.VS: Robert Hooke's use of the glyph GC-N
Robert Hooke (1635-1703) emerged as a major person-of-interest (POI) in
the Voynich manuscript historical network-of-interest
(NOI) once the significance of the VMS folio f68r3 Pleiades-Moon curve
(PM-curve) was recognized, and in addition f68r3's
stars-count was noted to equal 76, matching the count of seventy-six
stars in Schem. XXXVIII of Hooke's Micrographia. [1]
One aspect of variously investigating Hooke is of course the examining
of his hand written records. In [2] was given a table, Table
16-A, of similarity correspondences between Voynich text glyphs and
glyphs employed by the 17th c. NOI that includes Hooke.
I've just noticed that there are online some excellent high-resolution
images of pages from Hooke's recently discovered diaries, that I
was not aware of before. Apparently the recently discovered Hooke diary
was sold by Bonham's in London on March 28, and images
were placed on-line in connection with the sale. [3]
I've had a only a few minutes to look over the treasure trove, but I
seem to see a clear instance where the glyph that in VMS work we
denote GC-N or AGC-78 (EVA-n), is used by Hooke as an abbreviation for
"rd" in "3rd". This is another, slightly more complex use
by Hooke of the GC-N glyph, than the one already noted in the Table
16-A.
To see this in [3], zoom in on the right-most of the three images in a
row that are directly underneath the large image of the diary at
the top of the web-page. The image, of a verso and a recto, shows diary
notes as the time transitions from 1671 to 1672. You can find
Newton mentioned, and what appears to be two strings of code. The GC-N
is easy to locate: it is on the last line of the verso page,
almost at the start of the line, and in the sentence: "The 3rd was ..."
Lets then update the glyphs correspondences table, the value of which
is as an alternative to correspondences based on
Latin-abbreviations glyphs:
Table 1
Preliminary observations of similarities between "9RMS hand" and "17th
c. NOI hand"
English alphabet group ~ 9RMS (VMS) group in GC transcription alphabet
a ~ GC-a
and ~ GC-am
d ~ GC-N
rd ~ GC-N
d ~ GC-y
n ~ GC-I
o ~ GC-o
ph ~ GC-h
phe ~ GC-h
s ~ GC-8
th ~ GC-h
the ~ GC-h
Berj / KI3U
[1] The PM-curve developments were/are complicated and highly
controversial in Voynich study circles. They began with the 4:49
PM, 4 DEC 2006, old-vms-list post "Re: VMs: 3x3 matrix of f58r and the
f68r3 moon-ring". The detailed record is preserved in the
J.VS Library, deposit 1-1-2007-05-05, 3JVSlibKI3U.htm and
4vmsKI3Ulab.htm
[2] old-vms-list post Re: VMs: Analysis of the f68r3 Pleiades - moon
curve, January 25, 2007 5:06 PM, see J.VS Library deposit
1-1-2007-05-05, 4vmsKI3Ulab.htm
[3] http://www.bonhams.com/hooke/#
***************************
38
Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 22:12:18 -0400
From: Berj N. Ensanian
To: journalvs@highstream.net
Subject: J.VS: Re: What happened to Miss Nill's remains?
Per J. VS communication #33 I had a chance to return to Forest Lawn
Cemetery last week and better inspect Lots 428 and 436 of
Section 8, with the burial of Miss Anne M. Seilheimer (d. 24 JAN 2007)
completed, thus making such better inspection possible.
I found no new evidence for our Miss Nill's remains being there.
To summarize the Buffalo, NY, Forest Lawn Cemetery data, in context:
1.) Section 8, Lot 428 holds the Seilheimer, and Lot 436, adjacent
directly below (south of) holds Nill family members. These lots are
easily located using the Firemen Memorial as a reference.
2.) Although a precision determination with citations is still needed,
we already knew that it is likely that 19th c. German immigrants
Bernhard and Margaret Nill were the parents of our Miss Nill, another
daughter Emma, a son Fred, and another son Robert.
3.) Emma was the wife of physician Dr. Frederick Seilheimer [1].
Anne M. Seilheimer was Frederick and Emma's daughter, and was the niece
of our Miss Nill, the niece who is indicated in the Grolier
Club (NYC) Voynich papers holdings. [2]
4.) Standing south of them, and northwardly viewing Lots 428 and 436 as
a complex, the dominant major stone is the Lot 428 marker
of Dr. Frederick Seilheimer (1879-1956) and his wife Emma (1895-1983).
On the left flank are (one marker) Robert C. (1914-1994)
and Helen B. (1912-2001) Nill. On the right flank is Anne M Seilheimer
(1928-2007).
South of them, more or less centered on the Seilheimer marker, are on
the left a marker for Bernhard Nill (1871-1940), and on the
right a marker for Margaret A. Nill (1870-1950). In the Cemetery's Lot
Register, the Owner of Bernhard and Margaret's Lot 436, after
the death of Margaret, is recorded as "Wilbert".
If all is as assumed, then our Miss Nill lost both her parents in the
period 1940-1950, and this may help in the analysis of Miss Nill
material from that period.
5.) The Nills in Section 27, Lot 399, George J., Lillian K., and their
daughter Charlotte M. Vogele, are visible in currently available
United States census data, but connections with the Nills of interest
to us are unknown to me. The parents and daughter have a
common grave marker, and the only visible indication of a possible
connection, is that George's dates (1877-1926), rather than being
separated by a dash, are separated by an arc'ed chain of three links -
an essentially identical chain symbol is on Bernhard's marker
stone, but above his name.
6.) Odds & Ends for possible further investigation:
a.) The peculiarity of Agnes M. Nill's grave, Section 40, Lot 376,
remains unexplained, while there is no indication it is indeed
relevant to Miss Nill research.
b.) The peculiarity of two otherwise absolutely data-void occurrences
of "Nill A" in the Forest Lawn computer remains without
definitive explanation.
c.) From 4.) above we see that there is an asymmetry in the known
occupation of the 428 and 436 Lots: the left flank holds two
persons, Robert and Helen, but the right flank holds only the recently
deceased Anne.
d.) A few feet in front of Bernhard's marker, and presumably therefore
over his actual grave, there is just below the grass/ground a
somewhat rusty round iron plug of several inches diameter. It suggests
a cap access of some kind to something beneath. I wondered if
it could possibly be an indication of a cremation urn buried atop
Bernhard, but so far I have not been able to find out what it is.
If we can find an obituary for Miss Nill, and from that find out the
Funeral Home that handled her funeral, we should be able to find
out who made the funeral arrangements for Miss Nill. That person could
be very interesting, as they may have come into possession of
some of Miss Nill's personal papers. Miss Nill, we know, was an expert
on medieval manuscripts, and had access to / possession of,
the Voynich manuscript for forty years.
Berj / KI3U
[1] The Seilheimer family was prominent among the 19th c. German
immigrants to the Buffalo area: Geschichte der Deutschen in
Buffalo und Erie County, N.Y., Reinecke & Zesch., Buffalo, 1897/98;
online with translation: http://www.archivaria.com/GdDbios/GdD1.html
[2] http://www.grolierclub.org/LibraryAMC.VoynichPapers.htm
*************************
39
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 11:25:11 -0400
From: Berj N. Ensanian
To: journalvs@highstream.net
Subject: J.VS: CM: the Journal's email address is changing
Dear All
Circumstances beyond my control are necessitating a change in the
Journal's e-address: beginning three days from now, 6 JAN 2007,
the current e-address journalvs@highstream.net will no longer be valid.
The new email address for the Journal will be:
journalvs@basicisp.net
Everything else remains as before and you will have no additional
considerations for posting. For me there will be slightly more work
in handling the still-manual electronic distribution mechanics, but I
don't anticipate any problems.
Berj / KI3U
CM J. VS
**********************
40
From: "Greg Stachowski"
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Date: 4 Jun 2007 22:40:41 +0200
Subject: J.VS: Library deposit
Jan Hurych's Library deposit is now available online at:
http://www.as.up.krakow.pl/jvs/library/1-4-2007-06-03/
*******************
41
From: "Berj N. Ensanian"
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Subject: J.VS: Re: Library deposit
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 19:51:47 -0400
Reference com. # 40, Jan Hurych's deposit is an excellent article with
three color pictures titled:
" THE NUMBERS IN THE VM (and who numbered the pages?) "
It is short and to the point, while covering a lot of ground on the
subject, and is very well written. A great reference to have handy.
Thanks Jan.
Berj
*******************
42
From: Jan Hurych
To: journalvs@BasicISP.net
Subject: J.VS: Re: Library deposit
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 08:58:35 -0700 (PDT)
If you click on link provided by Greg,
http://www.as.up.krakow.pl/jvs/library/1-4-2007-06-03/
and then on
at "jbh1.htm"
you get the article already assembled with pictures
The same happened in one step operation, if you directly click on link:
http://www.as.up.krakow.pl/jvs/library/1-4-2007-06-03/jbh1.htm
I am aware that there is a discussion about quires on the VM List, but
that is a separate problem, since it deals with some
asumptions. In the above article, I am here simply pointing out that
the true page numbering does look like being it was done by author
himself.
Regards,
Jan
From: "Greg Stachowski"
To: "J.VS:"
Subject: J.VS: Library deposit
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 22:40:41 +0200
Jan Hurych's Library deposit is now available online at:
http://www.as.up.krakow.pl/jvs/library/1-4-2007-06-03/
****************************
43
From: Greg Stachowski
To: "J.VS:" journalvs@basicisp.net
Subject: J.VS: Library deposit # 2-4-2007-06-06
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 18:03:37 +0200
The latest JVS library deposit is now available, at the URL:
http://www.as.up.krakow.pl/jvs/library/2-4-2007-06-06/
This is a 23 January 2007 paper by Jan Hurych titled:
" THE NEW SIGNATURE OF HORCZICKY (and the comparison of them all) "
This paper concerns the latest best available data on the long standing
conjecture: that along the bottom of Voynich Manuscript page
f1r some writing constitutes a "signature", and that the "signator" is
Horczicky / Sinapius / de Tepenece.
Greg Stachowski
**********************
44
From: Jan Hurych
To: journalvs@BasicISP.net
Subject: J.VS: Re: Library deposit # 2-4-2007-06-06
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 16:11:52 -0700 (PDT)
Thanks Greg,
I will take a break, to provide two articles so quick is too much :-).
Howvever, I explained Berj that I am just refreshing the articles
on my site and will forward only those which I see still pertinent to
JVS.
No fresh research soo far, but I am reading all the comments about
Baresch in the VM LIst (about 200 items) so I might get idea
where to look next. It sems thatt he is still for us the most important
link sinc ewe know so little about him (how he got the VM, did he
know the author, did he erase the "signature", how much he actually
told Marci), etc.)
Regards,
Jan
*****************
45
From: Berj N. Ensanian
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Subject: J.VS: CM: New contributor-member
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 09:16:27 -0400
The Journal Of Voynich Studies welcomes aboard Richard SantaColoma,
well familiar to us as a fellow Voynich Studies researcher.
Berj / KI3U
*******************
46
From: Jan Hurych
To: journalvs@BasicISP.net
Subject: J.VS: Re: CM: New contributor-member
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 12:17:59 -0700 (PDT)
Welcome Richard,
Jan
*********************
47
From: Richard SantaColoma
To: journalvs@BasicISP.net
Subject: J.VS: Re: CM: New contributor-member
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 21:00:00 +0000
Thank you, Jan, Berj et al: I appreciate it, and will get together some
materials for the J.VS. Any suggestions are appreciated. Berj
suggested I make up the list of points to my theory, with citatiions.
I'll learn the in's and outs to the J.VS. website structure so that I
know how it works. Thanks, Rich.
*****************************
48
From: Berj N. Ensanian
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Subject: J.VS: Images: PM-curve; gallows-letters Christianity
symbolism
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 13:04:56 -0400
Dear All
Library deposit # 2-1-2007-06-13 is now installed (Thanks Greg.). [1]
This deposit contains three images, described and referenced in the
deposit's readme metadata file. Briefly:
The images gPMf68r3.bmp and its sub-image dPMf68r3.bmp are the PM-curve
on crosshairs source-images that were used for the
digitization of the Voynich ms f68r3 Pleiades-moon curve ( PM-curve )
in the original analysis paper posted to the old vms-list in
December, 2006.
The image VMSChristGallowsSymbls.jpg is a sketch illustrating
conjectural Christianity-symbolism of the major "gallows" letters
(tall looped text symbols) that are characteristic of the Voynich text
alphabet. I discussed this conjecture on the old vms-list in the
spring of 2006, but as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words.
Berj / KI3U
[1] http://www.as.up.krakow.pl/jvs/library/2-1-2007-06-13/
********************
49
From: Berj N. Ensanian
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Subject: J.VS: The f67r2 circle-perimeter patterns: are they
simple codes?
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 21:59:47 -0400
Recently, my off-J discussions with Jan Hurych on the possibility of
Armenian connections in the Voynich manuscript prompted me to
look over my old notes on that theme, and I came across an interesting
little find involving Voynich page f67r2 that I thought might be
worth communicating to the Journal, before it again slips like a needle
back into the get-around-to-it-sometime haystack.
Voynich ms f67r is a foldout, altogether of two pages, each bearing a
circular astronomical diagram. Identified per the system given in
D'Imperio, the left of these recto panels, the one that bears "67" at
its upper right, is f67r1, and the other panel is then f67r2. [1]
f67r2 has its "unusual" niche in the manuscript for reasons that
include that it is, I believe, recognized as one of the very few, if
not the
only text-bearing page in the manuscript, where guide-line rulings for
the text are clearly indicated: at the bottom of the circular
diagram, for three lines of text, the middle line of which is written
in heavy red ink.
The perimeter band of f67r2's circle diagram consists of repeating
variations of simple geometric patterns / designs / symbols.
Presently, for ease of discussion, I will denote these as "glyphs".
At least one of these glyphs, or variations of it, appears elsewhere
here and there in other VMS illustrations. I have long called it the
"box-cross" [2]. Economically stroked, it appears in its general form
basically as a box or rectangle, with two internal perpendicular
pairs of opposing tabs; the immediate impression of it, especially when
the rectangle is square, is: a cross in a box. In one variation of
it only one pair of the tabs is present, and the impression of a cross
is absent. The tabs may be found hollow, or inked in. A single
instance of this box-cross glyph is immediately seen in the left page
f67r1, at about 11:30 o'clock, in its diagram's perimeter's second
from most-outward band, where it sits suggesting itself as a kind of
index or reference marker for the diagram's information
navigation.
Returning to the perimeter of f67r2, the box-crosses share the
perimeter with, it appears to me, two basic other kinds of glyphs:
Opposed strokes, at least two in number. But typically we see a pair of
opposed rows, each made of a series, typically seven, of
strokes. Sometimes these strokes are slanted, suggesting an elongated
chevron with its longitudinal axis open (that is, the strokes of the
rows do not meet to make vertices). One example at lower right has
three dots on the longitudinal axis.
A double-T glyph that appears like a pair of ninety-degrees rotated and
facing T's, with a varying number of strokes in the gap
inbetween, approximately like this:
--| ||| |--
Lets look at examples of these glyphs on f67r2. [3]
Fig. 1, the image-file JVScom49Fig1VMSf67r2.bmp , shows part of the
lower half of f67r2, and I have added labels A,B,C to show:
A: an example of the double-T having 2 strokes in its gap
B: an example of opposing rows of each 7 strokes, and 3 dots between
C: an example of the box-cross, slightly stretched beyond square, and
with hollow tabs
It appears to me, that if we accept these three as the elementary
glyphs, the box-cross, the opposing strokes, and the double-T, then
around the perimeter they sometimes merge, or overlap, or even nest,
and it is not always clear what an analytic separation of them
should be. The fading of the old ink presents additional problems in
places, and it appears also that a thin fill-in paint of tan color
plays
some kind of role in the perimeter series.
However, let us proceed.
Does this perimeter series encode some specific information? That is,
is it systematic, rather than a randomly executed artistic
border-decoration fill-in? Just to have a definite answer to that
question would be progress, not to mention some idea of what was
encoded, if indeed it is a code of some sort.
Toward that, I'd like to bring to the attention of the Journal an early
14th c. Armenian manuscript I chanced across, that exhibits
similar glyphs, and moreover, plausibly has some indications that
indeed the glyphs convey a code, the Armenian ms examples
appearing altogether, in the most liberal optimistic view of them, like
a sort of non-chalantly executed partial Rosetta Stone for these
glyphs.
Let us then have a look at a page from the Armenian manuscript:
Madenataran 3722. [4]
In Fig. 2, image file JVScom49Fig2VMSf67r2.jpg , we see the M. 3722
leaf, and it looks to bear practice drawings by the artist,
perhaps a young student - he is developing his skills and ideas for
manuscript work. We see elaborately rendered Armenian capital
letters, crosses and other symbols, animals, and a flute player. Of the
objects drawn, we are interested in three, specifically we are
interested in the numerical values of their capital letters, and we are
also interested in their bases, which exhibit some patterns similar
to the f67r2 perimeter patterns. [5]
I have prepared separate images of the bases:
Fig. 3, JVScom49Fig3VMSf67r2.bmp , a simple gallows, from which,
looped, hangs a serpent that has a knot tied in its middle. It may
be intended to be an Armenian capital letter, and there are a couple of
different possibilities, but on account of the knot in the serpent, I
would say it is the letter "T'o", that is "T", the 9th letter of the
Armenian alphabet.
Fig. 4, JVScom49Fig4VMSf67r2.bmp , seen at lower left of Fig. 2, it is
the most complex of the drawings, and depicts a capital of the
5th letter of the Armenian alphabet, incorporated with immediately to
its left the entrance to a curtained altar.
Fig. 5, JVScom49Fig5VMSf67r2.bmp , in the middle of the page, the
ornately rendered cross.
In Figs. 3 - 5 the use of the double-T glyph is easily seen. The base
of the altar (Fig. 4) is too faded for further information, lacking
direct examination of the manuscript. But Figs. 3 and 5 show enough
details so as to arouse our interest in the possibility that a
T-glyph series encodes information, that it is not just some decorative
device. As we shall see.
In Fig. 3, I have labeled the T-glyph series 0 1 1 0 according to the
gap contents, but an alternate system for the left-right symmetric
series might write 2 3 3 2 . What is it in Fig. 3 that suggests that
the series encodes information? Perhaps the most immediate
suggestion comes from viewing the serpent reduced to its bare minimum
geometric essentials: a terminal (0), an extension (1), and a
terminal again (0): 0 1 0
But our serpent has its extension tied into a knot in the middle, and
plausibly could be written:
0 1 1 0
Admittedly, this interpretation is thin, but it is nevertheless enough
to keep alive the ponderability that the serpent drawing indicates a
coding use for its T-glyph series.
In Fig. 5 the case for a T-glyph series being something beyond just
decorations, becomes much stronger. The base of the cross consists
of 6 progressively shorter tiers (going upwards). Left-right assymmetry
in the base is apparent at first glance. The T-glyphs series in
the second-from bottom tier reflects this assymmetry:
0 0 1
Directly above, in the 3rd tier, we see groups of slanted strokes that
also reflect the assymmetry:
2 1 3 2 1 or perhaps 3 3 2 1
The 5th tier has a group of 10 slanted strokes, and curiously:
2 + 1 + 3 + 2 + 1 + 0 + 0 + 1 = 9 + 1 = 10
We also note the coincidence, that the three tiers involved in this 10
= 9 + 1 result are the tiers numbered 2, 3, 5, where 2 + 3 = 5
We might wonder if the T-glyph series in tier 2 has its key represented
by the integer sequence of tier 3, and if a shift procedure of
some kind is indicated. With 6 tiers, not to mention the cross
supported above, there are many possibilities for possibly-intended
symbolized number-relationships. Not only that, we are here assuming
that the codings in Figs. 3, 4, and 5, are independent. In any
case, I think it is fair to say that Fig. 5 provides some evidence, as
in any amount of evidence is more interesting than no evidence, that
a T-glyph series encodes information, and is not just a decoration, at
least in some illustrations.
Let us then summarize our conjectural logic for developing the case
that is the subject of this communication:
a.) Similars to the Voynich f67r2 perimeter glyphs are found in an
ancient Armenian ms, where they suggest the ponderability that
they are code vehicles.
b.) Therefore it is reasonable to investigate the f67r2 perimeter
glyphs as possible code vehicles.
c.) For a start, the simplest glyph-to-code mapping is code = integer
number .
Now, assuming that the f67r2 perimeter patterns are codes that are
built from the combinations of their glyphs and their variations, let
us then hypothesize a "data frame" in the perimeter: a glyphs
combinations set that extends some ways along the perimeter, and can be
decoded independently, at least to some extent, of other data frames.
What looks plausible in this regard? What construct, found
repeated in the perimeter, might serve as simple data-frame bracket
indicators?
It appears to me that the simplest indication of data-frame brackets
are the extended tan-colored swaths: between any two successive
such swaths constitutes a data-frame. We can see an example in Fig. 1
right at "C" - there the data-frame looks to be, here written in
make-do notation:
T.1.[box-cross with 4 hollow tabs].1.T
And from here one could further interpret it:
1.4.1 or perhaps 1.40.1
I spent just a little time attempting to "decode" data-frames around
the perimeter to see if anything immediately striking jumped out,
like Dr. Leonell Strong's famous sequence:
1-3-5-7-9-7-5-3-1-4-7-4
But nothing striking immediately appeared. In fact, I realized that the
next stage in this pursuit would be to obtain an idea, a list even,
of numbers and numbers sequences that have been analytically associated
with f67r2 in previous independent work by other Voynich
students. For example, I recall that Robert Teague has an astrological
attack on f67r2 where the year 1583 is important. Possibly the
number 1583 is plainly encoded somewhere there in the perimeter inside
a data-frame, requiring only the right perspective to spot it.
Since the number of variables to consider in going further is
formidable, items like sorting out the difference in code values
between
hollow and filled/solid tabs in the box-cross, and the combination
rules for mixed, merged, and nested code glyphs, it is, I thought,
enough at this stage to present this conjecture on the f67r2 perimeter
patterns as a start, and see what happens.
Certainly the idea is in line with my own thinking that the Nine
Rosettes Manuscript reflects an encyclopedic spectrum of coding
schemes across its illustrations, text, and even physical construction.
That an ancient Armenian ms might have some clues in Voynich
work I find here, at this stage, not especially alarming, since in my
view anyone, anywhere, anytime, educated and intelligent enough
to have constructed the Voynich manuscript would be familiar with
cultural material far and wide, and also I believe the various
scribal and illustrations schools around the world were especially
aware of the peculiar devices used by their co-experts. And of
course, we recall that a favorite suspect for having had something to
do with the Voynich ms, or at least the Prague ms, Fr. Athanasius
Kircher, S.J., corresponded in, among his many languages, Armenian.
It remains to be seen if these apparent similarities across
illustrations in the two manuscripts, are significant on the road to
solving the
mystery of the Nine Rosettes Manuscript. But we all have all kinds of
potentially interesting items in our Voynich attics, and it doesn't
hurt to once in a while bring some of the more tantalizing ones out
into the daylight and see if their exposure leads to anything further.
Berj / KI3U
[1] The Beinecke identifies the high-resolution color image of the f67r
pair as 1006194.sid .
The right edge of the f67r2 parchment is curled back some, and
consequently the circle's perimeter is partly obscured there.
[2] The box-cross appears in seemingly un-related places in the VMS
illustrations, as if to remind of a grand unifying thread across the
book; for example: in the nine rosettes foldout, yet also decorating a
cylindrical object in the manuscript's herbal section. See for
example:
J. VS Library, 1-1-2007-05-05, 2JVSlibKI3U.htm:
"VMs: The very Heart of the Voynich Manuscript", Friday, April 28,
2006.
"VMs: General mcP Hypothesis on the Voynich Manuscript", Sunday, May
21, 2006.
The cylindrical object on f99v bearing a repitition band of the
box-cross, is one of a group of objects in the herbal section that are
commonly assumed by many people to depict pharmaceutical jars. However,
recently Richard SantaColoma has been analyzing some
of these objects as possibly representing optical devices, specifically
early microscopes:
http://www.santa-coloma.net/voynich_drebbel/voynich.html
I would entertain that the tabs of the box-cross suggesting a "cross"
could just as well be suggesting "crosshairs", and thus add to the
ponderability of optical-device theories.
[3] I've prepared images for this Journal communication, and our
Librarian Greg Stachowski has installed them along with the
supplementary meta-data text-file (Thanks Greg) as deposit
# 3-1-2007-06-22
found on-line here: http://www.as.up.krakow.pl/jvs/library/
[4] Madenataran No. 3722
From Nakhichevan (Armenia), dated 1304; an example of Luysantskazarteri
decorative paintings; artist: Simean; un-numbered leaf;
capital letters, mythological, apocryphal, and wordly subjects from
Bible and other religious books in the 13th c. style.
The Madenataran is the Mesrob Mashtots Research Institute of Ancient
Manuscripts, in Yerevan.
Fig. 2 is my photograph of a reproduction of M. 3722, Plate 44 in the
book:
Ancient Armenian Miniatures, compiled and edited by L.A. Turnovoy, P.N.
Arakelian, R.K. Trampiani, M.S. Sarian, G.T. Diraduriani,
Armenian S.S.R. State Publishing, Yerevan, 1952.
This is a very large (40.5 x 48 cm) and very expensively produced
volume that appears to me to have been primarily intended for
limited circulation among scholars, and likely the number of printed
copies of this book is small, intended for specialized archives.
The text is in Armenian and Russian.
[5] For a detailed discussion of Armenian alphabet numerology,
especially as it relates to ancient Armenian astronomy and the decimal
counting system, see: Armenians And Old Armenia, Archaeoastronomy,
Linguistics, Oldest History, by Paris M. Herouni, Tigran
Mets, Yerevan, 2004. Text is primarily English, but necessarily with
much Armenian, and some Russian. The focus of the book is the
stones circle observatory at Carahunge (unique in that its deduced
instruments theoretically had a sky observing resolution of 30
arc-seconds) that also attracted the interest of the archeo-astronomer
G.S. Hawkins.
*******************
50
From: Greg Stachowski
To: journalvs@BasicISP.net
Subject: JVS: Library deposit # 1-5-2007-06-24
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 18:45:28 +0200
Robert Teague has deposited the following documents relating to his VMS
research in the JVS Library:
- Moon Occultation Date Summary
- Recipe Section Stars Table
- Researcher's Data Summary
- Teague Numbers
- Values for 17-Letter Alphabet
- Zodiac Section Nymph Overview
They are available at the URL:
http://www.as.up.krakow.pl/jvs/library/1-5-2007-06-24/
Thank you to Robert for making these available to us all.
Greg
******************
51
From: Berj N. Ensanian
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Subject: J.VS: Nested shells perspective of VMS physical
construction
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 21:38:24 -0400
Dear All
As we know, the Voynich Manuscript's gathering of quires and ordering
of folios, has long been a matter of debate. Physical evidence
from the book can be interpreted to mean that the book has apparently
been rebound at least once: for example, some pages in the
book are in rather good condition, while others appear older, worn, and
beat up. All analysis is complicated by the possibility that the
book, as we have it, may have, over an extended period of time, been a
work in progress, with substantial updates being done to its
earlier material, and perhaps even by later authors.
Last December on the old vms-list in a discussion with Robert Teague, I
outlined a particular perspective of the present ordering of
folios in the manuscript.
Quoting from that, [1] :
" It has been suspected that the ms has been mis-gathered or
mis-foliated, not to mention missing pages and forged paginations, and
the pages may not be in the original intended order. However, when the
book is analyzed in terms of its sections, visualizing it as a
sphere that has been cut in two, a kind of core-plus-concentric-shells
organization can be seen, which is even easier to see if one views
the herbal / pharmaceutical section as a sub-section of a general
botanical section: "
and also:
" At the very center of the book (in this core-plus-shells model) the
balneological core is pierced by a single all-text code-page: f76r "
At the time that I described this to Robert, I had already sketched a
minimal diagram of this nested / concentric shells perspective; I
have now submitted an image of the diagram as
deposit # 4-1-2007-06-27 to the Journal's Library. [2]
Presently the diagram is intended as just something to note, and not a
piece of evidence one way or the other in the general debate on
the gathering and binding. Of course I continue to believe that the
climax of the manuscript, the Nine Rosettes Manuscript (9RMS) as
I like to say, is the nine rosettes fold-out. I do think the nesting
diagram, or at least the concept of the nested shells organization of
the
manuscript (according to sections, regardless of the number of pages in
particular sections), is reminiscent of those familiar
wonderful Slavic folk art nested eggs and dolls, and the diagram gets
you thinking about the book's symbolic organization in
interesting ways.
For example, a text-only page is a very rare thing in the ms. And rare
also are pages that could fit in a special class: "code pages" as
I've called them, this meaning pages in the ms, like f57v and f69r,
that, aside from their other conventional class membership,
explicitly suggest cipher code material. [3]
The nesting diagram then shows something rather intriguing: at the core
of the nesting is the balneological section, focused on the
female, and like a womb impregnated by a seed, this balneological nest
is pierced with a single text-only page, that happens also to be
a code page: f76r, the code page with the nine codes. [4]
Berj / KI3U
[1] vms-list post: VMs: 3x3 matrix of f58r and the f68r3 moon-ring;
Saturday, December 2, 2006 9:12 PM; J. VS Library, deposit #
1-1-2007-05-05, file 3JVSlibKI3U.htm
[2] J. VS Library deposit # 4-1-2007-06-27,
VoynichFoliosAsConcentricShells.jpg
This should be installed in the Library and ready for access in a
couple of days when our Librarian, Greg, returns from a conference.
http://www.as.up.krakow.pl/jvs/library/
[3] It is a bit difficult to make a fixed list for the classification
"code pages", those that explicitly suggest cipher coding. Some Voynich
pages are obvious in this vein, for example: f49v, f57v, f66r, f69r,
and f76r with its nine! tantalizing codes on its left margin. Other
pages, like f1r with its faded right margin data, and f58r with its
intriguing 3x3 matrix (or tic-tac-toe grid if you like), are probably
well to include in the class, but then there are pages that are
difficult to assay, like f4r, f75v, and f28v, the latter with those odd
symbols in the center of its flower, notably the Hildegarde-ian letter
"L".
[4] From Cirlot, on the symbolism of the number nine: "For the Hebrews,
it was the symbol of truth, ... " and "In medicinal rites, it is
the symbolic number par excellence, ... ".
A Dictionary of Symbols, by J.E. Cirlot, 1962, translated from the
Spanish by Jack Sage, 1971, Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.; 2nd Ed.
Barnes & Noble, 1995.
**********************
52
From: Greg Stachowski
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Subject: J.VS: Re: Nested shells perspective of VMS physical
construction
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 15:46:03 +0200
The image illustrating J.VS communication #51 ("Nested shells
perspective of VMS physical construction", by Berj) is now in the
Library, at the URL:
http://www.as.up.krakow.pl/jvs/library/4-1-2007-06-27/
Greg
**************
53
From: Jan Hurych
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Subject: J.VS: Re: Nested shells perspective of VMS physical
construction
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 11:43:36 -0700 (PDT)
Good job, Berj,
and thanks Greg for posting it. I am little behind with my plan, since
I am preparingthe article about Krystof Harant na dhis book in
the meantime - Berj, I promised to give you a report, but I decided to
make it into a compact article and his book has two volumes and
about 50 chapters, so pls be patient,
Jan
*****************
54
From: Berj N. Ensanian
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Subject: J.VS: Re: Nested shells perspective of VMS physical
construction
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 16:25:29 -0400
Very good Jan - it will be well worth the wait to read your article on
Krystof Harant.
As I said earlier in another thread, we all have these neat items
stuffed away in our Voynich attics, and I'm all for periodic "antiques
shows" :)
Berj
*********************
55
From: Berj N. Ensanian
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Subject: J.VS: Crisogonus, the Nine Rosettes clockhands, &
Hindu-Arabic Numerals in 1469
Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2007 22:20:03 -0400
Dear All
The 1469 document, Bridwell MS 5, penned by Crisogonus de Nassis, is
interesting in Voynich studies for several different reasons,
and in the past I've posted on it. I've now placed into the Journal's
Library, deposit # 5-1-2007-07-01, comprised of two pictures and a
detailed meta-data text-file that illustrate two points:
the similarities between a peculiar Crisogonus glyph and the
"clockhands" of the Voynich nine rosettes foldout, and
the remarkably modern form of the Hindu-Arabic numerals written by
Crisogonus.
Thank you Greg for installing the deposit [1], and of course the
Journal's ongoing thanks to Mt. Suhora Observatory for hosting the
Library's online presence.
Berj / KI3U
[1] http://www.as.up.krakow.pl/jvs/library/5-1-2007-07-01/
***************************
56
From: Greg Stachowski
To: "J.VS:"
Subject: J.VS: Library deposit #2-5-2007-07-08 - Zodiac
reference images etc.
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 15:57:32 +0200
Robert Teague has made the following images available in the J.VS
Library:
- Modern Zodiac Reference Chart
- Number Evolution Chart
- VMs Zodiac Reference
- Zodiac Clothed Nymphs Distribution
The URL is:
http://www.as.up.krakow.pl/jvs/library/2-5-2007-07-08/
Greg
***************
57
From: Berj N. Ensanian
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Subject: J.VS: Fr. Strickland, S.J.
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:30:45 -0400
So then, following off-J discussions on this topic, tangential and
otherwise, can it be conjectured that "Fr. Strickland, S.J." [1], as
the
seller of MS 408 to Wilfrid Voynich, is perhaps a Mr. Strickland,
perhaps in England, and happened to have the same name as a
Mondragone priest, perhaps because they were relatives?
That is to say that the Jesuits had nothing to do with the actual
transfer of MS 408 to Wilfrid, at the time Wilfrid obtained the ms?
Berj / KI3U
[1] http://www.geocities.com/voyms/index.htm
*********************
58
From: Jan Hurych
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Subject: J.VS: Re: Fr. Strickland, S.J.
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 08:59:53 -0700 (PDT)
Well,
I guess the letters in Beinecke show V. really dealt with Mondragone,
but I do not think there is also the bill of sale in Beinecke. Of
one Fr. Strickland in England there is a quote in Catholic
Encyclopedia:
" ...a letter sent on 8 Nov., 1808, by Father Kohlmann , who was then
acting as the administrator of the diocese, to his friend Father
Strickland, S.J., of London , England "
My comment: by the time of sale, he was most likely dead :-).
Then another father (or maybe the same?), from page:
http://www.runyard.org/jr/G2004/Diary-of-Henry-Rolls-1803-1877.html
"The Community rallied round during the first week in February, 1862,
on Common Hill; a wooden cross erected and blessed on
Sunday, 9th. of Feb., by Bishop Vaughan, while Fr. Strickland preached
a sermon underneath the cross. "
My comment: This Father could have been living in the tthe time of
sale. So the tradition of English Stricklands (some of them
Jesuits) was rich even before the sale. While Guiseppe Strickland was a
professor at Mondragone, four other Stricklands were students
there. We need to know the first name of that Fr. Strickland, who
"introduced Voynich to Mondragone padres". He was a Jesuit, see
S.J., but it could also be one of those jesuits in England (in my
example the first one was, the second quotation is from some diary, so
S.J. could ahve been omitted).
What I meant in my letter to VM List, is that Voynich may have known
either of those in England or he just simply knew the one in
Mondragone. The way Rene put it (and he probably exactly quoted
Voynich), we do not know which Fr. Strickland introduced
Voynich to padres in Mondragone. After all, other Stricklands plus four
students in Mondragone, originally from England, show that
there was some Jesuit connection between England and Italy even before
the sale.
By the way, Fr. in Latin is an abbreviation for Frater, i.e. Brother,
suggesting the member of religious order (say monk) rather than
the priest. Jesuits use instead abbreviation P., or R.P. for Reverend
Pater. Why would Voynich use such confusing English
abbreviation I do not know, he surely knew better than that.
Jan
JVS wrote: From: "Berj N. Ensanian" To: journalvs@basicisp.net Subject:
J.VS: Fr. Strickland, S.J. Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007
09:30:45 -0400 So then, following off-J discussions on this topic,
tangential and otherwise, can it be conjectured that "Fr. Strickland,
S.J." as the seller of MS 408 to Wilfrid Voynich [1], is perhaps a Mr.
Strickland, perhaps in England, and happened to have the same
name as a Mondragone priest, perhaps because they were relatives? That
is to say that the Jesuits had nothing to do with the actual
transfer of MS 408 to Wilfrid, at the time Wilfrid obtained the ms?
Berj / KI3U [1] http://www.geocities.com/voyms/index.htm
*******************
59
From: Greg Stachowski
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Subject: J.VS: Re: Fr. Strickland, S.J.
Date: Tue 07/10/2007 12:23 PM
On 7/10/07, Jan Hurych wrote:
"By the way, Fr. in Latin is an abbreviation for Frater, i.e. Brother,
suggesting the member of religious order (say monk) rather than
the priest. Jesuits use instead abbreviation P., or R.P. for Reverend
Pater. Why would Voynich use such confusing English
abbreviation I do not know, he surely knew better than that."
There are two possibilities. One, the Jesuits do themselves use
"Father", abbreviated to "Fr." in English -- the Jesuit webpage (!) and
Wikipedia provide examples. Or, two, that he meant "Frater", the
Jesuits also having brothers as well as priests like any other order.
****************
60
From: Berj N. Ensanian
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Subject: J.VS: Re: Fr. Strickland, S.J.
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 20:28:14 -0400
Well folks, our off-J discussions around this subject are really making
eye-opening! We have, to look forward to, some detailed J.VS
posts in the future, I hope. In the meantime I'll post some of my
burning curiosities:
1.) Was there a Mondragone-connected Strickland(s) conspiracy regarding
transfer of a manuscript or manuscripts to Wilfrid
Voynich? And if so, was it really just about discreetly getting some
outside-source money?
2.) Is it conceivable that long before Wilfrid Voynich met any
Strickland, there existed a "Strickland Manuscript" with something
about it rather sensitive?
3.) Is Ricci's 1937 census MS 8 (apparently relied upon by Ruysschaert
for his 1959 catalog entries that concern us) positively
unambiguously identifyable as today's Yale Beinecke MS 408 ?
If yes, then how exactly, and on whose authority ? ? ?
4.) From Newbold (via his book edited by Roland Grubb Kent) the public
learns no later than 1928, two years before Wilfrid
Voynich's death, that Wilfrid Voynich found the mysterious manuscript
in an Austrian Castle. Years later after Ethel Voynich dies, a
new story emerges, a complicated one albeit with certain secular vs
church history conveniences, and via the mediumship of our
favorite mystery character, Miss Lone Ranger Mask Nill, that has
Wilfrid discovering the manuscript in Mondragone. Wilfrid of
course is long dead, and cannot comment on the new dramatic change in
the story of how he discovered his famous manuscript.
Even if Wilfrid had no ethical problems with launching a public lie,
would he not have been taking a business and/or social risk doing
so? For example, presumably Wilfrid could not have known that Newbold
would suddenly die untimely. Therefore was it not a great
risk to tell Newbold about the Austrian castle, if it was completely
untrue?
5.) Or, did Newbold, who incidentally actually discovered a new
chemical process (ref. blue vitriol) from his VMS decipherment
efforts, know the Austrian castle story was untrue, and he ran with it
anyway?
6.) Why did H.P. Kraus say he owned the VMS for seven "happy" years?
(before then donating it to Yale Beinecke) - years during
which he failed to sell it and provide a nice cut for his then-employee
Miss Nill, when otherwise from beginning to end in his
interesting self-glorifying autobiography he makes it abundantly clear
that, for him, the experience of not being able to sell a book he
intended to sell, or sell it for what he wanted to sell it for, was a
painful experience.
7.) Is it odd, that Austria-native Kraus's (autobiography) chapter on
the world's most mysterious manuscript, is bracketed by Fr. J.
Strickland in the beginning of the chapter, and at the end of the
chapter with Kraus's 1963 visit to Ruysschaert with its strange twist
outcome?
Berj / KI3U
***********************
61
From: Berj N. Ensanian
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Sent : Monday, July 16, 2007 11:15 AM
Subject : J.VS: non-western-European influences in VMS origin:
Czech Knight Krystof Harant
Dear All
Greg has just put online Library deposit # 3-4-2007-07-16 :
http://www.as.up.krakow.pl/jvs/library/
It is a speculative article for general reference for possible
non-western European origins of Voynich manuscript material:
HOW THE VM GOT IN PRAGUE (The story of Krystof Harant de Polzic and
Bezdruzic) by J. B. Hurych
Jan has been saying, off-J, that it is high time to start collecting
some reference sources for possible eastern origins of the VMS, or
even just portions of the VMS. I agree: I've always felt that there are
Byzantine traces in the ms, notably the general look and feel of
the f85/86 nine rosettes foldout.
Jan's article introduces the very interesting Czech Knight Krystof
Harant (1564-1621); we had been discussing him off-J as I was
struck by his Armenian-like name (Hrant) and of course his appearance
from his picture that Jan provides in his article.
Jan is clear that he did not, in Harant's book on Harant's journey to
the east, find any Voynich ms smoking guns:
" In Harant's book, I unfortunately did not find any hint he bought
anywhere any manuscript, however he had with him enough money
(he was robbed only shortly before his return) and he was educated
enough and had the interest in old books. Also, knowing other
languages, he might have been attracted to the strange, mysterious
manuscript. Still, it would be premature to close this case now when
we still do not know enough. For the meantime, it should be apparent
that the VM could very well came from other place than just
Western Europe and Harnt could ahve been the one who brought it. "
Nevertheless, Jan's article discusses Harant in Voynich context, and
thereby stimulates considerably interesting possibilities. In
particular, aside from whether or not Harant really had any connection
with the Prague ms, his book and life are an excellent
refererence, for example: one could check his trip to the Holy Land
against the f85/86 nine rosettes foldout viewed as a map. There is
obviously tremendous detail in Harant's travel descriptions.
One excellent Voynich-relevant thought in Jan's article is that if
Harant, or someone like him, a "traitor", did have the ms, then there
is indeed a very good motive for Baresch et al to be vague about the
origin of the ms. This interesting thought had not occurred to me
before: it provides a possible explanation for why Baresch is vague,
assuming of course that Baresch's ms is indeed the Voynich ms, as
standard Voynich history alleges atop very shaky foundations (see J.VS
comm. # 60), but so far still has not been able to demonstrate
at all conclusively.
So, in one shot, we now have some excellent eastern reference material
in the Journal's Library. Thanks Jan.
Berj / KI3U
********************
62
From: Berj N. Ensanian
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Subject: J.VS: Philosophical math-text versus practical
cipher-text
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 13:20:48 -0400
Dear All
Greg Stachowski and I have been having an off-J discussion that seems
to me to be of sufficient general interest to share in the
Journal. So with Greg's consent I've lifted from our emails the main
portions of our discussions and compacted them for easy reading
below. I've done my best to present our sometimes interleaved and
parallel comments into an accurately representative serial format.
As you will see, we are discussing the implications of a successful
mastering of the scheme by which the Voynich text was generated.
This touches upon broader issues behind the manuscript's origins, such
as hoax versus serious message. The discussion follows below.
I hope you find it interesting.
Berj / KI3U
DISCUSSION (JUL 2007) between Stachowski and Ensanian on philosophical
math-text versus practical cipher-text in the context of
the Voynich Manuscript:
Berj Ensanian says:
This is important: I am distinguishing as separate analytic problems
the creation of the glyphs sequence (its equation), and any
coherent message that hitches a ride on the sequence by some other
mathematical procedure.
Greg Stachowski says:
But that won't mean the equation itself has any meaning relative to the
VMS, unless there are other constraints to show that it does.
Think compression: I take a text file (which is a set of numbers, e.g.
ASCII) and run say Hoffmann compression on it. I get another,
shorter set of numbers, which together with the Hoffmann algorithm is
essentially an equation which can be used to reproduce the
original. But the original doesn't need to have any meaning connected
to the equation. See what I'm getting at?
The thing is , I can see how we can reproduce a way of generating the
glyphs (although there is no way of knowing if it is the same
way as the author) , but how do we get from that to the coherent
message 'hitching a ride'? I don't see how one could do so
unambiguously, given the number of variables ...
Berj says:
1.) Obtain a relatively simple general equation that generates,
exactly, including inter-word spaces and line breaks, a sequence of vms
text, with only a change in the constants/parameters of the general
eqn. to make it work with any particular block of text.
Greg says:
Ok.
Berj says:
2.) Make a decision: is this the end of it? In other words is the total
goal of the vms author the exhibiting of passable natural appearing
writing, that is in fact generated by just feeding n=1, 2, 3, ... into
an equation.
Greg says:
One wonders what the criterion for making that call would be. I suppose
if the equation is very simple then it would be more likely.
Berj says:
3.) If anyone was bright enough to successfully achieve 2.) it seems
likely they would not stop there, but on creative curiosity alone
would go further and find a mechanism for using the math generated text
as a cipher, or in any case a carrier for natural coherent
thought. In other words find a way, for plain-text, of any type in any
language, to hitch a ride on pre-generated ready to use math-text.
(This might well be part of a goal of developing a universal language).
Greg says:
Well, simply use the generated string of characters as a key in an
ordinary substitution cipher; in this case with an infinite key length
it
would be nearly uncrackable unless the equation generating the text had
some periodicity shorter than the text length.
On the other hand, if the generated text were used to encipher a
plaintext (not necessarily in the way I suggested) then working
backwards from the ciphertext to generate an equation would give the
_wrong_ equation; not the one which generated the key. So not
of much use, unless the two equations turned out to be related somehow.
Berj says:
4.) The hitching a ride mechanism could be very primitive: fix an
integer sequence, like Dr. Strong's say, as the in-math-word glyph
positions that determine insertion there of one glyph from the
plain-text, and then substitute into the next math-word at that glyph
position. If Strong says now use the ninth glyph in the current
math-word, and the current math-word has less than nine glyphs, then
just skip to the next math-word that has nine glyphs at least, or skip
the 9 in Strong and take the next Strong-sequence-integer that will
work, or count two math-words together to make one of at least 9 glyphs
length, or some rule along those lines. And, recycle Strong's
sequence as long as needed.
Greg says:
That is just too complicated for my brain to follow without more coffee
:)
Again, though, this would seem to alter the equation generating the
text.
Berj says:
The primitive hitch-hiking scheme is a highly verbose cipher of course:
each math-word carries at most just one plain-text glyph. But
that might be a so-what?! Because the original main goal was 2.), and
3.) was a just a continuation of the creative fun. And anyway, if
you didn't know the system, nor the language of the plain-text, plus
you've got a strange alphabet, well how easy would it be to crack
it?
I think it would be pretty difficult. No?
Greg says:
Probably.
As I said above, using the sequence to transmit a message in whatever
way changes the nature of the sequence, thus any generating
function we recover will not be the original, and this case will look
the same as the case where there is no encrypted message and the
text is just a string of numbers generated by a function.
Berj says:
If you knew the system and, in the primitive cipher example also knew
the simple modifying sequence (example: Strong's sequence), I
think you could read it alright because you would recognize the
generating function's output as modified.
Greg says:
If you knew both, yes. But I maintain that working back from the
ciphertext you are unlikely to recover the generating function without
decrypting the text first anyway.
Berj says:
You'd need familiarity with the system of course. Also, we might think
of the primitive verbose example as being essentially the
output of the familiar generating equation slightly distorted by noise
- the noise in this case being the distributed plain-text glyphs, and
this noise density is so low that the familiar output of the generator
equation is recognized.
Greg says:
So, let's assume for a minute that this procedure is possible, and that
you do recover a equation (well, formula or algorithm perhaps,
equation isn't really the word) which reproduces exactly or nearly so
(transcription errors) any chunk of the VMS we choose. It
reproduces those chunks which it was not derived from as well as those
it was, which strengthens the hypothesis that it is the 'right'
equation. So now we are left with interpretation.
It seems to me that there are several possibilities:
1.] The equation is very simple, but has no clear relevance or meaning
beyond generating pseudotext. In this case we can, I think,
conclude that the VMS is a clever hoax, and the equation was used to
quickly generate realistic pseudotext for it. It remains to be
determined by other means (the text now being effectively useless) who
did so, when and why; this is constrained by the fact that the
cleverness of this approach would eliminate all but a few individuals
in any time period before the modern information age. In this
case it is likely (though not necessarily true) that the images are
also essentially meaningless.
Berj says:
Yes definitely, we could very probably narrow our search for potential
authors.
But I disagree it would necessarily be a hoax for reasons mentioned
earlier: the main intent may have been to explore the idea: that a
purely mathematical procedure can generate realistic appearing natural
language text - a worthy challenge. Such a challenge would, it
seems to me, fit well into a philosophy focusing on the idea of the
unity of the macroscopic and microscopic worlds, the unity of the
animate and inanimate worlds, and so on, all unified via a common
mathematical language employed by the cosmic creative force.
(And the work perhaps motivated further by exploration of a universal
language system.)
Greg says:
If so, this can be easily accomplished in a few pages, without going to
the extent of generating 100-odd folios and the associated
pictures. Wherefore then the VMS as a whole?
If the generation was continued to the extent of filling what is
essentially a book, and the illustrations added, for the purpose of
showing off the effectiveness of the new procedure to others, then it
becomes arguably a hoax, even if a mild and harmless one.
Berj says:
I think that much of the Voynich research tendency to entertain "hoax"
comes from a tendency to believe that there must have been a
practical end to the effort that went into the ms text. But instead, it
may have been more a philosophical exercise.
Greg says:
Even a philosophical exercise has a practical end; to explore whether
something can be (done) or show that it can be (done).
But again. for oneself that can be shown sufficiently to satisfy the
philosophical purpose within a few pages, if the pages are
meaningless and the intent is to show that they can be generated. So to
generate more implies having another purpose. Now, that
purpose may have been to demonstrate to others that a whole book could
be built this way, but then it is in a sense a hoax. Or the
intent may have been analogous to creating a work of art or craft,
something done to look like a strange manuscript but with no real
meaning. Again, from the point of view of Voynichology, this is
equivalent to a hoax, even if the intent was never to show it to anyone
and it was created simply for the pleasure of doing so. It (in this
example) has become a hoax through a long history of people
supposing that it did have meaning.
Berj says:
I'm not convinced, that if it is a book-length philosophical
exploration, that it is a hoax. It is a valid exercise / exploration,
because it is
interesting, and the very existence of ongoing longterm serious Voynich
research adds to that. Now, if it is a hoax from the point of
view of Voynichology, because of Voynichology's traditional views on
what the text "should be" in order not to be a "hoax", then
Voynichology is defining itself as a philosophical Simplicius, it seems
to me. In other words what I am trying to say is that the
Voynich ms author does not owe Voynichology, or more correctly some
faction in Voynichology, an adherence to some standard of
what is and is not a hoax. After a hundred years of going around in
circles, it seems to me that any faction in Voynichology that flatly
declares the ms a "hoax" is standing on extremely thin ice. I'd go so
far as to say uninteresting ice. Granted, if the book is a
philosophical exercise, it may well be, to someone, an uninteresting
philosophy, but still not necessarily be a "hoax" I think.
Greg says:
2.] The equation is very simple, but is related in some way to natural
mathematical phenomena: orbital motion, Fibonacci sequence;
golden ratio; pi, etc. In this case we can conclude that the VMS was a
demonstration of the power of mathematics, perhaps as some
utopian-philosophical experiment consistent with the period 16th/17th
C. Again, this should point us to who & when; and also
suggests looking at the images (plants, astro) in the same
philosophical context.
Berj says:
Yes, yes exactly!
Greg says:
3.] The equation is complicated, including features which are required
to make it fit the text. There are some hints of underlying
simplicity and pattern. In this case, I think we may have the case of
an encrypted text ciphered using a simple equation, whose
simplicity is being masked by the encryption. In this case the outcome
of whether it can be decrypted or not depends on how
complicated this process looks to be. It may well be impossible.
Alternatively, it may be that the equation has nothing to do with the
text or encryption, but by correctly describing it may point us to a
language or (non-mathematical) encryption scheme. Sort of like
Zipf's law might be used to determine the underlying language. It will
be difficult to unambiguously demonstrate any of these though.
Berj says:
Now it's my turn to have coffee :)
Greg says:
4.] The equation is complicated, there are no obvious patterns or hints
of simple structure. In this case we don't know what we have:
simple but very good encryption, complex encryption, complex
description, or a compression algorithm.
Berj says:
Well yes, as before: if the equation is too complex, and relies solely
on a universal mathematical theorem, Fourier say, and is not
further reducable into a simpler form via specific functions that
reveal the author's design and intent, then we have merely a
demonstration of the power of some kinds of powerful mathematical
analysis, but we have not illuminated any design and intent of the
9RMS text author in the generating of his/her Voynich text.
Greg says:
Indeed. The hope would be to get no. 2], or perhaps no. 3.]
Berj says:
So it seems overall then that we have here a kind of uncertainty
principle: even if the Voynich text author's main intent was to
explore,
via the mathematical generating of artificial text that has the
appearance of natural text, and perhaps in an advanced version even has
some of the precision characteristics of natural writing, as his (the
author's) intended illustrated book-length exploration of a principle
of cosmic unity/universality, we nevertheless cannot use universal
mathematical theorems alone to conclude that that was the author's
intention in creating the mysterious text.
Yes?
************************
63
From: Greg Stachowski
To: "J.VS:"
Subject: J.VS: Re: Philosophical math-text versus practical
cipher-text
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 12:45:08 +0200
Yes indeed, Berj. Your final conclusion is spot on.
Thank you for editing that discussion and putting it up. Hopefully
others will find it as interesting as we both did. Perhaps it will
stimulate some new thinking and ideas.
As you said in your introduction, we have touched, more or less
overtly, on a broad range of topics. Aside from the mathematical idea
itself, there are a few I think are worth mentioning:
First, I think the more general thoughts on the origin of the VMS as
perhaps a philosophical experiment, a purely creative work or a
demonstration of an idea are worthwhile in broadening the paradigm in
which Voynich research is carried out, and showing that other
ideas are possible.
Second, the discussion of what a particular line of analysis might mean
if successful is useful as an example of the sort of questions
which I think should be asked and answered in every branch of Voynich
research. As a group, we need to question and analyse our
own research more often.
Third, the hoax. I think this is a topic worth returning to, if nothing
else because everybody has a slightly different idea of what they
mean by 'hoax' and these may be worth exploring and clarifying.
Finally, I mentioned to you off J.VS that I very much like the idea of
'dialogue' . It is a device which has been used since classical
times for this sort of discussion, and,whether it is two real people or
two imagined people, it can often produce much more dynamic
discussion than the single point -of-view essay form. I think it is a
form we should use more often.
Greg
*************************************
64
From: Berj N. Ensanian
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Subject: J.VS: Re: Philosophical math-text versus practical
cipher-text
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 09:53:24 -0400
Greg
Very well indeed.
I want to add that in my view the optimistic, and at the same time
exciting possibility, is explicitly pointed out by you in comm. #62
when you say " The hope would be to get no. 2], or perhaps no. 3.] ".
Here again from comm. #62 is the relevant portion of our dialogue:
* * * * *
Greg says:
2.] The equation is very simple, but is related in some way to natural
mathematical phenomena: orbital motion, Fibonacci sequence;
golden ratio; pi, etc. In this case we can conclude that the VMS was a
demonstration of the power of mathematics, perhaps as some
utopian-philosophical experiment consistent with the period 16th/17th
C. Again, this should point us to who & when; and also
suggests looking at the images (plants, astro) in the same
philosophical context.
Berj says:
Yes, yes exactly!
* * * * *
Now, on account of the deep perplexity of the Voynich manuscript, we
(some of us researchers over the past century) have had plenty
of thinking space to evermore project evermore profound possibilities
upon the solution to the mystery. But the above general
characterization does seem to me to be a very realistic one, and
especially very satisfying if that is what it was that kept everyone so
mystified for so long.
Berj
****************************************
65
From: Berj N. Ensanian
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Subject: J.VS: Problems with text transcription: variations of
a basic glyph
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 21:12:44 -0400
Dear All
One of the well known and continuously relevant problems in Voynich
text transcription is the variations of an apparently-same-type
glyph. Is a particular example just a variation, perhaps due to hurried
writing at the time, a different hand, or the need to squeeze the
glyph into a small available space, or is it in fact a different, or
meaningful-modification glyph? Is it an information-carrying glyph at
all? This problem alone, aside from the missing pages problem, produces
the large variation in the size of the assumed basic Voynich
text alphabet: depending on one's view of the variations, the size of
the alphabet, the number of its glyphs / letters, can vary by a factor
of well more than 2. The problem can be further exacerbated if one
entertains the idea that the text contains "incognito symbols". [1]
Approaches to resolving the problem are necessarily subjective of
course, until perhaps some day precursor documents to the VMS are
discovered that result in an unambiguous set of Voynich alphabet
glyphs, or else a convincing decipherment of the VMS text makes
the situation clear.
Back in May, 2006, I undertook a brief study of variations of the
double-looped symmetric gallows letter ( a.k.a. GC-k or EVA-t ). I
surveyed the Beinecke images of the pages of the manuscript and drew
some variations, around three dozen, of the this hallmark
Voynich text symbol on two notebook pages. During this exercise I used
on-computer-screen page images set at about, or not too
much larger, than the natural size of the physical pages. Within the
context of paying general attention to scripts and hands in ancient
exemplars for the purpose of finding script-style kinship with VMS
gallows forms, I had been motivated to do the study after seeing a
particular example of "A" in BL Harley MS 4431, the magnificent early
15th c. Christine de Pizan manuscript. [2, 3, 4]
I thought it would be useful for us to have in our Library the drawings
from my study: at one glance they give an idea of the magnitude
of the variations problem. So I have sent to our Librarian, Greg,
deposit # 6-1-2007-07-19 containing an image of the two pages of
drawings. The survey-study that the drawings exhibit was not exhaustive
by any means, and as noted next to them on the paper, some
of the drawings are sloppy. But the collection altogether does show one
of the great problems faced when transcribing Voynich text: is
this glyph a no-further-significance variation of basic type X, or is
it a variation of basic type Y ?
Berj / KI3U
[1] Discussions of the hypothetical incognito symbols may be found by
searching preserved posts to the old vms-list in:
J. VS Library deposit # 1-1-2007-05-05, file 2JVSlibKI3U.htm, and file
3JVSlibKI3U.htm
http://www.as.up.krakow.pl/jvs/library/
[2] vms-list thread: VMs: gallows letters in Christine de Pizan's work,
Saturday, May 27, 2006 3:01 PM; preserved in J. VS Library
deposit # 1-1-2007-05-05, file 2JVSlibKI3U.htm
[3] My drawing of the "A" also appears on my drawings pages: at top
right of the left drawings-page. Several Voynich ms glyphs are
quite similar to it.
[4] As an interesting tangent, arguable exemplars of the box-cross
symbol discussed in J. VS comm. #49 can be seen in a miniature
illustration of another Christine manuscript:
Coronation Book of Charles V of France, British Library Cotton MS
Tiberius B. viii, f.55
http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/themes/euromanuscripts/charlesv.html
The box-cross is seen in the pattern on the back-wall, and on the
bedsheet.
*******************
66
From: Berj N. Ensanian
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Subject: J.VS: Experimental minimal Alphabet for broad
phoneme-spectrum transcription
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 19:22:37 -0400
Dear All
As we know, it is sometimes assumed that the "basic" Voynich text
alphabet size, operating in any given block of text, is essentially
dominated by a set of 17 elements. This idea, or a variation on this
idea, has a long history, going back to at least Tiltman. [1, 2]
One variation on the idea is this: the actual glyphs can change here
and there, but the essential set remains 17 elements. Therefore, in
order to get a handle on the Voynich text, the first task is to obtain
an understanding of the relations between 17 essential elements,
regardless of the particular glyphs that come in and out of the set of
17.
By analogy, we might think of a block of VMS text as the progression of
a theatrical play with a total of 17 roles, but as the play is
performed, the actors (glyphs) portraying a particular essential play
role, can change: the stable of actors in the theater company is
much larger than 17, and there is no restriction that the same actor
must stay pinned to the same role(s) as the performance moves
along. What does remain stable, is relationships: for example, the
"aristocrat" and "pedestrian" roles (rare versus common glyphs in a
given text block), and the "inseparable lovers" roles (digraphs) are
recognized by their relationships, no matter the actors portraying
them during any sequence in the play.
Actually I think that one could study the glyph frequencies in very
large blocks of Voynich text and conclude that the essential number
of the alphabet core is 16 instead of 17.
Anyway, whether or not this idea is really correct, after all there are
many more than 17 glyphs in the VMS text and in Journal comm.
#65 we further confront the glyphs variation problem, nevertheless it
does motivate exploring written expression of thought, in this
case in western languages that normally use some variation of the Roman
Latin alphabet letters, scripted with only 16 or 17 letters. Is
that practical?
The Rotokas language of Papua New Guinea is noted for its small number
of phonemes, and therefore having in its written form only
eleven or twelve letters (a subset of the Latin alphabet), the ones
used being: A, E, G, I, K, O, P, R, S, T, U, V. But we must clearly
distinguish between a small phonemes-inventory language that is
efficiently mapped to a small alphabet, and a small alphabet that
permits its mapping to large sets of phonemes. [3]
That is, whereas the Rotokas alphabet may be efficient for the Rotokas
language, it is not necessarily efficient in general: a major
speech by a Lakhota Chief would probably not be transcribed very well
in the Rotokas alphabet. But, it is not simple to get any of this
down quantitatively: the "goodness" of the transcription of a piece of
speech in some language versus the number of letters, and
particular letters, in a trial broad phoneme-spectrum transcription
alphabet.
I often experiment along these lines in Voynich text analysis work,
under the assumption of course that either directly, or under
cipher, the text represents coherent writing with a message. My
minimal-alphabet experiments have more or less settled on one
alphabet system in particular, a minimal alphabet of 16 or 17 elements,
that I'll briefly illustrate here. Perhaps you will find some
interesting points of view on it that will make the case for the
utility of this alphabet stronger, or weaker. I must say it is fun
working
with this alphabet, and comparing its results with writings of several
hundred years ago. [4]
TABLE 1 : Experimental minimal Alphabet for broad phoneme-spectrum
transcription
Note: the Hindu-Arabic numeral index numbers are optionally expressed
by their corresponding letters. The Latin letters are meant to
represent phonemes, and the Table is primarily a set of relationships
between phonemes: therefore glyphs other than the Latin could be
used. The basic alphabet consists of the "Letter written once" set, but
optionally may be expanded by "Written twice" and "Written
thrice". | = space or other scripting device.
Index: Letter written once; Written twice; Written thrice
0: |
1: A
2: B; P
3: C; S
4: D; T
5: E; I
6: F; V; W
7: G; K; Q
8: H
9: J; Y
10: L
11: M
12: N
13: O; U
14: R
15: X
16: Z
We see that the basic alphabet is 16 letters: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H,
J, L, M, N, O, R, X, Z
Lets see how it works with an example:
Journal of Voynich Studies welcomes Father Athanasius Kircher, S.J., as
our newest member.
JOORNAL OF FOJNECH CDODEEC FELGOMEC FADHER ADHANACEUC GERCHER CJ AZ OOR
NEFECD MEMBER
It's really not too bad as it is. We do see an ambiguity: CDODeeC,
CDODiC, CDODeiC, or CDODieC
We might consider using an expansion if we think the reader (who does
know the system) may have trouble getting the exact meaning
with quick reading. For example, we might make the "V" in "Voynich"
unambiguous, by writing "F" twice:
FFOJNECH
which the reader will read as: VOJNECH etc.
Expansion, twice or thrice, within words must be used sparingly because
it could increase reading time. If instead of JOORNAL we
write JOOORNAL then the decoding possibilities become JUORNAL and
JOURNAL. It seems best just to leave it as it is.
Lets try the in-word Write-thrice expansion for "W" in "newest" :
NEFFFECD
The decoding possibilities are: NEFVECD and NEVFECD and NEWECD
We could really get carried away and expand the word to this:
nefffeccdd
where I've also done a glyphs change to remind that TABLE 1 is
concerned with a set of phonemes, and not the exact glyphs
representing them.
Generally, in my experiments I've been finding that the economical
written-once transcription works pretty well, in English as well as
in German, and expansions like the last one are interesting for
studying certain particular Voynich words, like the famous word family
daiin / 8am.
As simple as the above outlined scheme is, it is nevertheless a big
project becoming familiar with it enough so as to judge its universal
practicality. For example, under which circumstances is it ok to use a
letter to stand for its Hindu-Arabic numeral index, so that there
is no ambiguity? Lets try a phrase where the intention is to say "I
took 54 with me" (perhaps meaning that I took 54 friends with me
to somewhere) :
E DOOG ED FEDH ME
A straighforward decoding quickly results in:
I TOOK IT WITH ME
and the sense is that that which is being taken along is one item,
rather than 54. The simple first conclusion is that the problem of
correct understanding could be removed by context, and it may well not
be always necessary to write out the 54 :
E DOOG FEFDJ FOOR FEDH ME
In the Voynich text specifically, where the glyphs being used are not
the Roman Latin letters, it could be that Teague numbers [5]
disambiguate numerals vs letters problems in some efficient way: it
would require quite a bit of further work to establish that.
Finally, lets take the entire second paragraph of this communication
above, and write it using Table 1, in the Write-once set. For
easier reading I'll use lower-case glyphs:
one fareadeon on dhe edea ec dhec | dhe agdoal gljbhc gan change here
and dhere | bod dhe eccendeal ced remaenc cefendeen
elemendc | dherefore | en order do ged a handle on dhe fojnech dexd |
dhe fercd dacg ec do obdaen an ondercdandeng of dhe reladeonc
bedfeen cefendeen eccendeal elemendc | regardlecc of dhe bardegolar
gljbhs dhad kome en and oot of dhe ced of cefendeen |
It is clear that the text is in English. I conjecture that, especially
with some practice, the preceding is quite readable and
understandable, especially if one has heard a lot of dialects from
speakers speaking in a tongue not native to them, and not their normal
every-day tongue.
The Table 1 alphabet system is easily and quickly learned - you
probably already have it memorized. It is about as simple a way as one
might wish, to introduce repetitiveness into a script sequence:
contract the alphabet set. With respect to the discussions begun in
Journal comm. #62, we could well speculate that among the explorations
one might undertake during the design of a universal script
for a universal language, all governed by some mathematics, would be an
efficient alphabet in the efficiency sense considered here.
E mucd caj agaen dhad come of dhece enfecdegadeonc are goede fonnj :)
Berj / KI3U
[1] see D'Imperio.
[2] Stallings in his 1998 paper on VMS text 2nd order entropies
considers transcriptions with alphabet sets ranging between 21 and 34
characters / symbols / letters / glyphs. Note that 2 x 17 = 34.
Understanding the Second-Order Entropies of Voynich Text, by Dennis J.
Stallings, May 11, 1998.
http://www.geocities.com/ctesibos/voynich/mbpaper.htm
[3] Note how "efficiency" is here pegged to the quantity of letters in
the alphabet under consideration: obtaining a passable written
transcription of the widest possible spectrum of spoken speech with the
lowest quantity of phoneme-representing glyphs. Linguists in
their field have a far more demanding requirement than "passable", and
for their purposes they have, among their systems, the
International Phonetics Association's International Phonetic Alphabet
(IPA):
http://www.arts.gla.ac.uk/IPA/ipa.html
[4] See for example the old English of Anthony Ascham that GC (Glen
Claston) provides here:
http://voynichcentral.com/users/gc/Ascham/
[5] For the table of Teague Numbers see J.VS Library deposit #
1-5-2007-06-24
http://www.as.up.krakow.pl/jvs/library/
**********************
67
From: Greg Stachowski
To: "J.VS:"
Subject: J.VS: Re: Problems with text transcription:
variations of a basic glyph
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 10:34:43 +0200
The illustration referenced in J.VS communication #65:
" J.VS: Problems with text transcription: variations of a basic glyph "
is now in the library under the URL:
http://www.as.up.krakow.pl/jvs/library/6-1-2007-07-19/
Greg
******************
68
From: Jan Hurych
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Subject: J.VS: announcing Library deposit # 4-4-2007-08-10
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 12:39:28 -0700 (PDT)
Announcing Library deposit # 4-4-2007-08-10
J.VS: THE VOYNICH MANUSCRIPT - DO WE REALLY HAVE ANY PROVENANCE?
Jan
*******************
69
From: Berj N. Ensanian
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Subject: J.VS: Jan's THE VOYNICH MANUSCRIPT - DO WE REALLY
HAVE ANY PROVENANCE?
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 22:32:36 -0400
Dear All
In J.VS communication #68 Jan announced the availability, in the
Journal's Library, of his paper on the question of the Voynich
manuscript's provenance [1]. Such a paper has, I think, been long
overdue, and I am grateful to Jan for writing it and putting in our
Library. What Jan presents, the cold hard facts, is mostly not
comfortable reading for those who would believe that the popular
standard history of the VMS provides a reliable account of the
manuscript's provenance. Actually it isn't comfortable reading for
anyone who is deeply interested in the Voynich manuscript, for it
pointedly reminds us just how many items are shaky and suspicious
in our conceptions of the manuscript's origin.
Toward that I'll here quickly amplify with a little more detail a point
I've touched on before, namely Newbold and the Austrian castle.
[2]
William Romaine Newbold's (1861-1926) post-mortem 1928 book was
published by the University of Pennsylvania Press in
Philadelphia:
The Cipher of Roger Bacon (ed. with Foreword and Notes by Roland Grubb
Kent)
In the beginning of Chapter II (The Voynich Cipher Manuscript of Roger
Bacon, Sketch of its History), on pg. 29, (where by footnote
editor Kent informs us that the remainder of the chapter is a slightly
rewritten and revised version of Voynich's address given at the
College of Physicians in Philadelphia, as an introduction to Newbold's
lecture on April 20, 1921.) Newbold says that Voynich said he
found the VMS among a collection of precious illuminated manuscripts in
a chest in an ancient castle in southern Europe.
In a footnote on pg. 30 Newbold says that Voynich hopes some day to
aquire the remainder of the collection, and therefore refrains
from giving details about the locality of the castle.
In the beginning of Chapter V (Following the Clues), pg. 72, Newbold
says that in 1915 in Philadelphia Voynich showed Newbold the
manuscript (apparently for the first time) and told him it had been
found in Austria.
So it is unequivocal: according to Newbold, he was informed by Wilfrid
Voynich that:
1.) Voynich found the VMS in an ancient castle in southern Europe
2.) The manuscript had been found in Austria.
Now, while it is possible with respect to 2.) that Voynich, when he was
informing Newbold, may have been purposely disconnecting
some events, namely that Voynich was told by his VMS supplier(s) that
the VMS had been found (by someone, once upon a time) in
Austria, and therefore it is for Wilfrid Voynich a matter of plausible
denial that 1.) and 2.) are completely connected, nevertheless the
sense one gets from Newbold is that Newbold believes that he has been
informed by Voynich that the VMS was found by Voynich in
an ancient Austrian Castle.
And then, as we know, in 1960, long after Newbold and Wilfrid Voynich
are dead, and just after Ethel Voynich dies, Miss Nill,
possibly while in the employ of H.P. Kraus, causes the story of the
discovery of the manuscript to change completely, the new story
sounding a lot like someone dusted off The Gadfly of Ethel Voynich's
youth for some exciting Risorgimento ideas. Kraus, by the way,
in his autobiography [3] is not much circumspect about his knowingly
transporting a very rare antiquity, a globe, out of Italy, when
common sense would dictate that Italian authorities would like to have
known about such a transport. In that vein, if in 1915 Voynich
needed a cover story for getting books out of Italy, could he in 1915
have known that "Austria" would be a good bet, the
Austro-Hungarian empire dissolving at the end of the first world war?
Needless to say an ancient Austrian castle and a Rennaissance Italian
villa are not the same thing at all.
It may well be prudent, rather than to ask which of the two stories is
the truth, to just ask: what is the truth about how Voynich got
hold of the manuscript?
Like it or not, we are stuck with a problem, because Newbold's book
does give the above details, and Wilfrid Voynich was still alive
when the book came out, and Newbold was Voynich's hope for validating
the Roger Bacon theory. And this little problem, a "minor"
one as Jan puts it :), is just one in Jan's VMS provenance problems
catalog. By the time you are done reading the major problems in
Jan's catalog, you are downright deflated about VMS history.
But, just suppose for a moment that the second story, the 1960
revisionist one that has Wilfrid discovering the manuscript at the
Villa
Mondragone, is really true, or at least partly true. That of course
motivates looking into the Villa Mondragone. Curiously, there is
some art there (I don't know how long it has been there) that reminds
me an awful lot of the grand climax of the Voynich manuscript:
the f85/86 nine rosettes foldout. The art I am referring to can be seen
online here:
http://www.villamondragone.com/indp/soff_sala_rossa.html
I can't read the Italian caption, but perhaps this artwork is a ceiling
decoration. It has strikingly similar major geometry components to
those in the nine rosettes foldout it seems to me! Digging further into
the history of Villa Mondragone:
http://www.villamondragone.com/history.html
It turns out that the energetic Pope Gregory XIII (1502-1585) was from
1571 a longtime guest resident there, he a patron of Jesuits,
and much concerned with Forbidden Books, concerned with the Baths of
Diocletian, and famously the authorizer of the calendar
reform that, via the German Jesuit mathematician / astronomer
Christopher Clavius (1538-1612), and Kepler (1571-1630) and
Aloysius Lilius (1510-1576), gave us the Gregorian calendar. And
Gregory decreed his calendar as official, from the Villa
Mondagrone, in 1582. And some think that Clavius' uncertain given name,
Clau or Klau via the Latin "clavis" is possibly a cryptic
form for "Schluessel", the German word for "key".
Well, there is this to ponder: there is in the nine rosettes foldout,
diagonally off to the below-left of the southwest rosette, that curious
object which is commonly known as "the clock". And at least one of its
two "hands" has a definite symbolic resemblance to a key,
easily seen in the .sid image of the foldout.
So, in my rather uninhibited imagination at the moment I muse on the
possibility that the author of the Voynich manuscript knew well
the Villa Mondragone, with its dragon emblem, the villa which was a
successor on its site to a line of previous villas going back to a
prominent Roman family. Do I really believe that the Villa Mondragone
is intimately connected with the genesis of the VMS? Not
really, at least not yet, but the above is rather curious I think, and
Jan's paper gave me the opportunity to bring it up in the Journal.
One more thing: in Jan's paper, item 5.) first mentions the question of
the physical connection between the "Marci" letter and the
manuscript. Just for reference, although the information is rather
minimal, in his autobiography in the chapter on "The Most
Mysterious Manuscript", Kraus states:
" The manuscript's provenance is fascinating. It enters recorded
history on August 19, 1666, when Joannes Marcus Marci sent the
codex from Prague to Athanasius Kircher, S.J., in Rome, with a signed
autograph letter which is loosely laid into the manuscript. "
Berj / KI3U
[1] J.VS Library deposit # 4-4-2007-08-10
http://www.as.up.krakow.pl/jvs/library/4-4-2007-08-10/
[2] comm. #60, J.VS: Re: Fr. Strickland, S.J., Wed, 11 Jul 2007
20:28:14 -0400
[3] A Rare Book Saga, The Autobiography of H.P. Kraus, New York, G.P.
Putnam's Sons, 1978
****************************
70
From: Berj N. Ensanian
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 14:18:50 -0400
Subject: J.VS: Progression of Secret Sisterhood Doctrinal
Enlightenment in f81r Bathscene
Dear All
The idea that some of the Voynich balneological scenes symbolically
depict doctrinal communion in a secret sisterhood has been
considered before. [1]
With that in mind, in revisiting the balneological series just now I
noticed that in f81r this idea may be especially well illustrated.
The f81r page has a tub at the top, and another at the bottom, with a
fluid channel connection between them on the page's left margin,
and also two fluid branches from the connection channel going off to
the extreme left of the margin. Between the tubs is text, which
starts with a direct ligature connection to the upper tub, presumably
of symbolic significance. The upper tub has seven women all
oriented to the left where the "doctrinal fluid" channel connects to
the tub, and similarly the bottom tub has six bathing sisters.
Consider the bottom tub, and for identification convenience number the
sisters 1 to 6 beginning at the right, so that sister #6 is at the
left end of the tub by the fluid channel connection.
My impressions are of a depiction of a mental transformation
progression in six stages, as follows:
Sister #1: the blissful airhead; she is furthest from the channel that
enlightens, and doesn't even know she is clueless.
Sister #2: still clueless, but has begun to notice a disturbance of
some kind in her thinking.
Sister #3: she takes the critical curiosity step: she has begun to tune
into the thoughts-disturbance and has given herself some private
thinking-space.
Sister #4: she is in the initial surprise or shock of awakening to the
enlightenment signal - she is experiencing the realization that she
has heretofore been asleep all her life.
Sister #5: she is the humble and careful student of the sisterhood's
doctrine.
Sister #6: she has mastered the doctrine to the point where she is able
to discuss it critically with others on her level; every cell of her
body is devoted to the communion that the doctrine represents - she has
become one of its priestesses and is ever tuned in to the
sisterhood's communications.
The above impressions of course implicitly rank the artist-illustrator
as quite advanced, but that has been debated before and I think it
is safe to say that advanced students of the manuscript agree that when
the Voynich illustrator(s) want(s) to, he / she / they can render
remarkable artistry even with economy.
Berj / KI3U
[1] see for example vms-list post: VMs: General mcP Hypothesis on the
Voynich Manuscript, May 21, 2006 11:41 PM. This and
related are preserved in the J.VS Library, deposit # 1-1-2007-05-05,
file 2JVSlibKI3U.htm
*************************
71
From: Berj N. Ensanian
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 16:32:07 -0400
Subject: J.VS: The Hand(s) of the Voynich ms text
Dear All
As you know, off-J Jan Hurych has opened the topic of the Voynich
text's graphology. Jan asked me for some comments. I thought I
might as well post my comments to the Journal.
I have some brief comments on the script, from the perspective of my
own hand.
My own hand varies a lot. It's not unusual for me after completing a
sentence, to go over it and reinforce dots and bars and so on. My
best hand is when I am writing a personal letter - I try to make it so
that anyone could read it without difficulty. Probably my hand that
would be most diffcult for others is a kind of dictated copy-down: when
I copy radiotelegraph - it is essentially 100% ligatured,
because by keeping the pencil always in contact with the paper, and
moving, I get the highest possible copying-down speed. [1]
I note in my hand that when I am trying to make a word unmistakable, my
script, at the word level, becomes a mix of ligatured and
printed individual block-letters. I don't know if others could
recognize me in my hand across all my styles and decades. But when I
look at a signature from my childhood 50 years ago it is to my eyes
unmistakably me, just not very bold (i.e. ego-projecting :)
compared with later examples.
In the 9RMS I think the big problem with its text script is that here
and there it suggests non-linear scripting. Here's an example to
illustrate one kind of it:
Take this example sentence scripted linearly from left to right.
By analogy with cases in the VMS sometimes, it seems as if that
sentence was put down in several passes (ignore the dots - they just
ensure that this posting medium conveys correctly):
Take
this.............................................................left
to right.
Take this example...............scripted linearly.........left to
right.
Take this example sentence scripted linearly from left to right.
Page f105r is a good exhibit of hints of some different types of
non-linear scripting. If blocks of vms text were put down non-linearly,
for crypto / cipher or any other reason, then that seems a much bigger
problem than how many different scripters did it, whether or not
it was dictated, and over what span of time it was done, although of
course we want to know all that too.
Berj / KI3U
[1] Additionally, the language of telegraphy is extremely rich in
complicated abbreviations. It is surprising that linguists have not
paid
more attention to it.
****************************
72
From: Berj N. Ensanian
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 22:04:09 -0400
Subject: J.VS: Notes on Andreas Schinner's April 2007 VMS paper
Dear All
A couple of days or so ago in our off-J discussions there was a brief
mention of the recent VMS paper by Andreas Schinner. Upon
that, I got to thinking about some of my analytic prejudices in
connection with the Voynich text, especially my seemingly
ever-escalating view that the biggest hurdle with the text is
transcription, and how this prejudice tends to color my attitude toward
new
text analysis, when that analysis does not at the beginning address the
myriad transcription problems that I perceive, that must, in my
view, be disposed of in some way, before analysis can begin.
Well of course I had to admit to myself that my prejudices had shelved
Schinner's paper as quite interesting, but suffering from faith in
other-people's-transcription. And I still think that it so suffers, and
in places in his paper that jumps out, for example when he states
that it is a well-known fact that an "exact property" of the VMS is
that its word length distribution follows almost exactly a binomial
distribution. That might be true with an old EVA transcript, but it
most definitely is not true, by my countings, using Glen Claston's
voyn_101.txt and voygroup.txt transcription efforts. And, GC's work is
also often enough at variance with my own transcriptions.
That's the problem: are we truly analyzing the Voynich text author's
intentions, or just analyzing someone's transcription?
Nevertheless, Schinner's paper is interesting good work, and actually I
hope some of his mathematical results remain intact if he ever
applies them to GC's transcripts. For some reason, probably the
ever-present influence of Gamow on my thinking, I have summarized
Schinner's results in my own mind with:
The staggering drunkard remembers a bit where he had staggered along a
while earlier. :)
So, I thought I'd better post to the Journal my notes, below as 1.) to
24.), on Schinner's paper. Following them I'll make a few more
comments. I caution that I read Schinner's paper just once, and wrote
the following notes during that read.
KI3U notes on "The Voynich Manuscript: Evidence of the Hoax
Hypothesis", by Andreas Schinner, Cryptologia, 31:2, 95-107, April
2007.
1.) Schinner's paper is 14 pages long, and cites 15 references,
including D'Imperio.
2.) In his description of the VMS Schinner does not mention the f85/86
nine-rosettes foldout. He tentatively accepts a date of around
1500 for the VMS's origin.
3.) Schinner says the VMS can be interpreted in 3 possible ways:
3-1.) Cipher text, and if so, probably of Latin or German.
3-2.) Unidentified language plain text written in the VMS alphabet, and
if so, then Chinese is the most likely from the word length
statistics. Alternatively, it is an invented artificial language and
script.
3-3.) Hoax of some kind with no meaningful text.
4.) The three above classes are not entirely distinct, for example
there could be steganography, that being difficult to determine, and
against which the best arguement is psychological: the VMS is
apparently a mystery book, thus being the worst place to hide secrets.
5.) Schinner describes some features of the text, and says cryptology
in 1500 was in its early beginnings, and if the text were
encrypted, then it should not be a difficult one. The text's features
argue for hoax being an attractive possibility.
6.) Gordon Rugg showed that a "facsimile language" of the appearance
and length of the VMS could be produced with a medieval
table-and-grille method in 3 months, but this does not prove the hoax
hypothesis, and so far the table-and-grille results do not explain
all VMS statistics, and therefore all three hypotheses classes remain
roughly equally relevant.
7.) Schinner states the essentials of his paper:
" In this article, statistical investigations of the VMS are presented
that provide additional restrictions to possible solutions. Mapping
the text to a random walk uncovers characteristic long-range
correlations not present in normal human writings; they better fit to a
stochastic process with memory effects than a sequence of tokens chosen
according to linguistic rules. Furthermore, the distribution of
gaps between two similar or selected tokens, respectively, also differs
qualitatively from normal texts; its mathematical properties
indicate the presence of very unusual "random effects". Possible
implications of these results for the interpretation of the VMS are
discussed in the conclusions section. "
8.) Characters and token are represented in EVA, for example the
notorious and extremely frequent: daiin
9.) Table 1 lists the text sources for the analysis: all of the VMS
text of 36,000 tokens and 7,000 words, 5% of Vulgate, 5% of Luther
Bible, all of Alice in Wonderland, and Genesis of the Pin-yin Chinese
Bible.
The source VMS text is the majority vote version of interlinear EVA
transcription 1.6e6 from R. Zandbergen's http://www.voynich.nu/
Because the VMS is without punctuation, the other texts are stripped of
punctuation, and upper case letters are converted to lower
case; the result is 30 symbols, a-z, the three German umlauts and the
s-z symbol; empty spaces are ignored. This symbol set, covering
the source texts, can then be encoded with 5 bits.
The non-VMS texts as prepared, are considered by Schinner "normal"
texts.
10.) Schinner cites work (e.g. by Kokol) that long-range power law
correlations are present in a wide variety of information encoding
systems ranging from human writings to DNA sequences, and these
correlations somewhat characterize the communications. A useful
analytic procedure is to map character strings to stochastic processes
(ref. Cox & Miller's 1965 book), and Schinner specifies a
generalized random-walk with memory as his model for "random walk".
11.) The first analytic step is to encode the text characters to bit
sequences which define the +/- 1 step random walk.
12.) Schinner summarizes the general theoretical result showing the
relation between the variance of the mean displacement over
infinite walks and a power law for steps: if the power/exponent does
not equal 0.5, then long-range correlations are indicated (for
natural language texts anyway). Discusses precautions for using this
theory with finite walks (finite length text blocks).
13.) Schinner gives Graph Fig. 1 of his results with all the texts, for
the Root mean square fluctuation of the random walk
displacements. He notes that the non-VMS texts show behaviour
consistent with Kokol et al, i.e. they don't have any great long-range
correlation. The graph shows the VMS text exhibiting a crossover on the
power = 0.5 line before 400 bits/steps, and then noticably
departing from the other texts as the walk continues: exhibiting an
asymptotic approach to power = 0.85, indicating "memory effects"
in this "random walk".
14.) Schinner gives Table 2 showing results for shorter blocks of VMS
text indicating that the effect in Fig. 1 is essentially preserved.
15.) The cross-over point indicates a character sequence of around 72
symbols which fits well with an average line length in Currier
language A sections of the VMS text, while for language B the crossover
occurs at around 3 times that for A.
16.) " It appears that in the VMS significant correlations between
tokens with spacing of more than an average text line exist, while
within a line the text behaves randomly (like ordinary human writings).
"
To investigate this Schinner employs the step (or bit) auto-correlation
function. His Fig. 2 auto-correlations graph shows the VMS
correlations decaying beyond a thousand walk steps (they had been
building up before 400 steps), and he notes:
" Such positive correlations are typical for a stochastic process in
which the probability of a particular random event is increased by
previous occurrences of this event. "
Schinner then amplifies on this with reference to Polya's urn scheme,
where on drawing a ball of a particular color from an urn, a
specific number of balls of the same color are put into the urn, thus
increasing the probability of the same colored ball being drawn
again: spurious contagion.
The Polya analysis on the VMS is inconclusive positively on account of
insufficient data, but the available data do not contradict Polya
process theory. Schinner further states that the unusual shape of the
Fig. 1 curve has a major impact on possible VMS interpretations,
and that in particular the Chinese hypothesis appears not to be
compatible with it.
17.) Schinner next sets out to strengthen his result, that the VMS text
step probability depends on long-term history, by investigating
the repitition distances between similar words. He mentions Landini's
2000 work investigating the repitition distances of daiin, but
says he will show that it is more instructive to investigate similar
words rather than exact matches. Schinner will use the Levenshtein
distance metric to gauge the number of elementary edit operations
needed to make two similar tokens equal. That plotted against the
number of tokens, n, between two similar tokens gives a "percentage of
dissimilarity" graph. Upon the mathematical particulars
Schinner defines two tokens as similar if their percentage of
dissimilarity is less than or equal to 30%.
18.) In Fig. 3 he gives the percentage of dissimilarity graph for the
VMS, Vulgate, and Chinese, and Schinner points out:
" The most striking feature is the almost "mathematically perfect"
smooth shape of the VMS curve for n -> 0, while the other text
sample data display the expected "irregular" behavior and tend to zero
(or at least small values). As noted previously, this simply
expresses the effect that writers normally try to avoid word
repititions. It is especially noteworthy that even the Chinese text
lies closer
to the European languages than the VMS, although the higher tendency of
common-word repitition sequences in Asian languages is a
frequent argument in favor of the Chinese theory. "
19.) Schinner next derives an equation for the striking VMS curve in
Fig. 3 from an infinite random text model and Zipf's first law,
and gives the constants needed for the curve fit.
20.) Schinner notes again:
" The small-n behaviour of the VMS is the most remarkable effect: it
appears to indicate the presence of some kind of "random
selection process" during the text generation, as already noted in the
previous section. "
" It should be emphasized again that the VMS text obviously is not a
simple convolution of independent random strings; at least the
underlying stochastic process must be fairly complex, involving history
dependent variation of the step probabilities, building up
correlations. "
To amplify this Schinner gives percentage of dissimilarity graph Fig. 4
comparing scrambled and unscrambled VMS and Vulgate, and
writes:
" As can be seen in Fig. 4, token scrambling modifies the VMS result
only quantitatively (which confirms an already present "degree
of randomness" in the original text), whereas the Vulgate Bible curve
is transformed in shape towards the VMS data;..... This effect
appears compatible with the assumption of a "key stochastic process"
with spurious contagion of, e.g., Polya type involved in the VMS
text generation method. "
21.) Next Schinner considers the question: what is the probability for
two tokens sharing a particular property, being separated by n
ones that do not possess this property? The properties in question
could be the occurrence of a particular letter within a token, or a
special word structure. Schinner considers this a promising question in
light of the VMS text's richness in characteristic structural
details, citing as an example Stolfi's crust-mantle-core analysis.
He gives graph Fig. 5 of the repitition distance distribution of tokens
beginning with EVA-q, (i.e. GC-4), compared with the token
"und" in the German Luther Bible. Once again the VMS curve is
distinguished by being smooth and well behaved. Schinner gives an
equation, Eq. (13), consisting of a mix of two geometric distributions
that can fit the VMS curve. He briefly discusses an example
described by the general equation, like two dice with different
"success" probabilities, but notes that the VMS text generation must be
more complex, and points out that the equation is compatible with a
varying step probability stochastic process, that being another link
to spurious contagion processes.
22.) Schinner gives Table 3, showing that the general equation of the
mixed geometric distributions fits a variety of other VMS token
conditions, for example a token that ends with aiin. Schinner discusses
and interprets some results concerning the relative conribution
of the two geometrics in the equation's mix, for scrambled versus
unscrambled text, and concludes they are consistent with his earlier
analysis in the paper.
23.) Schinner's concluding comments include:
" Interpreting normal texts as bit sequences yields deviations of
little significance from a true (uncorrelated) random walk. For the
VMS, this only holds on a small scale of approximately the average line
length: the presence/absence of a symbol appears to
increase/decrease the tendency towards another occurrence. "
" Nevertheless, this result has important implications on the possible
solutions of the VMS riddle. Encryption tends to destroy
correlations in a text rather than building them up. The method,
however, could be a more complex variant of a word game, ... "
" The result appears incompatible with the plain text hypothesis. "
" Thus the hoax hypothesis may provide the most convincing explanation
base for the data. A variant of the "table-and-grille" method
still is a promising candidate, if the table is filled with syllables
selected under involvement of some "lottery algorithm" producing the
observed statistical effects. "
" Of particular interest is the mixture of two geometric distributions
Eq. (13) that almost perfectly describes the gap distribution of
tokens with, for example, a particular prefix. Such "exact statistical
properties" of complex systems are either trivial (as in the case of
purely random aspects) or express an underlying principle. Since Eq.
(13) contains a crossover between two terms it most probably is
not trivial (pure randomness would have yielded a single geometric
distribution). "
" Another "exact property" of the VMS is already well known: the word
length distribution follows almost exactly a binomial
distribution. This fact has been a strong argument in favor of the
Chinese theory [13] since East Asian languages, in particular
Chinese, also show this feature. "
" It must be emphasized that the present study is not a proof of the
hoax hypothesis, nor can it definitely rule out either of the two other
main theory classes. "
" From my viewpoint, the VMS is a cleverly set psychological trap still
active after five centuries, reflecting the analyst's expectations
and hopes like a mirror without containing meaningful information
itself. It has been created using "algorithmic" methods, implicitly
or explicitly involving some degree of randomness. "
24.) Schinner thanks M.A. Labi for stimulating discussions and
proofreading. About himself he states he is a theoretical physicist at
the Johannes Kepler University in Linz, and his main area of scientific
interest is theoretical solid state physics, particularly particle
beam interactions with matter.
Well of course comments on Schinner's work could very easily quickly
run longer than his paper, and I already made a few comments
at the beginning of this communication. I might add here what I've
mentioned from time to time: the desirability of linguistic and
mathematical analysis of the language of telegraphy, and for our
present Voynich concern the desirability of telegraph copy, of long
conversational exchanges between telegraphers, being included as a
reference text alongside Latin and German and Chinese etc.
I mentioned in the beginning that I hope Schinner's essential results
hold true for other transcripts, like GC's. The reason is not that I
think the meaningless-hoax-and-clever-psychological-trap theory would
be reinforced, even if it was, but rather because in my view
Schinner's results, to the extent that the transcript they are based on
is valid, add to the possibility that Greg and I developed in the
J.VS communications on philosophical math-text versus practical cipher,
where we struggled with the meaning of "hoax" in that
context. [1]
Namely that the text is generated mathematically by a general equation
(or algorithm) with the intent of having it appear like natural
language text, and, optionally, that plain-text cipher hitches a ride
on the generated text. One way that cipher could hitch a ride upon
the math-generated text is via the parameters/constants - the
parameters derive from the plain-text, and then they steer the general
generating equation of the math-text from block to block. And, the
generating equation might have been inspired by some especially
fundamental principle in nature, like the Fibonacci series, or the
distribution of prime numbers.
Or, to address Schinner's results particularly while arguing against
"meaningless hoax": Schinner's results could just as well be
reflecting a parameters-driven general math-text generating equation
whose core principle seeks to express a fundamental principle in
the Pythagorean vein of thought: that in a universe where the
microscopic and macroscopic are unified, numbers are at the bottom of
everything, so fundamentally so, that natural human language, and
purely mathematically generated language, both cannot escape the
inseparable order and randomness among the characteristics of the
natural integer numbers. That is to say, if it is really true that in
the
cosmos there is a fundamental unity of the macroscopic and the
microscopic, then necessarily a purely mathematically generated text
and a "natural" human language text cannot be absolutely distinguished:
a kind of uncertainty principle will remain.
Mathematics, differential and integral, discreet and continuous, is a
language after all.
It just seems to me entirely possible that someone in the 17th century,
who was very broadly and deeply learned and with an interest in
the idea of universal language, someone who conceived the unique f85/86
nine-rosettes foldout with its mix of 2-dimensional and
3-dimensional drawings, could have set out to realize the challenge of
actualizing the script demonstrating this principle, and today we
are analyzing imperfect transcripts of it. That this VMS author was not
in the least interested in setting a psychological trap, but rather
was pioneering a philosophical cosmic vista. And we ought not be
surprised if we discover this VMS author's experimentations with
this principle even down in the shorter runs of text, like the glossa
and labels.
Berj / KI3U
[1] J.VS communications series launched with #62: Philosophical
math-text versus practical cipher-text, Tue, 17 Jul 2007.
****************************
73
From: Greg Stachowski
To: "J.VS:"
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 15:44:06 +0200
Subject: J.VS: Voynich script fonts
(This is an updated version of my earlier post in the light of comments
by Berj and information found thereafter. This version
supersedes and replaces the previous one.)
Following off-list discussions, I did a little more checking, and the
Voynich fonts situation looks like this:
1. VOYNICH.FNT
1992/3, bitmap font, currently available as part of the archive
voyedit.zip from
http://www.voynich.net/reeds/rand.html .
Attribution: Jacques Guy
Distribution licence: unknown (possibly public domain: the attached
documentation has a humorous licensing section)
Notes: This font is part of the VOYEDIT program written by Jacques Guy
under MS-DOS for displaying the Frogguy transcription in
both Latin and Voynich-like characters. It contains both Latin and
Voynich fonts. For more information see the DOC file inside
voyedit.zip and
http://www.voynich.net/reeds/frogguy.html .
The overview of Frogguy at this latter website mentions a font file
F3W00.FNT which includes all the symbols for the final, third,
version of Frogguy. Analysis of the tables in the overview and the font
map file provided in voyedit.zip suggests that this is the same
as VOYNICH.FNT.
2. V,ps
1993, postscript font, currently available from
http://www.voynich.net/reeds/ .
Attribution: "Copyright (c) 1993, by James A. Reeds"
Distribution licence: unknown.
3. VoySma.pfa (Voynich Small)
1995, postscript font, currently available from
http://www.voynich.net/reeds/ .
Attribution: "Copyright (c) 1995 Julie S. Porter and James A. Reeds.
All rights reserved."
Distribution licence: unknown.
4. voycur16.mf
1996, TeX metafont, currently available from
http://www.voynich.net/reeds/ .
Attribution: "Developed by Bruce Grant (bgrant@xxxxxxxxxxx) Jan., 1996
and placed in the public domain."
Distribution licence: public domain.
5. Frogguy Hand A
1997, TrueType Font (TTF), variously available on the web, e.g.:
http://www.sofontes.com.br/Voynich-Frogguy-Hand-A/download/26720 .
Attribution: "Copyright (C) Gabriel Landini 1997 All rights reserved"
Distribution license: unknown.
Notes: presumably developed by Gabriel from Jacques' earlier Frogguy
font.
6. Currier Hand A
1997, TrueType Font (TTF), variously available on the web, e.g.:
http://www.sofontes.com.br/Voynich-Currier-Hand-A/download/26718 .
Attribution: "Copyright (C) Gabriel Landini 1997 All rights reserved"
Distribution license: unknown.
7. EVA Hand 1
1998, TrueType and Postscript Type 1, available from:
http://voynich-ms.de/wiki/EVA
Attribution: "Copyright (C) G. Landini 1998. All rights reserved."
Distribution licence:
"The fonts in this package are free, but not public domain. You may
distribute this package freely and unmodified. You may not
charge for it. You may not distribute it as part of any commercial
package. If you use the fonts in any work, please acknowledge the
author."
Note: from the above license it seems that distribution is only allowed
for the complete and unmodified Zip file as originally
distributed by Gabriel Landini, which includes both versions of the
font and the copyright notice, and not for the individual .TTF font
file.
8. VGBT2 (Voynich Glyph-Based Transcription) 2002, TrueType Font,
unavailable?
Attribution: "Beta typeface courtesy Glen Claston"
Distribution licence: unknown
Note: from comments by Glen Claston on the vms-list, this has been
superseded by Voynich.ttf, below.
9. Voynich.ttf
2005, TrueType Font, avaialble from:
http://voynichcentral.com/transcriptions/Voynich-101/index.html .
Atrribution: "Voynich Manuscript Font courtesy GC, 2005, distributed in
the public domain"
Distribution licence: public domain
Thus there are in existence at least 9 fonts for representing VMS text,
of which two are public domain and one is freely available and
usable for all likely purposes. This includes the two most popular, EVA
and GC's Voynich.ttf .
Greg
***********************
74
From: Berj N. Ensanian
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 22:05:06 -0400
Subject: J.VS: The Miss Nill Lone Ranger Mask blinking
pictures
Dear All
I've sent to our Librarian Greg, as deposit # 7-1-2007-08-27, the two
original images used in "Blinking the Anne Nill photograph
against itself with the eyeglasses removed." [1]
The filenames for the two images are:
ANill.bmp
ANillxgl.bmp
with the latter image being the one from which I removed the
eyeglasses. Blinking these - IrfanView is what I used back then - it is
even easier to see that there is something really strange, what I
dubbed the "Lone Ranger Mask of Miss Anne Nill", about the
apparently doctored portrait photograph of her that appeared in the
1924 Christian Science Monitor article. [2]
As an aside, concerning the photographic oddities of early Voynich
manuscript history, we recall that Wilfrid Voynich's 1921
photograph of f1r is at odds with the image of Beinecke MS 408 f1r as
it appears today. [3]
Berj / KI3U
[1] old vms-list post:
RE: VMs: Re: The mysterious Miss Nill, Thursday, February 1, 2007 3:17
PM
This post is preserved in the J.VS Library, deposit # 1-1-2007-05-05,
file 4vmsKI3Ulab.htm
[2] see J.VS communication #19 by Greg Stachowski: 1924 Christian
Science Monitor article on Anne Nill, Thu, 22 Mar 2007.
[3] old vms-list thread:
Re: VMs: Tepenecz: three scenarios...?, see especially the post of
Tuesday, January 30, 2007 3:04 PM.
J.VS Library deposit # 1-1-2007-05-05, file 4vmsKI3Ulab.htm
******************
75
From: Greg Stachowski
To: "J.VS:"
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 21:10:41 +0200
Subject: J.VS: Re: Voynich script fonts
As a follow-up to J.VS communication #73, which briefly presented the
existing fonts for representing Voynich script, three fonts
have been placed in the Library as subcollection # 0-1-2007-08-28. The
fonts are:
- Bruce Grant's public domain LaTeX Metafont, voycur16.mf.
- Gabriel Landini's EVA Hand 1 font in Postscript and TrueType
versions. The font is free but may not be modified or distributed
commercially. Please read the documentation in the zip package,
evah1_1.zip.
- Glen Claston's public domain TrueType font, Voynich.ttf
The choice of fonts was restricted to those with clear licences which
allow distribution through the Library.
The URL for the subcollection is:
http://www.as.up.krakow.pl/jvs/library/0-1-2007-08-28/
Greg
*****************
76
From: Richard SantaColoma
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 17:10:52 +0000
Subject: J.VS: read this, and think VMs:
Dear All:
Some of you may be familar with the following, or may surmise where it
is from. But if you have a minute, read these excerpts, and
think "VMs":
" We have also a number of artificial wells and fountains, made in
imitation of the natural sources and baths; as tincted upon vitriol,
sulphur, steel, brass, lead, nitre, and other minerals. And again we
have little wells for infusions of many things, where the waters take
the virtue quicker and better than in vessels or basins. And amongst
them we have a water which we call Water of Paradise, being, by
that we do to it, made very sovereign for health, and prolongation of
life. "
" ...we make (by art) in the same orchards and gardens, trees and
flowers to come earlier or later than their seasons; and to come up
and bear more speedily than by their natural course they do. We make
them also by art greater much than their nature; and their fruit
greater and sweeter and of differing taste, smell, colour, and figure,
from their nature. And many of them we so order, as they become
of medicinal use. "
" We have dispensatories, or shops of medicines. Wherein you may easily
think, if we have such variety of plants and living creatures
more than you have in Europe, (for we know what you have,) the simples,
drugs, and ingredients of medicines, must likewise be in so
much the greater variety. "
" We have also helps for the sight, far above spectacles and glasses in
use. We have also glasses and means to see small and minute
bodies perfectly and distinctly; as the shapes and colours of small
flies and worms, grains and flaws in gems, which cannot otherwise
be seen; observations in urine and blood, not otherwise to be seen. "
Me again: So you may have read this, or realized from an earlier post
of mine, that these are excerpts from Francis Bacon's New
Atlantis. I had mentioned that Drebbel is suspected as an influence on
this work, as many inventions of Drebbel's appear in the work...
and also, that Bacon knew Drebbel. So here is the point... well part
point, part question:
Drebbel knows Bacon, and Bacon writes a fantasy about Atlantis... it's
a science based society. Innovations include baths,
unidentifiable (non-European) plants, microscopes and telescopes. I
only list some of the aspects of NA which are similar to aspects of
VMs. What, if any, could the connections be? Could the VMs be more of a
"fantasy artifact", made for, or in honor of, Bacon's NA?
As a sort of fantasy notebook, made by Drebbel, Bacon, or other...
which inspired, or was inspired by, Bacon's NA? And so, was
inspired by the inventions of Drebbel, or included them... or included
fantasy (Bacon-Atlantean) representations of them?
And while thinking of this, I was thinking of this statement from the
1666 Marci letter, "Dr. Raphael, tutor in the Bohemian language
to Ferdinand III, then King of Bohemia, told me the said book had
belonged to the Emperor Rudolph and that he presented the bearer
who brought him the book 600 ducats. He believed the author was Roger
Bacon, the Englishman." It made me wonder if Marci, or
Dr.Raphael, fell prey to the old Bacon/Bacon bugaboo... perhaps someone
along the way heard "Bacon", and assumed "Roger" due to
the herbal nature of the VMs, and further, they were not familar with
the New Atlantis, or just did not make that connection, and so
did not assume "Francis". Of course NA was written in about 1622
(although Wikipedia states it was published in 1626, I read
somewhere that it was written several years earlier), which would
account for the inclusion of (Drebbel's?) a submarine, perhaps. But
yes, the timing does not fit, at this point.
Anyway, I throw this out there for for digestion. What permutations of
the above, or speculative scenarios, can be applied? Is there any
precedent for any part of this scenario? Rich SantaColoma
http://lordverulam.org/The%20New%20Atlantis.htm
http://lordverulam.org/The%20New%20Atlantis2.htm
**********************
77
From: Greg Stachowski
To: "J.VS:" journalvs@basicisp.net
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 15:33:50 +0200
Subject: J.VS: How many "hands" wrote the VM? -- A new article
by Jan Hurych
I am pleased to announce that Jan's excellent tradition of illustrated,
in-depth articles continues with a new addition to the J.VS
Library:
HOW MANY "HANDS" WROTE THE VM?
(A preliminary study to enable the further psychological profile of the
VM author)
by J. B. Hurych
The article provides graphological comparison of different "hands" as
suggested by Capt. Currier, selects the proper criteria and
investigates them in detail, for "hands" A and B. In the conclusion,
there is no proof for more hands than one (at least for the purpose
of the study of personal profile of the VM author).
The article is available at:
http://www.as.up.krakow.pl/jvs/library/5-4-2007-09-06/
********************
78
From: Berj N. Ensanian
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 20:15:02 -0400
Subject: J.VS: Re: How many "hands" wrote the VM? -- A new
article by Jan Hurych
As Greg summarized Jan's findings:
" ... there is no proof for more hands than one (at least for the
purpose of the study of personal profile of the VM author). "
Good. This resolves for me a longtime irritation. I have to say that
over the years when I've looked at a block of VMS text, and
wondered: is it "hand A" or is it "hand B"?, I have always had to go
and look up the old opinions on the matter - in other words take
someone else's word for "what it is", when I've never been able to
quite "get it". I accept Jan's work as liberating: it may still be
possible that there is more than one handwriting across the Voynich ms
text, but from now on such assertions will need precise
graphological demonstrations, and lacking such I can safely classify
them as just bare opinions.
Berj
******************
79
From: Robert Teague
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 20:21:23 -0400
Subject: J.VS: Re: How many "hands" wrote the VM? -- A new
article by Jan Hurych
These findings agree with GC; he saw no more than one hand that changed
as time passed.
Robert
******************
80
From: Jan Hurych
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 06:00:17 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: J.VS: Re: How many "hands" wrote the VM? -- A new
article by Jan Hurych
Berj,
I agree, the work is not finished - if there are more hands, we would
have to go through all folios with the same detailed analysis.
Rene does not even have his 5 hand's assignment finished on his page
for each folio and I bet it was done only by look at it. I just took
the two most different samples (A and B), used the same cut-outs from
his page and did not find anything which would force me to
assume more authors then one: it simply does not give me any different
traits or personal profile.
Jan
********************
81
From: Berj N. Ensanian
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2007 17:10:29 -0400
Subject: J.VS: Discussion: Francis Bacon's New Atlantis,
Cornelius Drebbel, & Voynich MS
Dear All
In the August 31, 2007 J.VS communication #76 " read this, and think
VMs: " Rich SantaColoma introduced in some detail the topic
of Francis Bacon's New Atlantis and Cornelius Drebbel's suspected
influences on that work. The possibility of connections with the
VMS was raised. Subsequently there was, off-J, some discussion on this.
Below is my edited record of that off-J dialog from the
period August 31 to September 7, 2007. The participants are in order:
Richard SantaColoma, Berj N. Ensanian, Greg Stachowski. This
interesting topic may well be discussed again in the future, so I
thought it well to produce a record of these early thoughts.
Berj / KI3U
Rich says:
Anyway, I throw this out there for digestion. What permutations of the
above, or speculative scenarios, can be applied?
Berj says:
This New Atlantis material of Francis Bacon fits in fairly well with
some of my VMS sentiments, namely:
1.) Focusing on persons within a time-and-space-wide
network-of-interest (NOI), like the Rosicrucians, that has among its
nodes the
Hartlib Circle and the Royal Society.
2.) A 17th century origin for the VMS, or at least its later parts, in
contrast to the more popular conjecture of a 15th c. origin.
3.) Pythagorean and Platonic influences in a cosmological philosophy.
4.) The possibility that the central rosette in the nine rosettes
foldout symbolizes a temple, be it Solomon's or another.
5.) The VMS plants are synthetics meant to symbolize concepts,
including mathematical.
6.) The possibility that "Roger Bacon" is used as a code to mean
"Francis Bacon scientific revolution", with the further possibility
that
Wilfrid Voynich recognized and perpetuated that. Also, as Rich points
out, it is conceivable that the Roger Bacon rumor in "the last
letter of Marci" may be a confusion on someone's part; or per the
preceding, not quite getting (understanding) the code meaning.
7.) The apparently advanced mathematics and science exhibited in the
VMS, like the math of the PM-curve, and the plausible color
theory diagram in the f67v2 illustration.
8.) The VMS text being a mathematical product intended to demonstrate a
principle of fundamental unity in communications,
specifically between purely math-generated text and normal language
text.
Concerning Roger vs Francis, this from NA (your 2nd link) seems to
refer to Roger:
" your monk that was the inventor of ordnance and of gunpowder "
Rich says:
As for the gunpowder monk being Roger Bacon, I'm sure you are right...
so what a funny circle. Two Bacons are often confused, then
and now, and the latter even refers to the former in his NA.
Berj says:
What I've been getting at with Francis vs Roger Bacon is this: if we
assume, hypothetically, that the Voynich manuscript's raison d'etre
is intimately associated with the scientific revolution, which in some
parts of Europe was going on in an extremely unsettled context -
notably 17th c. England for example, then is it not conceivable that
"Roger Bacon" was a code of sorts to denote this philosophical
movement that had been championed by Francis Bacon? In addition, is it
not conceivable that the movement may have had
cooperating philosophers from different religious stripes: Jesuits like
Athanasius Kircher in friendly debate with members of the circle
eventually to become the Royal Society, and that a strong motive for
the development of a mathematics-based universal language was
so that they could communicate more free of their respective religious
pressures?
Is what I'm trying to get at, if I'm not being too vague and rambling
here.
Rich says:
As for "Roger Bacon" being used as a "code of sorts to denote this
philosophical movement" for the scientific revolution, I don't know.
It sounds like a vague concept to me... or perhaps I am missing
something. Do you mean like using the term "Pavlovian" to cover all
areas of behavior modification, or "Rubenesque" to denote curvacious
women? As for "is it not conceivable that the movement may
have had cooperating philosophers from different religious stripes
[?]", yes I agree. We see that alot I think... and these philosophers
from different religions were often working around the limits and
constraints imposed by their religious authorities, in order to freely
communicate. Which is one reason Rudolf's court became such a haven for
free scientific thought and experiment. Again, if that is
what you meant...
I wrote up a preliminary NA page:
http://www.santa-coloma.net/voynich_drebbel/new_atlantis/new_atlantis.html
Berj says:
That looks like it will become a real nice NA-Voynich page after you
have it polished up.
By the way, on your list comment about magnifying glasses being around
forever and didn't anybody ever hold two of them inline etc.,
I've always thought it strange that according to orthodox thinking the
compound lens instruments were invented only relatively
recently. As a kid the first time I ever experienced a magnifying lens
my immediate thought was to wonder what happens when you try
to magnify the image with a second lens. It's a natural thought. The
only logical thing I can think of for the official relatively late
invention of compound lens instruments is military secrecy: a telescope
is obviously useful in military campaigns, so hush-hush!
Well I mean that it seems odd to me that anyone, Wilfrid, or someone in
Rudolf's court, would think the VMS from the hand of Roger
Bacon. But, if we see Roger Bacon = grandfather of scientific
revolution, and Voynich ms = secret presentation of a unified
cosmological philosophy with a scientific revolution core, the secrecy
being necessary due to prevailing religious atmosphere
concerns, then it can make some sense: Roger Bacon, a lived-long-ago
respected Catholic monk symbolizes a full flowering of his
ideas in Renaissance times.
Something like that.
Rich says:
I just re-read, very carefully, the entire New Atlantis. All the while
I was sensing a strong Drebbel influence, beyond Bacon simply
using his inventions in the story (already well documented by others).
Then at the end, there is this line: "[one of the Father's of
Solomon's house] ...said; "Godbless thee, my son; and God bless this
relation, which I have made. I give thee leave to publish it for
the good of other nations; for we here are in God's bosom, a land
unknown." And so he left me; having assigned a value of about two
thousand ducats, for a bounty to me and my fellows."
And it struck me... because Drebbel was given two thousand ducats as
recompense for his incarceration by Mathias on being freed
from Prague in about 1612. So then it occured to me... much of the
story of New Atlantis is the story of Rudolf II's court... the
collection of all books, knowledge, and artifacts, of all science and
art; the practice of astronomy, the tolerance of religions, the
experiments in marriage, the experiments in alchemy, in botany, and on
and on. It is almost as if the New Atlantis is an alligorical
representation of the scientific pursuits of the court of Rudolf II, as
told by Drebbel to Francis Bacon, and morphed by Bacon with his
own ideals in science, culture, art, and politics.
Greg says:
My thought was: if NA is allegorical representation of Rudolph's court,
then are then characters or events in NA which could be
matched to characters or events at Rudolph's court? Could there even be
an allegorical-equivalent of the VMS mentioned in there? I
confess to not having read NA for lack of time.
Berj says:
Are you conjecturing, by implication, that the Voynich ms is a similar
book, an allegorical representation, with direct connections to
New Atlantis?
Rich says:
I'm not really sure what to think yet. It's like two separate concepts,
but oddly connected. A computer could be input with all the
information I've digested, and say "it's crap you idiot". So I suppose
it's too intuitive, and might be better saved for a return of the X
Files. But something like this:
1) Drebbel's inventions did have some influence on New Atlantis, this
is generally accepted.
2) Drebbel's representation of science as magic annoyed Bacon, and
Bacon commented on the distinction between the two in NA... so
3), below:
3) So Drebbel's personality and outlook seems to have had a direct
impact on NA.
4) Drebbel was in the court of Rudolf a brief time, when away from
Eltham.
5) NA has similarities to the court of Rudolf as I outlined.
6) Perhaps Drebbel's personal experience with Rudolf's court, along
with his inventions, directly influenced NA, when related to
Bacon.
7) There are similarities between NA and VMs as I outlined.
8) There are comparisons between the VMs and Drebbel, as per my theory.
9) Could there be a tie between Drebbel, the VMs, NA, and Bacon?
So it's like a confounding list of speculation on speculation, which
adds up to nothing really. But like I say, I do trust that you guys
will
understand the level at which I offer it up... as harmless, interesting
speculation, which may be nothing.
Berj says:
Well, one thing that Voynich work most definitely needs is fresh ideas
and perspectives, harmless or otherwise, and investigating
Drebbel continues to produce. In my view, just one good effect of the
Drebbel theory is that it focuses some VMS attention into the
17th century. Even if eventually that turns out to be wrong, it is at
this stage harmlessly refreshing to have a broader time perspective
for the VMS's origins than the traditional 15th c. or so focus, which
has, quite frankly, produced more questions than hard answers.
Rich says:
..... on the possibility that Drebbel wrote the VMs, there is a way
they would fit together. Drebbel goes off the the court of Rudolf, and
has a wild ride for two plus years. During that time he soaks in the
philosophy of the court, does many experiments, builds
microscopes, meets Kepler, runs the furnaces and alchemy labs. He
nearly dies on the gallows, and barely escapes... back to the court
of James, and there he is, alongside Bacon. Well actually everything
except the "building of microscopes" is actually true. But then:
He is alongside Bacon, imparting this story, and Bacon is soaking it
in. What did he tell him? What did Drebbel show him? Drebbel
built his submarine in about 1620, and we know he built his microscopes
by 1619, and these are in NA. So where would the VMs fit
in? It was probably left behind in 1613, and it is 7 to 9 years later
that Bacon is writing NA... if that is correct. Let's say for a bit
that
the VMs came back with Drebbel, though. Even if the "signature" of De
Tepencz is accepted, this could be possible. If the VMs was
shown to Bacon, it may have been influential to his concepts of NA. But
we still do not know what the VMs is. Is it notes of some
experiments? Then it would be a loose influence. But what if it were a
story, a fantasy, based on the time Drebbel was in Prague?
Based on his experiments? And so, offered to Bacon as such, as a
fantasy, but based on reality, as a whole concept for Bacon to work
from. Or, perhaps, an offering... like a gift or token, created by
Drebbel, in honor of the concepts of NA that Bacon was working on.
Berj says:
One gets the impression of a cooperation between a theoretical
scientist and an experimental scientist - Bacon and Drebbel. Or even
theorists and experimentalists at Rudolf's court. This fits in with my
continuing to think along the lines of the VMS being the result /
reflection of an NOI, and possibly even a formal, though highly secret
project involving contributors across Europe. The physical
VMS may have been the work of the project's secretary, alhough I have
some problems with that idea.
I was also intrigued a while back when Jan threw some focus on the
Mondragone Stricklands because it connects some possibility
links. I visualize interesting NOI possibilties that inlcude:
Mondragone Jesuit Stricklands - English Stricklands - scientific
revolution -
Robert Hooke and the Royal Society and the earlier Hartlib Circle -
Jesuit Athanasius Kircher - Hooke's connection to Drebbel via
Drebbel's daughter - Drebbel - Kepler - Francis Bacon - Rudolf's Court
and back to Roger Bacon. And everybody in that
extended-time mix, notably the traditional "usual suspect" John Dee,
was well aware of Franciscan monk Roger Bacon's ideas. New
Atlantis seems, in its themes, to be resonant with this NOI everywhere
in its space-time.
Rich says:
Anyway, there is another interesting thing in NA, which I want to
quote. The Atlanteans (Bensalems, really) get a book in a mysterious
way, and they describe it: "There was also in both these writings, as
well the Book, as the Letter, wrought a great miracle, conform to
that of the Apostles, in the original Gift of Tongues. For there being
at that time in this land Hebrews, Persians, and Indians, besides
the natives, every one read upon the Book, and Letter, as if they had
been written in his own language."
Now what does that sound like? If one wanted to create a book which was
so described, it could not actually be in any language. Of
course, since such a book would not really work, it would be in no
language, and not possible to read at all. Like a movie prop... it
would have to reflect the sense or feeling of the story, while it may
not be possible to actually duplicate the fantasy original.
Berj says:
There is I think one "language" it could be: the philosophical
mathematics-based universal language that I've been harping on, and
that
Greg and I discussed at length a while back.
Rich says:
Could the VMs be a prop for NA, written by Drebbel, and presented to
Bacon? I urge you all to read NA. It's really very interesting.
Berj found the gunpowder, and R.Bacon reference... I found lasers, and
motion pictures, and a flying machine. It is really an
extraordinary piece of work. And read it with the rosette page in front
of you. Look at the rosette as a map, and follow the story.
Solomon's temple is the "eye of the island". The place they land is on
the eastern side... they are taken to "the house of strangers".
There is an incident off shore, with a column of water. And the
narrator went to NA from Peru... look at the upper right corner of the
rosettes page, and the small T/O map there. Also, compare the
descriptions of the Heralds, and what they wore, and the color of
dress,
with the robed men of the VMs... it is quite interesting.
Berj says:
This is what I meant earlier - the vein of Drebbel is producing all
sorts of fresh ideas, like his fountain :)
Rich says:
Greg: You raise the question, " ...are then characters or events in NA
which could be matched to characters or events at Rudolph's
court? Could there even be an allegorical-equivalent of the VMS
mentioned in there? "
I'm going to think more about that. I was reading the Marshall book,
"The Magic Circle", but put it down. Now it will be interesting to
read it again, and keep NA in mind. As for an "allegorical-equivalent"
of the VMS in there, the closest I came were the works
presented to the Atlanteans, which I mentioned in my last post... they
were written in "The Gift of Tongues", which meant they were
not in any known language, but people of all languages could read and
understand them. And I did not mention, or quote... but they
were written on parchment.
Another area to look into is the other works of Bacon, as I pointed out
before. I do wonder, since he wrote at the end of the unfinished
NA, "The rest is not yet perfected"... did he have a draft? Notes?
*****************
82
From: Berj N. Ensanian
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 20:59:36 -0400
Subject: J.VS: Timeline Resource for Voynich Studies
Dear All
Timelines, we know, are a great help for organizing the vast amount of
data we have to deal with. I thought it would be good for us to
build a common one, to be deposited in the Journal's Library, a
timeline resource that is specifically addressed to Voynich Studies,
which is a far more comprehensive field than just the goal of solving
the VMS mystery.
I've drawn my inspiration for the start of this project from a Voynich
timeline I saw on Jan's website some time ago. Below is the
starting seed for it, and that is all it is, just a seed - there are
many glaring omissions. But hopefully its data is accurate.
My proposal is that we build it by adding to it as we go along. I
suggest that our Librarian, Greg, create an n-0 deposit for it in the
Library, and develop some sort of protocol for orderly expansion,
changes, and corrections. Until then I suggest that you send to me
off-J your additions, improvements, and corrections.
You can see from the start below that the basic plan is to keep entries
quite short. This makes it convenient to quickly scan along the
timeline and comprehensively visualize the material. Possibly down the
road Greg can develop a scheme where clicking on an entry
can lead to much more detailed information on that entry; for example
the below entry on Krystof Harant might be clicked to bring up
Jan's paper on Harant that is already a Library deposit.
One power of a good timeline is that it makes you notice interesting
coincidences, or near-coincidences. For example, in building the
below, on the first read-through, I noticed a possibly interesting
near-coincidence with Kircher's letter to Schall and Marci's "last"
letter.
Berj / KI3U
Proposed prototype Timeline Resource for Voynich Studies
Dates Name (person or other); non-geographical particulars;
geographical particulars.
All content subject to updates and corrections.
11th c. date for manuscript CUL Gg. 5.35 "Carmina Cantabrigiensia". Its
folio 436v has an excellent similar to the Voynich text
alphabet gallows glyph GC-k / EVA-t.
c.1070-1100 dated English Herbal, Oxford Bodleian Library Ps. Apuleius,
St. Augustine's abbey, Canterbury - possibility this Herbal's
illustrations were seen by VMS author, and sectionally used for
synthesized "plants" illustrations in the VMS.
1098-1179 Hildegard von Bingen; Benedictine magistra; composer and
polymath, Ignota Lingua; Rhineland.
1170-1250 Leonardo Pisano Fibonacci; mathematician, encourages
Hindu-Arabic numeral system; Pisa.
1184 Pope Lucius III (1097-1185, r. 1181-1185) formally establishes
Inquisition.
1230 Johannes de Sacrobosco ( ~ 1195-1236) publishes his astronomical
treatise "Tractatus de Sphaera" - influential for the next four
centuries; criticises Julian Calendar in his 1235 "De Anni Ratione".
Oxford, Paris.
1214-1294 Roger Bacon, a.k.a. Doctor Mirabilis; Franciscan gunpowder
monk, urges scientific method and secret communications;
Oxford and Paris.
1291 Fall of Acre, last Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem.
1298 Marco Polo (?1254-1324), trader, explorer, writer, dictates his
book "Il Milione"; Venice, China.
1314 Templar Grand Master Jacques de Molay burned at the stake in
Paris.
~1340 Black Death / Plague reaches Europe from Asia - lasts into 18th
century.
1405 The Book of the City of Ladies published by Christine de Pizan
(1364-1430?) France's first Lady of Letters, she pens Song of
Joan of Arc in 1430, her writings exhibit advanced anagram mathematics;
Paris, Poissy.
c.1450 printing press of Johannes Gutenberg (?1400-1468); Mainz,
Strasbourg.
1453 Fall of Constantinople and end of Byzantine Empire; end of
medieval times and start of Renaissance by some writers.
1469 document of Crisogonus de Nassis, Bridwell MS 5, exhibits fully
modern forms of Hindu-Arabic numerals.
1492 Columbus discovers America and its native sunflowers.
c.1499 Benedictine Abbot Johannes Trithemius's (1462-1516)
"Steganographia" begins secret circulation (published in 1606 in
Frankfurt and prohibited by Catholic Church in 1609). His "Polygraphia"
of 1518 is the first printed book on cryptography.
Trithemius's students included Agrippa and Paracelsus.
1517 Augustinian monk Martin Luther (1483-1546) starts Protestant
Reformation with his 95 Theses; hides at Wartburg Castle in
Eisenach and translates Bible.
1534 Henry VIII and Cromwell's Parliament formally separate English
Church from Rome - English Reformation. Ignatius of Loyola
founds the Societas Iesu (Society of Jesus) in Montmartre.
1536 Dissolution of the Monasteries begins in England. John Calvin
(1509-1564) publishes "Institutes of the Christian Religion" in
Geneva - rise of Protestant Puritanism.
1543 Copernicus's (1473-1543) "De revolutionibus orbium coelestium" is
published upon the strong urging of the Austrian
mathematician Rheticus (1514-1574).
1553 Queen Mary I (d. 1558) begins Catholic Restoration in England -
reversed by Parliament in 1559.
1556 Great Comet of 1556; scares Pope and everyone; Holy Roman Emporer
Charles V abdicates.
1564 John Dee (1527-1609) writes "Monas Hieroglyphica" concerning his
mystical universal glyph.
1572 Tycho Brahe (1546-1601) observes his Supernova on November 11 from
Herrevad Abbey. Earlier in Paris 14 August - 17
September the St.Bartholomew's Day Massacre of French Huguenots
(Calvinist Protestants) by Catholics.
1573 Villa Mondragone construction begins; Popes and Jesuits, VMS;
Frascati (Lazio) / Monte Porzio Catoni.
1582 Pope Gregory XIII decrees, from Villa Mondragone, the reformed
(Gregorian) calendar.
1599 Peasant Cosmologist Domenico Scandella (Menocchio) (b. 1532)
burned in Pordenone (Italy).
1600 Priest-Cosmologist Giordano Bruno burned in Rome.
1605 Rudolph II (1552-1612) completes and dedicates his scientific
revolution Kunstkammer in Prague Castle.
1608 Czech Knight Krystof Harant publishes his travels to the middle
east.
1609 Scientist-Engineer Cornelius Drebbel (1572-1633), patroned by
James I of England (1566-1625) is given rooms in Eltham
Palace to display his works. Drebbel becomes a friend of Francis Bacon.
1610 Drebbel becomes Chief Alchemist at Rudolph II's court.
1614 Rosicrucian "Fama Fraternitatis Rosae Crucis" published in Kassel.
1615 Lutheran Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) completes "Epitome astronomia
Copernicanae" - published in three volumes 1617-1621.
1618 Beginning of complex and devastating Thirty Years War in
continental Europe - ends in 1648 with a weakening of the Holy
Roman Empire, and lingering consequences.
1620 Francis Bacon (1561-1626) publishes "Novum Organum". Publishes
"The New Atlantis" in 1626. These and other works
emphasize the "Baconian method" of philosophical inquiry, serving to
propel the scientific revolution.
1628-1637 First botanical expedition to Virginia by John Tradescant the
Younger (1608-1662).
1632 Galileo (1564-1642) publishes "Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi
del mondo".
1639 Georgius Baresch, a friend of Marci, writes what he says is a
second letter about a mysterious manuscript, to Athanasius Kircher,
S.J.
1640 First known letter from Catholic Johannes Marcus Marci (1595-1667)
to lifelong friend Athanasius Kircher, S.J. Marci's career is
as a medical doctor, scientist, and high official of Charles University
in Prague.
1642-1651 English Civil War: Parlamentarians vs Royalists.
1646 Alchemist-Physicist Robert Boyle (1627-1691) mentions the
"Invisible College" - eventually crystallizes as the Royal Society.
1649 Charles I (b.1600) of England is publicly executed. Oliver
Cromwell (1599-1658) begins his rise to "Lord Protector of England,
Scotland and Ireland".
1650-1662 Elias Ashmole (1617-1692) a founder of the Royal Society,
works with John Tradescant the Younger and acquires
Tradescant's unique collection of natural specimens - eventually to
become the seed for Ashmolean Museum.
1652 & 1653 Herbals published by herbalist, physician, astrologer
Nicholas Culpeper (1616-1654); Cambridge.
1655 Samuel Hartlieb / Hartlib (c.1600-1662) writes "The Reformed
Commonwealth of Bees". His trans-oceanic circle of contacts and
correspondents, the "Hartlib Circle", which includes his London
neighbor cipher-diarist Samuel Pepys (1633-1703), becomes a
foundation for the eventual Royal Society.
1660 Royal Society founded in London with the motto "Nullius in Verba".
1660-1661 Restoration of the English monarchy with Charles II.
1664 Polymath Athanasius Kircher, S.J. (?1601-1680) in Rome writes to
Astronomer and Missionary Adamus Schall, S.J.
(1591-1666) in China; the letter (APUG 563 292r) possibly contains a
word written in the Voynich text alphabet. Schall is the central
figure in one of the most sensitive episodes in Chinese astronomy
history.
1665/6 "last letter of Marci" to Kircher, the critical document for the
popular version of VMS history.
1665 Royal Society resident experimental scientist Robert Hooke
(1635-1703) publishes "Micrographia".
1673 Polymath phenom Gottfried Willhelm Leibniz (1646-1716), much
interested in a universal language, becomes an external
member of the Royal Society, where he debates with Hooke on Leibniz's
calculating machine. Leibniz was in correspondence with
Athanasius Kircher in 1670.
1692-1693 Salem Witch Trials; Massachusetts.
~1740-1780 "Medicina Pensylvania" penned by the French Huguenot
physician George de Benneville. The handscript has some
affinities with the VMS script.
1795 Beginning of the Oak Island (Nova Scotia) mystery; eventually
grows to encompass theories involving: John Dee, Rosicrucians,
Sir Walter Raleigh (1552-1618), Francis Bacon.
1815-1871 Italian Risorgimento reunification.
1897 Ethel Lilian Boole Voynich (1864-1960) publishes her Risorgimento
novel "The Gadfly".
1912 Wilfrid Michael Voynich (1865-1930), revolutionary and antiquarian
finds VMS in Austria or Italy (Villa Mondragone); Poland,
Siberia, London, New York.
1895-? Anne Margaret Nill; specialist in old books, Voynich's
assistant, later Kraus's; Buffalo, NY, New York City.
1924 Christian Science Monitor article interviewing Miss Nill.
1928 William Romaine Newbold's "The Cipher of Roger Bacon" posthumously
published.
1944 Theodore C. Petersen, S.J., completes annotated hand copy of VMS.
Famous cryptologist William Friedman (1891-1969) starts
his VMS "First Study Group" (FSG). Botanist Fr. Hugh O'Neill identifies
the VMS f93r plant as a sunflower, giving weight to VMS
genesis after 1493.
1945 Yale Prof. Leonell C. Strong publishes paper "Anthony Askham, The
Author of the Voynich Manuscript".
1961 VMS bought from Miss Nill by New York antiquarian H.P. Kraus.
1968 Kraus donates VMS to Yale Beinecke Library where it is cataloged
as MS 408.
1975 John H. Tiltman reads a VMS paper to some of his colleagues -
eventually leads to D'Imperio's book.
1998 (November 25) Takeshi Takahashi releases the first complete
transcript of the entire VMS in EVA.
2004? Beinecke makes available online high-resolution .sid images of
the VMS.
2006 voyn_101.txt transcription of entire VMS released online by Glen
Claston (GC).
2007 original online vms-list terminates, successor list under new
ownership starts.
- end version 1 -
**************************
83
From: Berj N. Ensanian
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 20:58:26 -0400
Subject: J.VS: Pictures: possible Voynich-alphabet word in
Kircher's letter to Schall
Dear All
I've sent to our Librarian Greg the deposit # 8-1-2007-09-14 consisting
in addition to metadata of four images of the possible
Voynich-alphabet word in Kircher's 1664 letter to Adamus Schall.
The details on this interesting mystery in Kircher's APUG 563 292r
letter, written the year before the famous so-called last letter of
Marci to Kircher, are first recorded in the thread to the old vms-list:
VMs: Possible Voynich text in a Kircher letter, Sunday, February 18,
2007 2:31 AM
That thread is preserved in the J.VS Library:
deposit # 1-1-2007-05-05, file 4vmsKI3Ulab.htm
Berj / KI3U
*******************
84
From: Greg Stachowski
To: "J.VS:"
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 16:33:13 +0200
Subject: J.VS: More on the gallows groups in CUL MS Gg. 5.35
Carmina Cantabrigiensia
Dear all,
In 2006, Berj uncovered a gallows-lookalike in an image of f.436v of
CUL (Cambridge University Library) MS Gg. 5.35, popularly
known as "Carmina Cantabrigiensia" [1].
At this point, we have only one image of this, from the relevant
Wikipedia page [2]. Even just looking at this image, however, there
are interesting things there: apart from the gallows, both it and a
similar pi-like letter to the right of O-P in the second column have a
horizontal line which encompasses the text to the right, much like
gallows sometimes do in the VMS.
By the way, here is a link to a 1926 transcription of the Carmina
Cantabrigiensia by Brecker:
http://www.fh-augsburg.de/~harsch/Chronologia/Lspost11/CarminaCantabrigiensia/can_carm.html
If your scroll down slightly over halfway to:
Carmen XVIII
Admonitio
(Abecedarius merovingus)
1
Audax es, vir iuvenis,
dum fervet caro mobilis;
...
you get the section in the image. The text to the right of the gallows
recurs after each verse and is interpreted as an abbreviation for:
"Adtende homo, quia pulvis es et in pulverem reverteris."
(roughly: "Take care, Man, you who are dust and to dust you shall
return.")
which appears in full after the first verse, then as just "Adtende",
and then as just "Adt.". The gallows is not interpreted in the
transcription listed above, and only occurs after "F" and "O" (I
suspect that is the same symbol). There are also two square-like
symbols in the right column, followed by text not mentioned in the
transcription.
Greg
---
[1] see also vms-list thread: VMs: GC-k and intruding gallows in 11th
c. ms, Wednesday, November 8, 2006 8:00 PM.
Preserved in J.VS Library deposit #1-1-2007-05-05, file 3JVSlibKI3U.htm
[2] http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmina_Cantabrigiensia
***********************
85
From: Berj N. Ensanian
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 14:18:16 -0400
Subject: J.VS: Pictures of Jan Hurych's find:
Marci-to-Kircher-letter arm-star diagram
Dear All
I have submitted to Greg our Librarian the deposit # 9-1-2007-09-16
consisting of metadata and 5 images.
The 1x130vAPUG557.jpg image is a crop from the Marci-to-Athanasius
Kircher letter APUG 557 130v showing the highly
interesting "arm-star diagram" on the letter's addressing side that Jan
Hurych discovered, and asked my opinion on in early February
2007. I was immediately impressed by it as a possibly very important
clue in Voynich research, and brought it to the attention of the
old vms-list.
There followed a discussion thread among Jan Hurych, Greg Stachowski,
Dana Scott, and myself, on the mysteriously gloved arm-star
diagram, the Voynich f57v diagram, the VMS author, peculiarities in
Marci's letters to Kircher, the true last letter of Marci to Kircher,
the exact year of Marci's death, and the importance of astronomy in VMS
research - the diagram and its letter impact a lot of Voynich
studies questions! The other 4 images all relate to the discussion. [1]
Now, as we know, in this current period Richard SantaColoma has been
bringing, via his nicely expanding work on possible Cornelius
Drebbel influences in the VMS, attention to the question of
compound-lens optics in the VMS. In the original arm-star discussion
the
idea that the diagram might depict telescopic imaging, possibly even
with sufficient drawing accuracy to deduce some mathematical
data, had been mentioned. It seems to me that it is not at all
unreasonable to ponder the arm-star diagram as suggesting, in addition
to
whatever else, compound lenses in action.
As a new thought I'm wondering if the apparent integration of the
arm-star diagram with the letter's sealing is not accidental, but
intentional, and that the integral geometry is intended to suggest some
sort of instrument and / or principles.
Berj / KI3U
[1] Private email exchange with Jan Hurych with Subject-line "Re: APUG
557 130r versus 9RMS f57v" dated Wed, 14 Feb 2007
19:38:59 -0500.
vms-list thread: VMs: The arm-star diagram on APUG 557 130v, Thursday,
February 15, 2007 10:05 AM
The above are preserved in J.VS Library deposit # 1-1-2007-05-05, file
4vmsKI3Ulab.htm
*********************
86
From: Greg Stachowski
To: "J.VS:"
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 16:26:26 +0200
Subject: J.VS: Herbert Hoover's correspondence: " Villalobar,
Maquis de-Voynich, W.M., 1916-1920 "
Every once in a while, we come across yet another hint of how many pies
WMV had his fingers in, and the contacts he maintained.
Here's another one for the collection:
In the Presidential Library of Herbert Hoover [1], in the catalogue of
the section for General Correspondence [2,3] before Hoover
became Secretary of Commerce under President Harding in 1920, listed
under box 16 is the following entry:
" Villalobar, Maquis de-Voynich, W.M., 1916-1920 "
Now at this time HH was operating, frequently from London, organising
major humanitarian relief for war-torn Europe, particularly
Belgium. The Marquis de Villalobar [4] was a Spanish diplomat and
ambassador to Belgium who was also big in this; indeed, both of
them have squares and streets named after them in Brussels. But what
did our friend WMV have to do with it? A Spanish Marquis, a
future US President, and an emigre bookdealer?
Anyone feel like taking a trip down to the Hoover Library in Iowa?
Links:
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hoover
[2] http://www.ecommcode2.com/hoover/research/hooverpapers/index.html
[3]
http://www.ecommcode2.com/hoover/research/hooverpapers/hoover/precomm/corresp2.htm
[4] http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marqu%C3%A9s_de_Villalobar
Notes:
The catalogue entry is quoted above exactly as it appears, with
"Marquis" misspelled as "Maquis".
Greg
*********************
87
From: Berj N. Ensanian
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:43:11 -0400
Subject: J.VS: Re: Herbert Hoover's correspondence: "
Villalobar, Maquis de-Voynich, W.M., 1916-1920 "
Greg wrote:
" But what did our friend WMV have to do with it? A Spanish Marquis, a
future US President, and an emigre bookdealer? "
Lacking any data from the Iowa archive, as a pure guess then, perhaps
Hoover's connection with Wilfrid and the Marquis de Villalobar
involves Wilfrid supplying good books for the post- WW I rebuilding of
Belgian University libraries, like the University of
Louvain-Leuven. From general Herbert Hoover biographical data it
appears that Hoover was involved with higher education relief
efforts in Belgium in this timeframe.
I'm trying to recall if there are any critical points in the popular
version of Voynich manuscript history that hinge on something
Belgian. Am also wondering if the Spanish Marquis de Villalobar had any
noteworthy visits to Austrian castles and / or the Villa
Mondragone.
Berj
*****************
88
From: Berj N. Ensanian
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:02:22 -0400
Subject: J.VS: VMS Ladies and earrings
Dear All
It seems remarkable that among the hundreds of female figures
illustrated in the VMS there is such an absence of earrings. I can find
only one instance in the entire Voynich manuscript that appears to
depict a woman wearing an earring, albeit drawn subtly.
Actually, the illustrator seemed to avoid drawing ears, even when the
hair was swept back enough so that by nature the ear would be
exposed - we see many examples of this. For example, in f81v, in the
bottom line of women, the third lady from left. Another
example: in f81r, in the bottom line of women, the second lady from
left. If one were to argue that with these two ladies their hair is
covering the ear, then they would have very strangely constructed heads
indeed. Rather, it is clear that the detail of their ears has not
been drawn in. By contrast, the details of rosy red cheeks, and belly
buttons, have been rendered by the artist.
In folio 82r there appears the only occurrence of what I perceive might
be a clear earring, with another possible ear and / or earring on
another figure on the same page. Lets have a look at the bottom
illustration of f82r - it is rather complex, comprised of 11 women, in
several scenes, that are unified by a green colored area with a softly
serrated outline.
Along the bottom serrate, at right, is a scene with three women, the
lower parts of their bodies obscured by the serrate. The two right
women are looking at, or toward, the left woman, who is facing more or
less in their direction. Underneath this left lady is the text
label GC-8oeoe. This lady seems to have a simply drawn ear, an oval,
and dangling from it appears to be a darker drawn earring, that
is subtle in its outline because its outline is part of the lady's
neck, as well as the serrate. However, the "earring" is made clear with
much darker ink.
If this object is indeed an earring, then is it a symbol? Is the scene
with the three women specific to this earring? It's shape is quite
clear: an ovoid stretched toward pointedness at the vertical ends, and
with a thick extension or hook issuing from the left perimeter of
the earring's body. Presumably, an indentical earring worn on the other
side of her head (her head's left side) would appear horizontally
flipped. I have not yet been able to clearly match this object with
some symbol. But, it motivates paying attention to earrings in
portraits of women, certainly royals, from the VMS genesis era, and
earlier.
On the same page, f82r, at its right side, the second lady from the top
is shown reclined or laid out in some kind of coffin-like
construction, underneath a tethered blue 7-rayed star. She may be
exhibiting an ear and / or earring, although it is difficult to tell
even
from the high resolution image.
Berj / KI3U
********************
89
From: Berj N. Ensanian
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 00:25:57 -0400
Subject: J.VS: Generating Strong's 1-3-5-7-9-7-5-3-1-4-7-4
with Christine de Pizan's anagram mathematics
Dear All
I came across an old vms-list reply-post of mine to Jeff Haley from
last year wherein I briefly mentioned to Jeff a private email
conversation with Glen Claston [1]. I mentioned that in that
conversation with GC I had told him that (Yale Professor) Leonell C.
Strong's famous periodically repeating sequence:
1-3-5-7-9-7-5-3-1-4-7-4
falls out of some of Christine de Pizan's anagram mathematics. In other
words, Christine's anagram machinery can be used to generate
the Strong sequence quite simply, although here "simple" is in a
relative sense: provided the rather technical basis of Christine's
system, and its phenomenally broad possibilities, are understood, then
it is indeed straighforward obtaining the Strong sequence, as a
periodic sequence, from Christine. I had never gotten around to
detailing the procedure, so I will tie up that loose end here now. [2]
In a 1947 paper concerned with one of his VMS discoveries [3], Strong
stated that portions of the VMS were coded in a " double
reverse system of arithmetic progressions of a multiple alphabet ". He
did not give any further details in that paper. The actual
sequence 1-3-5-7-9-7-5-3-1-4-7-4 that is almost certainly involved in
his description, is found in Strong's Voynich manuscript
worksheets. The material in these worksheets, including the number
sequence, was, as best as I can recall, brought out into open
discussion on the old vms-list around ten years ago, by Rayman Maleki,
Dennis V. Mardle, and Glen Claston. Clear images of Strong's
worksheets, including the one bearing the number sequence, have been
made available online by GC for quite a long while. [4]
I do not know Strong's decipherment technique - it would obviously
require extensive study of his worksheets to figure out what he
was doing. As we all know, his worksheets are just that - worksheets -
not anything like a step by step description of his decipherment
method. And, his work does not have many followers. Nevertheless, I
think his work remains some of the most interesting in Voynich
studies history. What specifically peaked my interest in it was that in
working with Christine's anagram mathematics I saw that
1-3-5-7-9-7-5-3-1-4-7-4 could be obained from her double-period anagram
transform, the "e12" transform. (The complementary
transform is the c6 which we will not need here.)
Curiously, a simple description of the e12 procedure would be quite
reminiscent of Strong's " double reverse system of arithmetic
progressions ". We will see that below.
So I think it is worth recording in detail how Strong's sequence and
Christine de Pizan's anagram mathematics are related - here to
follow next. In the following it is necessarily assumed that
Christine's system is fully understood, along with its notation and
nomenclature. [5]
Our objective is to develop a scheme, relying on the double-periodicity
of e12, to generate integer sequences. The scheme will employ
the double-periodicity to generate codes serially, that is, it will
switch between different periods as the transform cycles proceed. (
This
is potentially less complicated than a simultaneous double-periodicity
scheme ). It is a simple scheme that suggests itself from a study
of the e12 Table VII-1, the RL portion of it, plus familiarity /
experience with RL e12 on a 16-field. To develop the scheme, we will
need to re-observe some things, define some things, and finally specify
the scheme.
The RL e12 sequence has its w = 12, but, as we have already seen, that
12 derives from its two sub-periods, swe = 3 and swo = 4
where:
swo = sub-period of odd field-positions columns
swe = sub-period of even field-positions columns and:
(swo)(swe) = w
specifically: (4)(3) = 12
Our experience leads us to load the group 123456789------- into a
16-field, and look at swo and swe, say in respective columns 1
and 4, through the 12 transformation cycles:
C0 RL Rn In Sn e12 +n w = 12
oeoeoeoeo
0: 123456789-------
1: 34567218------9-
2: 56721438----9---
3: 72143658--9-----
4: 143652789-------
5: 36527418------9-
6: 52741638----9---
7: 74163258--9-----
8: 163254789-------
9: 32547618------9-
10: 54761238----9---
11: 76123458--9-----
12: 123456789------- same as 0:
In odd column 1 we see: 1 3 5 7 1 3 5 7 1 3 5 7 swo = 4
In even column 4 we see: 4 6 2 4 6 2 4 6 2 4 6 2 swe = 3
The other columns show phase-shifted (cycle offset) versions of these.
The symbol 9 in column 9 undergoes a sawtooth oscillation through the
12 cycles sequence, and its period is of course 4, since it starts
out in an odd column.
We now define an instruction:
when 8 in even column 8, is met by 9 in odd column 9, to make 89,
change the direction of the transformations sequence. If it was
FXR, then change to RXR, and vice versa. (Be sure not to confuse the
FXR and RXR transformations sequence directions with the LR
and RL transform directions).
The meeting-up of 89 in adjacent opposite-polarity columns, we will
call:
the change transform-sequence direction instruction, or pointer.
We will denote this pointer: EP and now also assign numerical values to
it: we will say that in cycles 0:, 4:, 8:, and 12: the EP =
17 and in all other cycles EP = 0
We are ready to specify the serial doubly-periodic sequence based on
e12 :
a.) the w = 12 fundamental period must be maintained to keep
synchronization; therefore no matter what, when 12 cycles have been
completed, the next cycle is reset to be identical to the 1st of the
previous sequence of 12 results.
b.) start the sequence direction with, say, FXR.
c.) start reading generated codes with, say, an odd column, say column
1.
d.) when a non-zero EP appears, but it is not simultaneous with an IXR,
read as the generated code, the value of EP, i.e. read code =
17.
e.) If an IXR occurs simultaneous with a non-zero EP, the IXR
over-rules reading code: EP is not read, the column still supplies the
code. If an IXR occurs, take it as an instruction, starting with the
next cycle, to switch to reading code from an opposite polarity
column, say column 4.
f.) regardless of any indexing convention, say 0: vs 1:, the first /
starting group is regarded as an IXR result insofar as reading code is
concerned.
Now lets run the 12 cycles of the sequence, commenting as we go along.
To reduce eye-strain, we will blank out the unused columns
in field-positions 1-8; i.e. we will blank field positions 2, 3, 5, 6,
and 7.
C0 RL Rn In Sn e12 +n w = 12
o e eo 'take 0: as the 1st / start result of the sequence
0: 1 4 89------- 'read code = 1; proceed FXR
1: 3 6 8------9- 'read code = 3
2: 5 2 8----9--- 'read code = 5
3: 7 4 8--9----- 'read code = 7
4: 1 6 89------- 'EP = 17 and there is no IXR, so read code = 17, and
now switch to RXR
3: 7 4 8--9----- 'read code = 7
2: 5 2 8----9--- 'read code = 5
1: 3 6 8------9- 'read code = 3
0: 1 4 89------- 'an IXR has occurred, read code = 1, change to column
4 for reading codes. EP = 17, not zero, so therefore also now
switch to FXR
1: 3 6 8------9- 'read code = 6
2: 5 2 8----9--- 'read code = 2
3: 7 4 8--9----- 'read code = 4; 12 cycles have been completed, a reset
is done, and the sequence starts over with 0:
The 12 codes that were generated, and will be generated over and over,
are:
1, 3, 5, 7, 17, 7, 5, 3, 1, 6, 2, 4
It is immediately clear that we can define the non-zero value of EP,
i.e. when 9 meets 8, to be anything we want. Lets define EP = 9
and then the 12 generated codes are:
1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 7, 5, 3, 1, 6, 2, 4
It is also clear that this basic sequence of serial double-periodicity
can be kept, but have it generate different code numbers, by simply
changing the numbers that were loaded in the starting group. Lets
change 6 to 4, and 2 to 7, in other words lets start with:
oeoeoeoeo
0: 173454789-------
And Christine de Pizan's anagram system will then generate, over and
over:
1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 7, 5, 3, 1, 4, 7, 4
which is Dr. Strong's sequence.
As go the possibilities of the e12 transform, this is a simple scheme:
there is no position shifting, and both the 1-8 and 9-16 field
positions are transformed the same. It does demonstrate well the
potential of Christine's system.
Berj / KI3U
[1] vms-list post: RE: VMs: If at first you don't succeed, Saturday,
August 19, 2006 11:03 AM. This is preserved in J.VS Library
deposit # 1-1-2007-05-05, file 3JVSlibKI3U.htm
[2] Strong's sequence does not appear to be at all common - see:
http://www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/
[3] A Verification of a Hitherto Unknown Prescription of the 16th
Century, by L.C. Strong and E.L. McCawley, Bulletin of the
History of Medicine, Vol. XXI, No. 6, November-December, 1947.
[4] http://internet.cybermesa.com/~galethog/Voynich/
[5] see the series of vms-list posts " CREINTIS, Voynich, prime
numbers, ESCRINET, anagrams and Christine de Pizan ", July 2006.
Preserved in the J.VS Library in deposit # 1-1-2007-05-05, file
3JVSlibKI3U.htm
*************************
90
From: Berj N. Ensanian
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:44:09 -0400
Subject: J.VS: Beeckman's 1625 Compound Microscope sketch and
VMS pharma section objects
Dear All
This online resource on van Leeuwenhoek (1632-1723):
http://www.euronet.nl/users/warnar/leeuwenhoek.html
has an image of " Oldest known drawing of a compound microscope (From
the diary Isaac Beeckman, Middelburg, The Netherlands
anno 1625) ".
It is the image immediately underneath the photo of the ~1595
cylindrical Janssen microscope-tube. The Dutch physicist Isaac
Beeckman (1588-1637) knew Descartes (1596-1650) well. Here is a short
online biographical sketch of Beeckman from the Institute
and Museum of History of Science in Florence in their "Horror Vacui?"
section:
http://www.imss.firenze.it/vuoto/ebeeck.html
Now, the cylindrical mystery objects in the Voynich pharmaceutical
section, the geometries of which range from plain tubes to rather
complex constructions, along with a great range in their coloring and
detailing, are traditionally deemed "jars", some of them Majolica
/ Maiolica. [1]
But there is also an alternative view: that some of these objects might
be mechanical devices of some kind, even early scientific
revolution devices, for example perhaps early microscopes. In this vein
the Beeckman sketch is interesting, and I thought it worthwhile
to bring to the Journal's attention, because it offers a comparison far
more complex than simple cylindrical - in particular, the top
portion of the 1625 Beeckman microscope is noteworthy.
Berj / KI3U
[1] D'Imperio in her book is cautious with the designation "jars" and
seems to use it as a handy label that was already well established
by the time she was writing.
********************
91
From: Berj N. Ensanian
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 19:21:28 -0400
Subject: J.VS: Pharmaceutical section objects: Atomizers?
Dear All
I've been wondering if some of the strange cylindrical objects depicted
in the illustrations of the pharmaceutical section might be
atomizers. I couldn't find any old Voynich discussions on this - does
anyone have any recollection?
Three objects in particular strike me as being possible atomizers. On
f89r1 we have at the left margin of the page three cylindrical
objects. The middle one seems like it could well be an atomizer with
its own stand and a red squeeze-bulb.
Moving over to f89r2 that page has four of the mystery objects on its
left margin. The second from top one, and the bottom one seem
like they could well pass for atomizers.
Then if so, one could fathom that the associated botanical material
concerns manufacture and preparation of perfumes. All those VMS
ladies elsewhere in the book might be interested :)
Berj / KI3U
*******************
92
From: Berj N. Ensanian
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 01:39:59 -0400
Subject: J.VS: Incense Burners and Censers and the Voynich
Pharmaceutical Section
Dear All
In J.VS communication #91 the idea was opened that perhaps some of the
strange cylindrical objects illustrated in the Voynich
pharmaceutical section depict atomizers, and that therefore some of the
pharma material concerns itself with perfumes and perfumery.
Following up on that [1], I was not able to find much in the presently
accessible old vms-list archival records. In a 2004 post
describing pharma in the period 1450-1550 [2], GC writes:
" When medications were prescribed to "end-users" (doctor's patients or
apothecary's clients), these herbs were already processed, in
incense, tinctures, ..... "
And in a 2005 post [3], Wayne Durden used the idea (perhaps
half-seriously), that the entire VMS is concerned with the Aster
flower,
everything about the flower including perfumery, as a vehicle for
outlining a rather interesting theory of the Voynich text.
Researching perfumery immediately gets one into incense. And incense
suggests itself right on the very first page of the Voynich
manuscript, where at the left margin of f1r the third text paragraph
begins with a red glyph that looks like an active incense burner
shaped like an upside-down Greek letter pi.
So, those strange cylindrical objects depicted in the VMS pharma
section illustrations: might some of them be incense burners and
censers (censers without their chains) ?
I did some searching online, and my initial findings are quite
interesting: here is a list of online web-pages with pictures of
incense
burners and censers:
1.) b&w c. 1886 photograph of Shanghai temple & bronze incense
burner:
http://www.chia.chinesemuseum.com.au/objects/D001620.htm
enlarged image:
http://www.chia.chinesemuseum.com.au/image_viewer.htm?objects/images/MEL009_00001.JPG,D001620
2.) Buyeo National Museum Korean National Treasure No. 287 Baekje
period gilt-bronze incense burner:
http://www.heritage.go.kr/eng/mus/nat_07.jsp
3.) Silver incense burner, Persian c. 1750-1900:
http://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?image=10285129&wwwflag=2&imagepos=3
4.) Shaped as Tower of Heavenly Jerusalem, a 14th c. Penmaen Church
bronze incense burner:
http://www.swanseaheritage.net/article/gat.asp?ARTICLE_ID=74&PRIMARY_THEME_ID=5
5.) A.D. 450 Teotihuacan mass-produced ceramic incense burner:
http://www.textilemuseum.ca/cloth_clay/obj_teo.html
6.) The Incense Burner Virtual Museum - Le Musee Virtuel du BRULE
PARFUM
http://www.kandaki.com/BP-Index.php
http://www.kandaki.com/BP-Index.php?st=c&loc=outdoor
7.) Recent painting of an ancient Egyptian incense burning scene with
tripod-base incense burner:
http://zebra.sc.edu/smell/shannon/
http://zebra.sc.edu/smell/shannon/shan1.gif
From just these findings alone it seems to me a reasonable possibility,
that some of the VMS pharma tube-like / cylindrical / tower-like
constructions, are depictions of incense burners, censers, and other
forms of fragrance generators / dispensers.
Berj / KI3U
[1] The detailed history of fragrances is a new topic for me, and I am
still orienting myself. The first extensive material I found online
was this helpful article with its senior author being Kathi Keville:
History of Fragrance (Excerpted from Aromatherapy: A Complete Guide to
the Healing Art Published by Crossing Press):
http://www.healthy.net/scr/Article.asp?Id=1712&xcntr=1
[2] vms-list post: Re: VMs: 1006184 & 1006185, Thu, 10 Jun 2004
19:36:40 -0600.
[3] vms-list post: re: a new and fanciful idea (Not involving
Atlanteans, nor Isis), Fri, 25 Mar 2005 22:57:31 -0500.
*************************
93
From: Berj N. Ensanian
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 11:27:02 -0400
Subject: J.VS: Re: Incense Burners and Censers and the Voynich
Pharmaceutical Section
Here are two more interesting pictures of tiered-tower incense burners:
8.) British Museum Japanese Edo period Hirado ware incense burner:
http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/asia/h/hirado_ware_incense_burner.aspx
9.) Three large bronze burners at Heavenly Gate and Forbidden City:
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/yume/dreams/main/English_china_ten_an_mon.htm
http://dreams.world.coocan.jp/photo/znif/china/ten_an/t_ten_63.jpg
I've noticed that in general, a tripodal base seems to be common on
container-type incense burners across cultures and eras, regardless
of construction style - for example, little fat bowls with three knobby
button pods, and also huge tiered-towers with three curved legs.
We do see tripodal bases on some of the VMS pharma section objects.
The objects depicted in the VMS pharma section are still cryptic - they
are not obviously this or that. So then, to conjecture:
IF some of these pharma illustrations are indeed depicting incense
burners and censers,
AND the VMS originated in England,
AND the VMS dates after the English Reformation (1534),
THEN might their cryptic depiction relate to religious persecution
reasons?
As for the highly cryptic general character of the pharma section
specifically, if it concerns the manufacture and preparation of
fragrances, we could be less surprised - because the fragrances
industry has always revolved around secret formulas, and the
economics have always been big. Apparently Marco Polo's travels had a
perfumes economics aspect. Another name that came up in
my readings on this subject is the Marquis de Frandipani, said to have
travelled with Columbus to the New World, and to have brought
back the Plumeria alba flower that became the source for a popular
perfume back in Europe. Looking into the subject of fragrances we
do seem to meet some long-familiar Voynich studies names, like
Hildegard von Bingen.
Berj / KI3U
*********************
94
From: Greg Stachowski
To: "J.VS:"
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 15:05:28 +0200
Subject: J.VS: Re: Timeline Resource for Voynich Studies
Back in J.VS comm. #82 a few weeks ago, Berj suggested creating a
timeline for events surrounding and relevant to the Voynich
manuscript. Since then, we have been working from Berj's preliminary,
text listing of events to create an interactive, online timeline,
using open-source software from MIT's SIMILE project. It now gives me
great pleasure to announce that this timeline is officially
'open' and available as part of the J.VS Library, at:
http://www.as.up.krakow.pl/jvs/library/0-2-2007-09-13/
or, equivalently,
http://www.as.up.krakow.pl/jvs/timeline
The timeline remains a work in progress. Submissions and suggestions
for further development are welcome and should be sent to the
J.VS Librarian; currently that would be me.
Greg Stachowski
****************************
95
From: Berj N. Ensanian
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 11:56:31 -0400
Subject: J.VS: Re: Timeline Resource for Voynich Studies
Reference communication #94:
Well done Greg.
Initial public reaction, gauging it as we have been measuring and
discussing it off-J, is positive. Thus we can view the Journal's TL
project as a kind of "public works" project for educating the public
about the Voynich manuscript field, in addition to the TL's primary
purpose of serving as a tool for dedicated Voynich research.
Berj
**********************
96
From: Berj N. Ensanian
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 12:38:08 -0400
Subject: J.VS: Survey results: Voynich Astrological-section
barrels / cans interpretations
Dear All
In Table 1 below [1] are the results of our quick off-J survey on the
question:
What could the astrological-section barrels / cans represent?
As we know, as astrological diagrams go, the Voynich astro barrels are
unusual. Our survey results are a mix of old ideas floated in
Voynich studies literature for a long time, and perhaps some new ideas.
This being a quick spot survey, we might have left out some old ideas;
in any case we can add to the list as convenient.
Berj / KI3U
[1] Table 1: Ideas, old and perhaps some new, on interpretations of the
diverse barrels / cans in the Voynich ms astrological pages,
folios f70r - 73v, gathered from a quick internal off-J survey, 2-3 OCT
2007. The astro illustrations have circular diagrams where:
a.) all the human figures have a can (they are within their can, or
with it),
b.) diagrams with both canned and un-canned figures, and
c.) diagrams without any cans.
Table entries are in no particular order.
1.) baptismal tubs
2.) washing tubs
3.) perfumed bathing tubs
4.) grapes or other mashing vats
5.) wine, beer, or other beverage cask
6.) symbolic personal space - "cell"
7.) symbolic castle "tower" representing a principality
8.) mechanical tubes with an active principle or spirit (symbolized by
resident human figure)
9.) tabernacle of being: containing the soul or spirit with the
potential to ascend
10.) toilets of some kind - a serious possibility probably only for
hoax hypotheses
11.) birthing tubs
12.) Egyptian internal organs embalmment urns - symbolic rebirth
13.) symbolic throne chair
14.) symbolic store-front for tradegoods, e.g. weaved cloths
15.) containers for medicinal/alchemical substances, with the figures
representing life force/active spirit whatever as 8.) above.
16.) astrological channel between underground world and heavens above
17.) graphical devices for data (e.g. astrological, or steganographic)
18.) graphical devices for symbolizing water = life
(end of Table 1 / 3 OCT 2007)
**********************************
97
From: Berj N. Ensanian
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:24:21 -0400
Subject: J.VS: Underground and peripheral VMS art:
preservation
Dear All
In the history of the pursuit of the Voynich mystery there have now and
then, and here and there, come about some works of art that
were in some way inspired by the VMS and / or the greater mystery. Some
of them are not well known for one reason or another,
typically because they were not directly a product of a solution
attack. Even many longtime VMS students don't realize the existence
and / or significance of some of these artworks, for example Stolfi's
"reconstruction" of the missing f74r, Jan Hurych's "Miss
Chapnill", and Jonathan Dilas's VMS "zodiac".
The issues pertaining to these artworks can be complicated, and
consequently some of them remain "underground art". Of the three
just mentioned, the first two are clearly meant for humor among
advanced Voynich workers. Stolfi's, a favorite among those who
know of it, may well have trademark issues with a long established and
well-known-the-world-over business enterprise. Hurych's work
probably is safe from legalities, and although somewhat funny to anyone
seeing it, it can only be appreciated for its deep
double-composite humor by advanced students of the field - it is really
an extremely serious commentary on the Voynich mystery,
delivered in humorous pictographic fashion. Dilas's creation is
historically important for being at the center of a very heated
argument
(on vms-list last year) about interpretations of the imagery in the
Voynich manuscript.
My comments here are just a small beginning intended to raise some
awareness of this point: there is art being created as a by-product
of the pursuit of the Voynich mystery, and some of the exemplars are
significant, and future VMS historians and art historians will
surely be interested in them. But first of course they have to know
about them.
It may be possible for J.VS to devote a section of its Library to a
collection of these kinds of art. Unfortunately it is not simply a
matter
of grabbing images where and when available and depositing them in the
Library. Also, the art may not be restricted to images - there
may be poetry and other types of creations. Legalities, and evaluation
of significance are certainly no small task.
But, let us note this phenomenon of underground and peripheral VMS art
- this is the first step in eventually seeing come about serious
inquiry, conservation, and study of it.
Berj / KI3U
*************************
98
From: Greg Stachowski
To: "J.VS:"
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 21:49:16 +0200
Subject: J.VS: Library search tool
Thanks to Jan Hurych, we now have a search form on the main Library
page,
http://www.as.up.krakow.pl/jvs/library/
which allows Google searching of the Library resources.
Greg
*********************
99
From: Greg Stachowski
To: "J.VS:"
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 11:26:17 +0200
Subject: J.VS: "Search for Hidden Numbers in the VM" by Jan
Hurych
The article:
"Search for Hidden Numbers in the VM"
by Jan Hurych, which investigates the possible numbers masked by blue
colour in the VM, is now in the Library as deposit #
6-4-2007-10-06 at the URL:
http://www.as.up.krakow.pl/jvs/library/6-4-2007-10-05/
Greg
***********************
100
From: Berj N. Ensanian
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 19:01:43 -0400
Subject: J.VS: King-in-a-can and Juan de la Cosa's Map of 1500
Dear All
In J.VS communication #96 was given the survey-results of conjectures
on what the barrels / cans in the "astrological" section of the
VMS might represent. Among the eighteen list items were:
7.) symbolic castle "tower" representing a principality
13.) symbolic throne chair
Online I've just found an image of the famous Juan de la Cosa map of
1500 that is just magnified enough to present tantalizing
suggestions that it has graphics elements of special interest to us,
including the figures-with-cans in the VMS astrology section, as per
7.) and 13.) above, if we can just get even better images of this map.
[1,2]
I've cropped a small section from the map around its mid-line, and
about 40% up from its bottom - this image submitted to our
Librarian Greg as deposit # 10-1-2007-10-06. At upper left of this crop
I've marked "A" next to what appears to be a king with a staff,
situated in some sort of partly cylindrical thing, and being attended
to by a person in front. The resolution is only just good enough to
make it a tantalizing comparison with VMS astrology-section can scenes.
At bottom right of the crop, marked "B", is another example:
here the suggestion is of a ruler seated on a horizontal cylindrical
pillow; we do have some horizontal cans in the VMS. From these
two examples it would seem worthwhile to be on the lookout for the
availability of better images of the de la Cosa map.
I think the possibility that the Voynich ms "astrology" section
diagrams are not astrological [3], but instead cryptic navigational
charts,
may have been entertained on the old vms-list. In any case it is an
interesting thought, and such a reality could dovetail well with the
notion that the pharmaceutical section deals with New World high-value
botanicals.
Berj / KI3U
[1] The de la Cosa map is Catalog No. 257 in the Naval Museum of
Madrid:
http://www.museonavalmadrid.com/index.asp
http://cvc.cervantes.es/actcult/museo_naval/sala8/navios/navios_10.htm
The largest and best image of it online that I have found is at this
url:
http://tonova.typepad.com/thesuddencurve/Caribe%20C.1500.jpg
[2] A good discussion of this 96x183 cm Portolan World chart / Mappa
Mundi, and its Basque maker Juan de la Cosa (1460-1510),
who was the owner and master of the Santa Maria (Columbus) and a key
figure in the discovery of the New World, is online here:
http://www.henry-davis.com/MAPS/Ren/Ren1/305mono.html
" This map is the oldest, now known, made since 1492, which shows the
discoveries in the new world. "
Biographical on de la Cosa is also available online here:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04402d.htm
[3] We still have no concrete demonstration that indeed they are
astrological charts.
********************************
101
From: Berj N. Ensanian
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 12:20:44 -0400
Subject: J.VS: Dialog: possible "masked" key on a Voynich
f102v1 "incense burner"
Dear All
I've sifted through our off-J discussions over the past few days, 4 - 7
OCT 2007, and assembled the essential dialog, reproduced below
[1], concerning some apparently "masked" text on one of the cylindrical
objects / "jars" a.k.a. "incense burners" in the f102v1 pharma
section of the VMS.
Briefly, the background to this is: On 2 AUG 2004 Jan Hurych published
on his Voynich website a preliminary analysis of his search
for hidden numbers in the pharma f102v2. In that article Jan developed
an interesting, if not radical idea that "masking" of original
Voynich text may have been done to the ms post-text.
Jan recently deposited this article in the J.VS Library as deposit #
6-4-2007-10-05, - see J.VS communication #99. This sparked
renewed interest in Jan's idea of intentional masking in the Voynich
manuscript, and over the following days another example on
f102v1 was found - the off-J dialog recorded below shows the
developments up to the present.
In sum, the situation at the moment is very tentative, but highly
interesting, and considerably more work needs to be done to exploit
any possibilities. Two images pertaining to the dialog discussion,
1xf102v1.jpg and 2xf102v1.jpg, have been sent to our Librarian
Greg for deposit as # 11-1-2007-10-07.
Berj / KI3U
[1] Dialog 4-7 OCT 2007 of the off-J discussions concerning masked text
in a Voynich f102v1 illustration object. The dialog
participants are J.VS members Jan Hurych, Berj N. Ensanian, and Robert
Teague. Editorial notes are enclosed in square brackets: [ed.
notes].
Jan says:
Greg, I just posted another article ... [J.VS: SEARCH FOR HIDDEN
NUMBERS IN THE VM]
Berj says:
Good, I'm glad that is coming along. I've been wondering Jan - did you
ever talk about that article on the old vms-list? The reason is
that I'm trying to figure out just when I [first] read it.
Jan says:
Yes, the article was on my site for long time [published 2 AUG 2004],
the spots were found by Stolfi, ..... I talked about it on the VM
..... they had no idea what to do with the find. Neither do I :-). Then
even Stolfi went silent.
It is generally agreed now that the coloring was done later and
possibly by some other person. As for the reasons, mostly mine - it was
done to mask something. If that is true, the steganography - or any
other not so obvious method - was most likely used. Later they
found some single "letters" inside some colored leafs, but no meaning
was disovered either.
Berj says:
Well back in January we saw that Wilfrid's 1921 photo of f1r and
today's Beinecke f1r have some radical glyphs differences, including
an entire word (J.VS comm. #74 gives the ref.) - so since then I've
assumed that at least some of the touch-up was done by Wilfrid &
Company [text-ink touch-up should not be confused with painting in the
ms]. And Wilfrid was originally studying chemistry I've read.
I still have not found when it was that I read your f102v2 numbers
article on your website (I think I came upon it around the time of
the PM-curve work), but I'll let it go for now.
Jan et al: Have a look at attached pictures [1xf102v1.jpg and
2xf102v1.jpg] - the bottom cylindrical "incense burner" from f102v1.
Is this "masking" of some text as per Jan's article?
Looks like two, possibly three lines of text on the cylinder's
brown-red portion. The top incense burner above it might also have some
masked letters underneath its brown-red colored portions.
Not sure if this is anything new - I just noticed it and thought of the
recent focus on "masking".
Robert says:
I think you're right. I recognize a couple of the Voynich letters
already. You might be uncovering a whole new layer of the VMs.
Berj says:
Well the credit goes to Jan - I would not have noticed it if I hadn't
read "masking" in his paper. I want him to look at this and tell us
what he thinks.
Jan says:
That's a tough one, brown as you know contains red color as well,
whatever I did just did not measure up [attempted image processing
on the object being discussed], see samples. I cannot even say what's
underneath: it is not numbers, maybe Voynichese, maybe even
those sharp scribbles shown elsewhere in the VM. Will think about it.
Berj says:
The red image I made first (2xf102v1.jpg) still is the best so far.
Now, I think I see something interesting. Lets say tentatively that
running around that sub-cylinder there are three lines of glyphs or if
you will, text, with the middle line the clearest, and the bottom
line the most difficult to make out. I'll cut right to the interesting
part: it looks to me like the top line is Latin letters, and underneath
it
the middle line is definitely Voynich letters, and I'm getting the
impression that they are in correspondence, as if in an alphabet key.
From the easiest to read letters, the last three in the top, and middle
lines, it looks like:
"a" = GC-N
"q" = GC-8
"R" = GC-9
Of course this is highly, highly tentative. We need to look more
closely, and get better image processing figured out.
[end of dialog to 7 OCT 2007]
*************************************
102
From: Berj N. Ensanian
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 16:58:47 -0400
Subject: J.VS: Image processing to VMS fingerprints (Was:
Dialog: possible "masked" key on a Voynich f102v1 "incense
burner")
Dear All
Continuing from J.VS comm. #101 the dialog, redacted below, is now seen
to be merging with another long-running off-J dialog
concerning the increasingly pressing problem of some kind of standard
high-precision image processing procedure in Voynich image
analysis. The dialog participants are Robert Teague, Berj N. Ensanian,
Jan Hurych, Greg Stachowski, Dennis Fedak.
Dialog continuation from 8 OCT 2007 on:
Robert says:
The GIMP is a graphics program with a lot of capability. The learning
curve is pretty steep, though.
Berj says:
Jan's idea of "intentional masking" in the vms is I think a
ground-breaking one. We could use a catalog of colors in the VMS in the
Library with sample thumbnail-crops pictures, (all sourced from the
.sid images) like three shades of red, red a, red b, red c, two
shades of green, green a, green b, etc. or green1, green2, etc.
Greg says:
I had a quick play with the Gimp; broadly speaking I adjusted the
contrast in each channel with curves, extracted the yellow, magenta
and red separations, and put them back together, with yellow and
magenta merged and red overlayed on top with a 2x2 blur
[f102v1-processed.jpg]. Yellow and magenta have the most information.
However, this needs repeating sometime when I have more
time to do a thorough job.
Anyway, make of it what you will. There seem to be more letters on the
large cylinder, and perhaps also on the narrower ring at the
top. Actually, scratch that about the top ring, those are just
deorative circles, the interaction with the uneven overpaint made them
look
like letters after the processing, but looking back at the original
it's clear they're not.
Berj says:
Well indeed on the top ring there is a little "+" type cross near the
left edge - it shows well in your f102v1-processed.jpg and I now see
it also clearly in the unprocessed image. In the main sub-cylinder I'm
wondering if all three lines contain "8". Might the top line be
Greek letters? But at one point with a randomly processed image I
thought that most of the top line read in Latin letters: laaqR
Wonder how "laquer" was spelled in some language back then? Lacquer is
an intriguing idea in the pharma section: the Chinese made
fancy vessels out of laquer didn't they?
I think the most certain group of glyphs is at the end of the middle
line: .... GC-iN8 and possibly GC-iN89 with the letters maybe
drawn to project 3D perspective.
It looks to me now that in the top line at least some of the letters
are rotated 90 deg. and near the left is a GC-k gallows that earlier
had
me fooled to think it was an "l" in laaqR.
See attached image 4xf102v1.jpg - it is 2xf102v1.jpg with this
processing applied:
Convert to gray
Brightness = 89
contrast = 114
gamma = 0.72
rotate 90 deg. ccw
I'm vacillating on the top line: scratches (decorative maybe), Latin
letters, Greek letters, or Voynich letters.
We need better image processing!!!
Greg says:
This ties into that discussion we had a few weeks back. I must admit
that I'm now not entirely convinced that the top line is actually
letters.
Jan says [commenting on a 2004 image processing experiment by Stolfi on
f1r text]:
That separation is nice, except it does not give us any new info, that
would not be seen on original anyway. As for the "corrections"
most of them were simply retraced by author when he ran out of ink -
the darker trace is not different ink, just more ink, contrary to
red writing, which IS with different ink.
Berj says:
Good point Jan: touch-up much later versus touch-up at the time of
writing with replenished ink.
Jan says:
we also have to recognize that overwriting was done with the lower
layer already dry, so we do not get water "mixture" of colors but 2
separate layers, each only partly transparent. The transparency is
effectively used in watercolor painting, however there we have white
paper underneath so they are fully transparent. Here we have only
partly transparent colors (say two) with not so white vellum
underneath and what we see is the optical mixture which is different
from electronic mixture. That's why it is so difficult to separate.
Berj says:
What I think we fundamentally need is the basic color physics of the
.sid images - ..... then we can transform ..... in whatever way we
want: Fourier filtered, moving averages, square, square-root,
normalization, difference curves, etc., and get processed images that
not
only are precisely processed, but also at each stage of a series of
transformations can be evaluated as to the best way to proceed.
Greg says:
There are two or three issues hiding here. One is the encoding of the
SIDs; we need to convert them to something useable to do any
kind of quantitative analysis. JPEG won't do, because it is inherently
lossy, and distorts colour to achieve better compression. The SID
encoding unfortunately is highly non-trivial and closed source, we need
to find a tool which will extract the highest quality image from
the SID and dump it to (say) a TIFF without losing colour information
or resolution. The colour encoding in SIDs almost certainly [is]
RGB since they are designed for screen use, and probably 8 bits per
channel. Obviously this doesn't exactly represent all possible
colours, but there's not much we can do about it now.
BTW, if you want to read how SIDs work (only an overview unfortunately)
there is a PDF here:
http://www.lizardtech.com/files/geo/techinfo/MrSID_Tech_Primer.pdf
We want to do 2D analysis. We want bitmaps. .... The important thing is
to get the file in a useable format which other software will
read.
Now, as to the colour itself. Assuming they are indeed 8-bit RGB, it
may be that a different colour space (HSV, CMY(K) etc) will
work better for our analysis. That remains to be seen, but the
conversions are well known. There are a few issues, in that the colour
spaces don't entirely overlap, but that is not likely to be relevant
for this work.
Now, there remains the question of the veracity of the colour
representation in the MrSIDs versus the original. That is largely
irrelevant for the kind of colour deconvolution/separation work we're
talking about in this thread, besides which, we have only the
information which is in the file anyway. But it may be useful for, say,
trying to determine the chemistry of the paints and inks. It would
need colour calibration to reconstruct the spectral response of the
camera and lighting, and is going to be difficult without a calibration
source. One of the earlier colour images (pre-SID) has a Kodak colour
chart in the frame. It may be possible to use that to calibrate that
image, then use that to calibrate the SID image of the same folio.
Since the original is a JPEG and JPEG distorts colour it remains to
be seen how well this will work.
Berj says:
Agreed on using the f33v-f34r picture with its Kodak series-V reference
card, although that card looks quite old and worn and I
wonder if its colors had aged differentially when that picture was
taken. But it's the only thing we've got, that I know of.
Greg says:
Yes. We have to make some assumptions, and that Kodak card is the best
we've got. We can only assume it was good when the image
was taken.
Ok, it seems LizardTech have one [a tool that extracts the highest
quality image from the SID and converts it to a TIFF], called
MrSIDdecode (how original is that?) :
http://www.lizardtech.com/download/dl_options.php?page=tools
Mind you, it just made a 70Mb tiff file from my 3Mb f1 SID, but it
seems to work.
Berj says:
Ok, now making sense. All we need is vectors or whatever you want to
call them into the TIFF file, and we have access to each matrix
element (pixel's value) - we can transform each element and write it
into a new TIFF file which differs from the source TIFF file only
in the pixel data. If that's right, then that sure makes life easy. If
we write the procedure as one, two, three do this do that in fool-proof
fashion, then it shouldn't take long to get used to doing some
innovative image processing.
Greg says:
..... That is indeed exactly how it works. For RGB for example the
three numbers are one red, one green and one blue. These are called
'channels'. 24-bit colour is usually then 8-bits per channel (n=8 in
your example), giving a range of 256 shades (0 - 255) in each
channel, or 16 million total colours which can be represented.
Obviously that cannot represent every colour, but for most things it is
enough to fool the eye (hence this is also called 'True Color').
Really sensitive stuff is still done in B&W, where you can have the
full 24-bit (say) range to represent shades, and if necessary
separate images are taken in different coloured filters.
By the way, it looks like the MrSIDs use some lossy compression: the
TIFFs show artifacts. This also fits with the SIDs
documentation which says that above compression ratios of 2:1 it uses
lossy compression, and 70Mb :3Mb is more than 2:1.
Berj says:
..... changing the sid to TIFF. Apparently you've concluded it shows
that the sids have some noise - that of course is good to know.
Greg says:
Not so much noise, artefacts. Noise is random, artefacts aren't. These
look like lossy compression errors. I've attached a little cropped
image of a fragment of the TIFF [f1-artefacts.png]. Zoom in up on your
screen (make sure any smoothing is turned off), and you can
see these horizontal and vertical structures which are about 5x1 pixels
which are all darker or lighter than the surroundings, often with
a neighbouring block in the same line which is the opposite. These are
non-random artefacts, probably due to lossy compression in the
SID, but they may have been introduced during processing at an earlier
stage. The smooth looking area at the top is more normal,
random noise.
Berj says:
The caution area remains the primary source file. The artifacts vs
noise example image you show [f1-artefacts.png] is good, but me
lacking familiarity with converting .sid to TIFF details, I woudn't
know how those artifacts got in there. They are similar to the type of
thing you see in some obviously doctored pictures.
Greg says:
Yeah. This is tricky. To me, they look like they could be
lossy-compression artefacts, similar to what you sometimes see in
JPEGs, but
without knowing the compression algorithm used in SIDs it's impossible
to be certain. They could be camera/scanner digitization or
pre-processing artefacts, but high-end kit doesn't usually do that (for
obvious reasons) unless the operator is an idiot and has set things
up very badly. Similarly, they could also be due to postprocessing
(after photography but before conversion to SIDs), but it's hard to
see how. In postprocessing one would usually expect one of three
things: sharpening, blurring or contrast enhancement, none of which
look like that. One would hope that they're not due to the conversion
to TIFF, as that should be a straight 'extract pixel; write pixel'
procedure, but we can check that by looking closely at the SIDs.
Berj says:
But I'm unclear on: what was the original format when the Beinecke
pictures were taken - was it immediately sid's ?
Greg says:
Unknown, but it is very unlikely that it went straight to SIDs. SIDs
are a presentation format, like JPEG, rather than a registration
format. If they used a digital camera then most probably either RAW (a
catch-all for a straight bitmap dump from the camera's image
sensor) or TIFF; professional cameras don't save to JPEG because of the
losses. If they used film and scanned it then probably TIFF.
As I said, it's a standard format :)
They may mention how they made the images somewhere on the Beinecke
pages.
Berj says:
Assuming they don't - this is a highly technical question, and
presumably buried in some engineer's / technician's files somewhere.
Can
we find out somehow? Perhaps knowing nothing more than the camera/
scanner make & model will allow us to get the answer.
Greg says:
Well, I was actually thinking that Beinecke might have mentioned that
they took the pictures with an 'AcmeCorp SupaImage 990' or
whatever, and we could then go to the manuals and calibration sheets
for it which are often available on the web from the
manufacturer. I doubt Beinecke would give more details than that,
unfortunately. I also doubt that we'd have any more information
about any processing done beyond the actual image taking and
conversion, as that would be specific to the particular job and buried
in
any operator's notes or whatever.
Berj says:
Once we have [vectors to] those [pixels] matrices [in the source TIFF],
we should be able to get a routine down where we
operate-transform pixels in the matrix, and then see what the result
looks like as a processed image. Yes?
Greg says:
Yup.
Berj says:
Greg, I'm wondering if a simple experiment can give you more info on
the artifacts:
1) Take a .sid image, and using some paint program paint it all gray in
max available 2^n color resolution.
2) As you did before, convert it to TIFF.
3) Blow it up and see if you get artifacts.
We really must have a pretty good idea on this procedure before we
embark on processing masked little glyphs and reaching
conclusions about what the processed images show.
Greg says:
Give me a paint program which can write SIDs :)
It may be that the decode tool will convert both ways, or I can find
another tool on Lizard's site which does. In which case some kind
of iterative procedure will show up if there are any errors being
introduced. I'll look around.
Berj says:
When we've got it down to a one, two, three ..... procedure, .........
maybe something like this:
1) specify source TIFF
2) specify vectors to the matrix in the TIFF
3.) user specifies EXACTLY the mathematical operations on the matrix
elements
4.) transformed pixels are saved into a new TIFF that is otherwise a
copy of the source TIFF
Greg says:
Well, 1,2,4 are easy enough. 3 is tricky, and rather depends on what
software people want to use. Simple stuff like colour separations,
brightness, contrast, colour balance, various filters etc can be done
in Gimp straight away (it reads TIFFs).
If we want to get really deep, though, then it's going to be writing
own code, or working within ImageJ (possibly writing plugins like
Gabriel's), or working with a dedicated mathematical analysis program
like Matlab or IDL (or their free equivalents Octave and GDL).
The last option is the most powerful, but obviously the least
accessible. ImageJ and/or IDL is probably the route I will eventually
go
down, but I'm familiar with the stuff.
Berj says:
Of course! Math operations need not be intimidating - it could be
nothing more complex than subtracting the source image from a
constructed reference image: pixel's value subtracted from reference
pixel's value, and result stored as the new pixel value.
The key to make this a standard image processing procedure is the one,
two, three ... steps - so that anyone, even mathematically
average people, can use it, or at least fully understand the
essentials, and so that finally there is a standard in the Voynich
image
manipulations.
Greg says:
I think this [" The key to make this a standard image processing
procedure is the one, two, three ... steps - so that anyone, even
mathematically average people, can use it, "] is where the problem
lies. Anything powerful enough to be really useful is going to
involve some tricky learning. Even the GIMP can be difficult, and here
we're talking heavy-duty, often text-based scientific software,
not clicky image-editing programs. Certainly within the grasp of all
the current J.VS members, and the likes of Stolfi, Jacques,
Landini. But probably out of reach of many others without some
technical aptitude and training. It's not that the maths may be
complicated, it's that getting to the point where you can do the maths
that you want in these programs is hard.
Which of course is no reason not to do it :) If I did this in IDL, say,
and posted instructions to everyone how to go about it I'm sure all
of us on J.VS could easily follow them.
[..... there is a standard in the Voynich image manipulations.] Yes, we
need this.
Dennis [commenting on possible future imaging of the VMS] says:
What is the absolute best format and lighting conditions ( front and
back ) to digitize the image(s) - can they also be taken with IR and
UV?
How does one minimize "print-through" when photographing?
Politically, what would it take to get the pictures re-digitized?
Berj says:
Quite true Dennis - when we say RGB we still have not shown the
spectral calibration curves. But to get right to the crux of your point
(in my view): things like Jan's hypothesis-based-on-offered-evidence,
that intentional masking of original information was applied in
places in the manuscript - thus complicating the overall mystery, are
an accumulation of progress that will gradually build into the
political will to do another round of imaging of the VMS. Beinecke's
SIDs revealed a whole lot of new stuff including Jan's
observation. Lets see what we can do so that by the time of the next
round of imaging, there will finally be in place a standard of
Voynich image processing to everyone's advantage.
There is a great deal of unresolved material, for example the question
of the smudges all over the folios - are some of them, like the
ones on the right edge of f11r, fingerprints, and if yes, then are they
ancient or recent, are they male or female, and how many different
ancient fingerprints are there? And, are any of the ancient
fingerprints similar to any possible ancient fingerprints on Fr.
Kircher's
letters?
We do need good standardized image processing procedures.
[end of redacted off-J dialog to mid-afternoon 10 OCT 2007]
Berj / KI3U
*************************
103
From: Berj N. Ensanian
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 09:59:58 -0400
Subject: J.VS: Image Processing challenges: some hidden
Voynich "faces"
Dear All
I've submitted to our Librarian Greg deposit # 12-1-2007-10-12
consisting of six image crops from the Voynich ms .sid images. I think
the picture areas represented by these crops are good challenges toward
developing image processing techniques and standards as
we've been discussing (J.VS communication #102).
The challenge is: are these indeed faces that the VMS illustrator
intended, or something else, perhaps accidental or manuscript aging
artefacts, or even just subjective "seeing a face" in ambiguous image
data?
The six images, along with some names I made up for them, are:
1cf24r.jpg
"Mr. Flower"
1xcf40r.jpg
"The Ghostface Terror"
1xcf75v.jpg
"Mr. Snooper"
1cf87v.jpg
"Sir Greenleaf"
1xcf102v1.jpg
"Miss Pharma"
1cf37v.jpg
"The King"
The filenames include the corresponding VMS folio number. If an "x"
appears in the filename, it means there was some random image
processing done, but in no case does it matter because the
correspondence in the original .sid source images is readily apparent.
I think some of them were indeed consciously intended by the
illustrator to suggest a face, for example: Mr. Snooper.
Most difficult to decide upon is "The King". I've tried many different
random image processings, and many of them have me leaning
toward the conclusion that there is a face there, a profile looking to
the left, although it may have come about as an artefact. If it is
indeed an intentional King, then which one? The complete f37v herbal
illustration, of which The King is a crop from the "chest" of the
plant's root, could suggest, symbolically, a beheading. So then, is the
King the English monarch Charles I, who was publicly executed
in 1649?
A good standardized image processing procedure would make it much
easier to discuss this "The King" feature and dispose of it
quickly if it were of no major direct relevance to the 9RMS mystery.
Berj / KI3U
**********************
104
From: Berj N. Ensanian
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 21:02:29 -0400
Subject: J.VS: Leodog and The King (Was: Image Processing
challenges: some hidden Voynich "faces")
Dear All
In communication #103 I admitted how the most difficult to decide upon
(between intended hidden image vs something else) of the
Voynich hidden faces, was The King in f37v. The King is on the chest of
an anthropomorphic plant root in the f37v illustration. As we
know, there are some duplications between the herbal and pharmaceutical
sections, and indeed this anthropomorphic root also appears
in the pharma: in f102r1.
I decided I had better go back to the f102r1 version of this root and
have a much closer look than before. Sure enough, this time biased
with knowledge of The King, I immediately saw a hidden drawing in the
chest of the f102r1 root that had escaped me earlier.
It is the face of an animal: to me it appears either as a lion, or a
dog, looking directly at us, possibly with a bone sticking out of the
left
side of its mouth, and for sure some sort of piece of cord or blade of
grass coming out of its mouth rendered in black.
I've sent to our Librarian Greg two pictures of "Leodog", as I've named
this apparation, as an addendum to the already existing J.VS
Library deposit # 12-1-2007-10-12 (which contains the images of the
other hidden faces discussed in comm. #103). The two Leodog
images are:
2cf102r1.jpg which is simply a crop, from the .sid source image, of the
chest area of the f102r1 root.
x2cf102r1.jpg is 2cf102r1.jpg processed in IrfanView as follows:
Brightness = -86
R = 57
G = 99
B = 60
Contrast = 105
Gamma = 1.03
Saturation = 0
These two pictures are suitable for blinking: it will be seen that the
raw unprocessed image shows Leodog unambiguously, although
very faintly.
Now, it could be that Leodog is not an intentional drawing, although to
me it certainly appears more so than the still more mysterious
King. If Leodog is real, then Leo being a common symbol for a male
monarch, The King gains some in favor of being real himself, it
seems to me, via the linking of the same root illustrated on the two
different folios.
Another thought I had was that perhaps the drawings are real, but had
little or nothing to do with the Voynich ms, and the parchment
was simply cleaned and re-used for the VMS at some later time, but
still bearing traces of the original drawings. But the excellent
placement of Leodog and The King in the chest area seems to weaken this
thought. I lean toward thinking they are planned
components of the world's most mysterious manuscript.
Finally: when I was trying out different image processings, several
times it seemed to me I could discern a second picture:
simultaneously there appeared Leodog, and around the right side of his
head also the profile of a human face looking to the left, just as
The King. I decided that was complicating things at this stage, and it
was better to first capture Leodog so as to give his apparition a
chance at reality in open court.
Is Leodog real? I don't know - we need that standardized high power
image processing procedure we've been discussing. These hidden
faces, coming on the heels of masked glyphs, are as Robert suggested,
an apparently whole new layer of the Voynich manuscript, one
that none of us went looking for - this whole new layer just suddenly
appeared! It is as if there is a message here from the VMS
author(s): there is even more to this mystery than meets your already
very mystified eye!
And this: if indeed, somewhat like modern video-map bit-planes, there
is a hidden Voynich manuscript, or even several hidden
Voynich mss, underneath the familiar one, then the notion: that the
Voynich text is some non-message-bearing hoax, moves in the
direction of unbelievable. Because, nobody with that much subtle
creative intelligence would have wasted the text on
meaninglessness.
Berj / KI3U
**********************
105
From: Berj N. Ensanian
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 14:14:18 -0400
Subject: J.VS: Discussion: Master miniature illumination
artwork steganographically concealed in low-level art
Dear All
Following below [1] is the redacted off-J discussion that we carried on
14-15 OCT 2007 subsequent to J.VS communication #104.
Hopefully I have produced an accurate edit record. The spectrum of the
discussion ranges from minute details to global significance in
Voynich studies. In the below record the discussion participants, in
order of first appearance, are J.VS members: Berj N. Ensanian,
Greg Stachowski, and Jan Hurych.
Briefly, here is a list of the background items to all this:
1.) Directly relevant precursor J.VS communications are #99, and
#101-104.
2.) The essential theme is steganographic aspects of the Voynich
manuscript, beginning with Jan Hurych's theory of intentionally
masked text glyphs in the ms.
3.) Advanced precision standardized image processing procedures and
protocols - currently an ongoing development by Greg
Stachowski.
4.) Robert Teague's conjecture that a hidden VMS exists within the
familiar overt VMS.
5.) Seven examples of variously steganographic "faces" within the VMS,
named: Mr. Flower (f24r), The Ghostface Terror (f40r), Mr.
Snooper (f75v), Sir Greenleaf (f87v), Miss Pharma (f102v1), The King
(f37v), Leodog (f102r1). Additionally, there is a tentative
noting of "eyes" in the "icecube" of f102v2. {Miss Pharma appears as if
she is reacting to a shoe kicking her back, attached to a "leg"
emananting from a prickly / spiked complex of herbal "roots"
immediately to the left.}
6.) The King is potentially the most-far-reaching-significance object -
if it is real, that is if it was intentionally rendered. It appears as
a
3D left-facing profile portrait of a massively crowned and very
distinguished-looking bearded man. If it is real, then it is a master's
miniature artwork, and its mystery, and the mystery of the Voynich
manuscript, is raised to a new higher level on account of The King
being steganographic master miniature art embedded within low-level
art.
7.) Leodog is a face of a lion or dog, or a synthesis of lion and dog
faces.
8.) The King, being on an herbal illustration page, and Leodog, being
on a pharmaceutical section page, are linked, and thus possibly
mutually supporting as to their reality, on account of both appearing
in the "chest" of an identical and dramatically rendered
anthropomorphic plant root.
In sum, the main issues are: the possible existence of a hidden Voynich
ms embedded within the familiar VMS, and including among
its features an independent dramatic and spectacular discipline in its
own right: master art, in particular master miniature illuminations,
steganographically embedded within low-level art.
Berj / KI3U
[1] Discussion off-J over 14-15 OCT 2007 concerning Leodog and The
King, and the general theme of steganographic master
artworks.
Berj says:
It still remains to be seen what Leodog actually is: a real intentional
drawing, an accidental artefact or whatever. And if real, was it
meant to be part of a hidden VMS, or was it just from re-used parchment
or something?
As for The King, it seems the only British monarch that could really
look as distinguished as The King is: Alfred the Great.
Greg says:
I'm as yet undecided on the Leodog. I'm willing to accept that you're
seeing something, but I haven't yet decided whether I can or
whether what I can see is what you see.
Berj says:
I keep wondering, upon the assumption that the hidden faces do in fact
point to a hidden vms, if somewhere in the hidden vms there is
a detailed portrait of the vms author(s). That would be something!
Jan, the blue cube in pharma f102v2: I see now that it has a pair of
eyes! Interesting. Do you suppose the cube could symbolize a
book, specifically the vms, and the eyes mean to say something like:
look closer!
Jan says:
As for cube it is a mystery to me as is the castle. ....... Now you
mentioned that I am reminded of the book by professor of Mohawk
college in Hamilton (I forgot his name) named "Subliminal Persuasion"
(or something like that) where he claims that the ads for
whiskey showing ice cubes are no photographs but actually painted and
with a little observation we can see in them some mostly
skulls - which is apparently the subliminal message of fear that makes
people drink more :-).
Berj says:
Actually I had never thought of the cube being an icecube - hmm! Why
not? Subliminal skulls on fake ice cubes to sell whiskey - it is
remarkable the stuff that comes up in VMS research discussions!
Jan says:
The miniature: if we look at real size of the VM (9 by 12") shown by
Beinecke as "Large", it is amazing how small some details in the
picture are. Especially the hidden numbers at f102v2 are really
extremely small. This may suggest the use of magnifying glass. How
about that?
Berj says:
Oh yes definitely - I have been assuming that.
I want to point this out concerning Leodog: both his eye sockets are
triangular (apex down) and about the same size. All in all Leodog
- as I am seeing him, is a remarkably accurate image of a lion or dog,
and if he is accidental, then that needs explanation. If he is real,
then I think he was mainly sketched with the same brown paint as the
fill over the chest which covers him, but Leodog was sketched
with some sort of stylus.
Greg says:
There is another element to this discussion: how much of it is
deliberate insertion of ideas, and how much is play. In some cases, the
author is clearly drawing a face as a premeditated part of the image:
the most obvious being the faces in the moons in the astro section.
In others, such as several of the ones Berj has put forward, it seems
to me he might be playing. Sometimes when, working something
out on paper I make an idle squiggle which maybe suggests a profile,
and which I then whimsically work into a face (sometimes I
actually keep these, as they are amusing). Perhaps the author was doing
that here? This could be the case with 'Mr Snooper' or 'Mr
Flower'.
Berj says:
Yes very true. In the case of Mr. Snooper I definitely believe it is an
intentional idea: he is after all at the end of a channel that
connects to a bath gathering of ladies.
Greg says:
Ok. I've spent most of the evening playing with the Leodog, working
from the TIFF. I can now see what you're looking at, and how it
indeed resembles a lion. However, my feeling is that it is not
deliberate, rather it is an accidental combination of the lines which
outline the roots (forming the mouth/grass), fluctuations in the
shading and the vellum surface. There does not seem to me to be any
deliberate drawing beyond the lines which are required to draw the root
itself. I suspect that 'the King' is also an artefact, but I haven't
looked closely at it yet to make any judgement.
Berj says:
The King, if real, is a phenomenal piece of miniature artistic
craftsmanship: the 3D aspect of it is amazing. The question is, can
such a
detailed 3D image arise accidentally in what would otherwise presumably
be a random smearing of paint on the root's "chest"? Why
are The King and Leodog relatively rare artefacts (if they are
accidents) when there are loads of smeared paint fills throughout the
VMS illustrations?
Greg says:
I have no idea what the statistics are on face-like images appearing
accidentally in paint smears. I should imagine, though, that they
_are_ quite rare.
[commenting on Leodog]: My judgment is just that, a judgment based on
my experience. I can't _prove_ it's accidental. Comparing the
tweaked image with the original, it seems to me that the lower parts
are extensions of the pen-lines which outline the root's 'fingers'
and the upper parts are just areas of increased density of the
overlaying paint, consistent with brush strokes or flow.
Berj says:
That's what I meant when I said he was rendered with the same brown
paint but a stylus for the purpose. He was rendered to be nearly
invisible - to be noticed only by the most careful observer. Or he has
faded / blended in over the centuries.
Greg says:
Just to make the point about the brain seeing faces, here's one
[face2.jpg]. All I did was rotate it by a few degrees to get it level,
crop it
carefully, and very slightly adjust the contrast. In fact none of those
were necessary, the 'face' is clearly visible in the original. As a
matter of fact, it is a fragment of the clouds in the background of a
picture of a WW2 P-38 fighter which I have as the backdrop on my
laptop screen.
Berj says:
Greg it is really stretching it to call that cloud a face. Against
that, The King, and Leodog, are unambiguous and bold. In my opinion.
Greg says:
What could be an eye [in Leodog] seems to be damage to the vellum
surface.
Berj says:
But he has two eyes, both very, very similar, and placed perfectly for
a face.
Greg says:
So does my cloud-face. ......... To paraphrase, two eyes don't
necessarily make a face. So, I can't say it isn't definitively there. I
cannot,
however, definitively say that it _is_, unlike, say, 'Mr. Flower' or
the moon-faces.
[commenting on The King]: As I said, I haven't looked at it carefully
yet. It _looks_ amazing, but it could just be our brains 'seeing' a
3D image where none was intended. The human brain is conditioned to see
faces.
Berj says:
True, but by itself that does not negate a "face" if it is a real face.
Greg says:
We haven't got a real face here, just an image which may or may not
deliberately represent a face. Our brains are conditioned to see
faces because that is useful biologically. Artists take advantage of
that conditioning to convince us that we are seeing a real face where
none exists, using just enough line, shadow or colour to trigger the
conditioning. That this works also means that it can be fooled, by
accidental arrangements of lines and shadows.
Besides, it doesn't fit: 'the King' exists only as a paint smear, there
is no outline inking, and if it is real the sophistication outshines
anything else in the MS by far, PM curve included. It would be master
miniature painter material.
Berj says:
Right. I thought the same: the precision, if real, is astounding. The
PM-curve was done with geometry / engineering instruments,
which, once mastered, do not require artistic skill to produce high
precision plots. But The King required an artistic genius even with
excellent brushes or whatever was used for rendering instruments.
As Jan pointed out, likely a magnifying glass was used. However it is
not at all unusual in the sense of a masterpiece of manuscript
miniature illumination. It is just that it has been hidden that puts it
on a higher level, if The King is real.
Greg says:
No, not unusual.
Berj [commenting on Greg's processed Leodog image] says:
Greg that image isn't bad at all. I've cropped out the essential area
and put in labels to make sure we are all aligned on the geometry of
the face [of Leodog].
Greg says:
Yes, we are. As I said, I agree that I can see something that looks
like a lion; I just disagree that it is deliberate. Firstly, wherever
the
author has definitely drawn faces, they are outlined in ink.
Berj says:
So what? Those are the out-in-the-open faces. Here we are considering
possible steganographic faces.
Greg says:
Granted. I would, however, argue that the farther the proposed
steganographic image is from the style and quality of the rest of the
manuscript, then the less likely it is to be real, without other
evidence. We have to ask, would someone with the artistic skill to
deliberately draw 'the King' refrain from placing any other image of
similar quality anywhere else, steganographic or otherwise, or
draw the existing images so badly? It is difficult to draw badly when
you know how to draw well, because a good artist simply 'draws',
it is not entirely a conscious process This is why I prefer the Leodog
over the King.
However, without other evidence, this becomes one of those things which
can never be decided until a solution is found to the whole
manuscript. We have to agree to disagree.
Berj says:
Do you agree on - Currently and not set in concrete we've got
concerning reality:
Leodog: Greg and Berj both vote: it is possible.
The King: Greg says it is an accident and not a real face. Berj says it
is possibly real.
Greg says:
Yes.
Secondly, the colour washes used throughout the VMS show variations of
density and shading (normal for washes) which in all other
cases appear random. In this case there is some variation which appears
to form a face _after image processing_. The problem is, that
image processing distorts the image, by definition, and always you have
the question: is that really there, or is it an artefact of the
processing? In this case it looks to me that the latter is the case.
Berj says:
Here we have a fundamental distinction in our attacks on the question.
I have been thinking of the primary images - the SIDs and their
TIFFs. The processed images have merely been an aid to help decide
better one way or the other. If you do not see the faces right away
in the unprocessed images, then of course you have to rule they are not
real. But for me, all discussion about their reality refers to the
original unprocessed images - as they were first noticed.
Greg says:
I couldn't see the Leodog in the original (or in your processed image),
and it was only after a few hours of playing with processing the
image that I saw it in the processed image and was then able to
identify the corresponding features in the original. So this applies to
me. And yes, I agree with [that] the processed images have merely been
an aid to help decide better one way or the other.
It is not impossible that the author used a wash in his quill to draw
the lion, waited for it to dry then washed over it again with the
same colour, leaving only a faint imprint. As I said, I can't disprove
that, but neither can I (or you) prove it, either. What I can say is
that, given the evidence of the image itself, the evidence of other
images in the VMS, and my experience in both image processing and
drawing/painting, it seems to me unlikely that there is a real,
deliberate image of a face there. If anything though, I would say the
lion
is more likely that the king, because the former is at least
stylistically more similar to the rest of the images in the VMS.
Berj says:
Yes but if we went by that rule (stylistically similar) then similarly
we'd have to dismiss at the outset the possibility that the f68r3
PM-curve is a precision plot of advanced mathematics (apparently
concerned with astronomy) because, and to recall your own words:
the PM-curve is anomalous. I am thinking exactly the same thing with
The King: he is anomalous. Otherwise, the rule of stylistically
similar just logically ends in dismissing the entire VMS as a garden
variety late medieval quack herbal with the author's
ultimately-unknowable personal idiosyncracies.
Greg says:
Which it still may well be.
The difference being, the PM-curve is plainly there, whereas 'the King'
may or may not be there, in the sense of 'being' a deliberate
depiction of a face in a patch of colour.
It comes down to the strength of the evidence and what one is prepared
to believe. There is strong evidence that the VMS is not a
garden-variety herbal. The unique text itself for one, the odd plants
for another, which differentiate it form all other known herbals.
There is weaker evidence that the PM curve is an anomaly, based on the
fact that it fits suprisingly well to the actual apparent motion
of the Moon on the sky, and appears to rather well represent that
motion in a set of folios of otherwise undemonstrated (with all
respect to Robert) astronomical accuracy. It could, though, still be no
more than an idle pen-flourish. The evidence for the King being
anything more than an odd patch of colour is weaker still, and rests
solely on the fact that it looks somewhat like a profile of a
distinguished face. There is no other supporting evidence at all.
Berj says:
Well on the PM-curve, as far as I know I have spent more time studying
it than all others put together, and as you know a tremendous
amount of my initial concerns with it were to determine if it was
indeed a plotted curve, because analysis of it would require great time
and effort, as it certainly did, and why get into all that hard work if
the curve is not clearly showing signs of having been deliberately
plotted. And it does show those signs - as I recall that was discussed
on the old vms-list, in any case all that PM-curve material is in
the J.VS Library anyway. I don't think, based on my study of it, that
it is careful consideration to judge (which you don't) the curve as
definitely an idle pen-flourish without spending as much effort
studying it as I had in order to get some idea of why it appeared in
the
ms in the first place.
Greg says:
As you correctly point out, I'm with you in believing that the PM curve
is more than an idle pen flourish. However, I am open to the
possibility that one day the VMS will be translated and its folio fully
explained without any meaning for the PM curve being found. I
don't think that will be the case, but until I have more of the facts I
have to, in all honesty, admit the possibility. When I have more
time I hope to return to the PM curve and study it more fully, perhaps
finding those facts and making certain.
Berj says:
At first I could not grasp what you meant, but on further thought yes,
I agree that is a possibility. I think it is exceedingly remote
though because I'm convinced that the PM-curve is the central feature
of the f68r3 panel.
Greg says:
Me too.
Berj says:
We do in fact have in the manuscript an example of a mathematical curve
rendered in the apparent manner of "idle pen-flourish" -
there is that curve on the hello Descartes
rectangular-coordinates-crosshairs on f87r that starts out as a
sprouting of a
Christianity-suggesting? cross from one of the plants's FOUR roots. And
very interestingly, the f87r curve resembles the
assymetric-cycle PM-curve: as if the drawer of f87r was thinking of a
rotated PM-curve as a model, or at least wave-combinations
curves as a model.
The f87r curve does not, that I can see, show signs that it was
plotted, certainly its Cartesian reference frame looks like freehand.
It
could of course still be a transferred plotted curve - having been
rendered with a template that itself was cut to a calculated or
collected
curve. But the point I'm trying to make here is that the f87r curve and
the PM-curve are mutually supportive of the notion of
reference-framed complex curves as a subject on the mind of the 9RMS
author, and by analogy the f37v King on the anthropomorphic
root, and Leodog in f102r1 on the same anthropomorphic root, are
mutually supportive of steganographic art, and if that is true, then I
think it most likely is art that is transmitting serious messages.
Greg says:
Yes, if we accept that both images exist, then there is some merit in
this argument. I am not yet convinced of that, and if anything I
lean against it.
Berj says:
It is after all interesting that Leodog appears like a combination of
lion and dog: as if the symbolic message is: be loyal to your king!
Greg says:
Or, 'your king is a dog'? (in the derogatory sense) There may be more
meanings than the obvious ones.
Berj says:
Well, yeah, I suppose. There is at least one ancient royal tomb
somewhere in Europe incorporating the dog motif as I recall.
Greg says:
Dog, per se, or jackal? The jackal was the symbol of Anubis, god of the
dead. Anyway, side issue.
Berj says:
Show an example that in its unprocessed version looks like a face, a
face with similar precision in its details as have The King and
Leodog, but a face which is demonstrably not a real intended face.
Greg says:
.....So what constitutes a face?
Berj says:
Ok I'd say here we are at a draw (pun intended :) - ultimately it is
judgment, considered consensus judgment, whether or not The King
of f37v is a portrait, an astonishing masterpiece at that. Because,
even if we hand the decision task over to a computer that scans f37v
and gives a yes or no, the computer program doing the analyzing still
starts out with axioms.
Greg says:
Yes, it's a judgment call. The arbiter is, as ever in VMS studies,
where does it lead us?
Berj says:
I think what I really want to get across here is this:
1.) What is known about the category of art that is defined by hidden /
steganographic masterpieces embedded within apparently
low-level art?
2.) What are the opinions toward the possibility that the Voynich
manuscript, among its other remarkable attributes, exhibits 1.) ?
It seems to me that we might consider these questions as necessary
context for understanding the true natures of Leodog and The King.
Greg says:
Yes. Very much so. I think it's [2.)] possible. If true, though, we've
just upped the complexity of the problem by an order of
magnitude.
Berj says:
Well, I think it is entirely possible to conceive, that it is in itself
a valid artistic challenge: to render with unremarkable apparent-skill
the bulk of a document, and release one's full artistic forces in
steganographic insertions in the document. I contend that this is not
at
all a radical thought provided we allow the Voynich manuscript
author(s) and / or artist(s) sufficient imagination, motivation, and
cleverness. Don't you think?
Greg says:
Yes, this is possible. Also possible (perhaps more so) is the
collaborative idea you mention a bit later, with a master artist using
a work
by a lesser artist as camouflage, with the knowledge or not of that
lesser artist. In fact, following this line of thought further, it is
possible that this could explain the otherwise apparently rather
crudely applied overpaints. I have no opinion either way at this time,
but it's a possible line of thought to file away.
Berj says:
Now that is interesting: the low-level artist unware that a master will
be, or already is involved!
Greg says:
Well, it would seem to be the best way to keep it a secret. Any
suspicion will naturally fall on the original author, the low-level
artist,
but if he doesn't know about the steganography, then he can't reveal
it.
Berj says:
Well then, as you said, if these are indeed the realities then this
raises complexities by an order of magnitude, so for that lets blame
Jan
for starting the ball rolling with his intentionally masked glyphs
theory and Robert for raising the stakes to theorize the existence of a
hidden VMS layer :)
Greg says:
Ok, I can do that :) All their fault! :)
[end of redacted off-J discussion to 15 OCT 2007 on the subject of
steganographic master art in the VMS]
*****************************************
106
From: Berj N. Ensanian
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 16:26:35 -0400
Subject: J.VS: Hypothesis: Voynich MS originates in the Court
of Rudolf II
Dear All
In the standard popular history of the VMS the manuscript is associated
with the court of Holy Roman Emporer Rudolf II, specifically
it is postulated that some unknown person brought the ms to Rudolf's
court some time before 1608, perhaps even to sell it to Rudolf
for 600 ducats [1]. As we know, all sketched VMS history prior to
around 1915 has serious problems with evidence, and following Jan
Hurych it is prudent to distinguish between the Voynich ms and the
Prague ms until they are clearly demonstrated to be one and the
same. Nevertheless, it's probably safe to say that few would be sorry
to see the standard history firmly proven in at least its general
themes - it has much going for it, not the least of which is the
manuscript's tight connection to Rudolf's fascinating court, where the
infant scientific revolution and a general high patronage of the
Renaissance arts brought a golden age into full flower around Prague
before the disastrous Thirty Years War.
The recently emerging possibility of master work being
steganographically embedded within the VMS's low-level art [2] has had
me
thinking that it may be useful to have handy a hypothesis that is
essentially: the Voynich ms originates in Rudolf's court, possibly even
as a result of a secret commissioning by him. Hypotheses are somewhat
like reference frames in mathematics: a problem may be
handled in different frames, but one frame may prove to be the best
suited. I don't think it hurts us to have handy a "reference frame"
which contemplates the VMS originating as a more or less secret project
in Rudolf's court, variations being that Rudolf didn't or did
know about it, and commissioned it. [3]
This hypothesis could explain the presence of a master artist in some
of the VMS illustrations (assuming they become accepted as real
as such) while also dovetailing nicely with the presumed VMS standard
history.
For example: how did the VMS eventually get to the Villa Mondragone,
not far from Rome? Well, perhaps after the Swedes looted
Prague Castle as the Thirty Years War was ending the VMS was part of
the booty and it got into Queen (actually King) Christina's
(1626-1689) hands. Perhaps she even showed it to, and discussed it with
Jesuit-educated Rene Descartes during 1649-1650 [4]. Then,
as we know, during 1651-1656, Christina converted to Catholicism,
abdicated the Swedish throne, and she relocated to Rome (and
also France). Perhaps around this time she gave the VMS to the
long-lived Jesuit mathematician and Collegio Romano professor Fr.
Paolo Casati (1617-1707) who was a central figure in determining the
sincerity of Christina's conversion. With the VMS in Paolo's
hands the Villa Mondragone connection is easy to make.
Another example: when I read in a biography of Rudolf [5] this about
his last days:
" Matthias gave him a pension and the possession of Hradschin castle in
Prague. There Rudolf lived with his exotic animals. Soon his
favourite lion and two of his eagles died. In the last months of his
life Rudolf took to the bottle and in December he suffered from
dropsy. On January 19, 1612, his condition deteriorated and the next
morning he died. "
I was quickly reminded of Leodog, and also the apparently dead-drunk
figure illustrated at the bottom of f66r.
But what about the master artist(s) possibly reflected in the VMS? This
after all was the motivation for stating the Rudolphine VMS
genesis hypothesis. From Rudolf's biographies we see that like his
father before him, he patroned the Italian master painter Giuseppe
Arcimboldo (1526-1593). Arcimboldo had a unique style of synthesizing
portraits from objects like vegetables and books, and in that
style he painted Rudolf as Vertumnus, the Roman god of the seasons,
change and plant growth, and gardens and fruit trees - a famous
painting looted by the Swedes. This Vertumnus painting, like others of
its kind by Arcimboldo, is bizarre, and the Voynich
illustrations are bizarre, and they share as vital elements: botanical
objects.
In the hypothetical context we have plenty of latitude: we need not pin
the apparently crude VMS illustrations to the hand of the
master Arcimboldo himself. At this stage it is satisfactory to ask for
contemplation: might the VMS illustrator have been directly
influenced by Arcimboldo? Might such an influence have been directly
fostered by Rudolf's court?
Needless to say, Rudolf's court had masters of various kinds coming and
going in a what must have been a wonderful whirl of art,
engineering, and science pursuits. Arcimboldo is just one possible
influence, should it become established that the VMS does indeed
contain master art, even miniature requiring magnifying lenses to
produce, embedded steganographically within low-level art.
The purpose of the hypothesis is of course to motivate and guide
research along lines that may produce interesting evidence. Thus, if
the VMS originated in Rudolf's court, might we not see in the VMS an
accumulation of Rudolphine influences?
Well I suppose the entire grand nine rosettes illustration of f85/86
could be contemplated as representing the Hradschin (Hradcany)
being that it is after all the world's biggest castle. However, I'll
give the Rudolphine VMS genesis hypothesis a much more modest and
less difficult-to-compare initial endowment: a comparison between a
beautifully crafted Rudolphine pineapple Pohar, the J. Marquart
Ananasovy Pohar [6], and one of those VMS pharmaceutical section
"jars", specifically the object that is the bottom one of the column
of four of them on f89r2. I don't know what this Pohar was used for -
perhaps a fancy cup for serving ice cream or some such dessert?
We do see in the VMS at least one plausible suggestion of a pineapple -
the plant of f11v - as VMS illustrations go I'm sure this one
has been contemplated before as possibly a VMS-illustration-style
pineapple. I have sent to our Librarian Greg a comparison image of
the Pohar and f89r2 object, Vms&Rudolf2PoharComparison.jpg, for
deposit # 13-1-2007-10-20.
As in the beginning implied, a hypothesis is a working tool. I do think
we can use a Rudolphine VMS genesis hypothesis, or whatever
it should be called, and I don't think it will hurt to have it handy,
if for no other reason than as a sort of filing cabinet for
observations
and evidences that may have affinity with it.
Berj / KI3U
[1] In the category of shortest succinct standard VMS history, we have
the Section 1.2 in D'Imperio. It is only necessary to fill in the
name "Georg Baresch" as the unkown person in her sentence about Marci
inheriting the VMS some time before 1665 or 1666, and
D'Imperio's history outline remains essentially up to date.
[2] J.VS communication #105
[3] I vaguely recall that Jan Hurych may have stated this in the past.
Searching VMS writings preserved online I've found only one instance
along these lines, specifically a suggestion of the idea that the
Voynich manuscript was done by Rudolf II himself personally:
The Asterisk* The Night Sky Live Project Bulletin Board:
http://bb.nightskylive.net/asterisk/viewtopic.php?t=349&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=75
Post subject: Hail Emperor Rudolph II and his manuscript?, Posted: Sat
Jan 22, 2005 7:34 pm, Emperor's Secret Agent writes:
" Perhaps not a ransacked Manuscript dating from the 15th century but
perhaps a collection of his majesty Rudolph II's own hand
spanning the most reclusive and insane, eccentric years of his life??
E.G., this manuscript was in his Library? Perhaps Rudolph's outlet
for his fantasies of being the mighty scientist and discoverer he never
was... exploiting a self-fabricated language to hide the lack of
details in his thoughts and descriptions?? The diary of a mad,
unmarried emperor? "
[4] Considering the Cartesian-framed cuve of f87v (see J.VS comm. #105)
we might even conjecture that one of the reasons Christina
invited Descartes to Sweden was specifically to discuss the VMS with
him. If indeed Descartes was aware of the VMS, he did not
have long to tell others about it, even if he was not bound to keep
quiet about it, because he soon died at the Swedish court, from
penumonia we are told.
[5] A biography of Rudolf II:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~kvenjb/madmonarchs/rudolf2/rudolf2_bio.htm
[6] http://www.vol.cz/RUDOLFII/galerie.html
***********************************************
107
From: Berj N. Ensanian
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:52:37 -0400
Subject: J.VS: The VMS f3v Deathmask, the f76r text-mosaic
portrait, The King, Rudolf, and more
Dear All
Below following [1] is the redaction of our off-J discussions since 17
OCT 2007 and communications #105 and 106. This time,
experimentally, I thought I'd try to edit the record not just along one
thread (e.g. steganographic images in the Voynich), but present
several (not all topics) of the simultaneously occurring off-J
discussions and communications. This gives a better idea of our actual
working communications atmosphere, although it is a less smoothly
running record. Reading it over, I'd say either editing approach
has its pros and cons, but for this particular point in time of highly
interesting new possibilities, I'm satisfied with this particular edit,
and I hope you are too.
Our Librarian Greg has installed for me deposit # 14-1-2007-10-22 which
is the two blinking images for the f76r text-mosaic
possible-steganographic-portrait. Greg and I still have to get together
on re-organizing the initial deposit of hidden faces, #
12-1-2007-10-12 where The King and Leodog and others are currently
stored. And as you know we have a bunch of other clerical
issues to take care of.
Berj / KI3U
[1] Multi-topic off-J discussions from 17 OCT 2007. Discussion
participants in order of first appearance are J.VS members Berj N.
Ensanian / KI3U, Greg Stachowski, Jan Hurych, Dennis Fedak / N3ZCK, and
Robert Teague:
Berj says:
I've been puzzled by the crown on The King. It is massive. The details
continue to amaze me, considering that basically The King is
just approximately on the order of 1 centimeter on the f37v parchment.
Just now I started seeing that his crown seems to resemble a
castle! Anyone else think it is possible?
Greg says:
Hmm. Could you do a labelled diagram of the King, for the benefit of
the rest of us?
Berj says:
Yes. I'll do it on the TIFF of The King I sent you - then they can be
blinked. ...... Greg, attached are labeled pics for both The King and
Leodog, along with updated metadata file [for J.VS Library deposit #
12-1-2007-10-12]. By the way, the castle-like crown of The King
does resemble the Karlstein Castle from the picture of Karlstein that
Jan sent. At this point though I haven't the foggiest idea what that
could mean.
Greg says:
The face I can see, although I still think it is accidental, but a
castle-crown? I'd sooner say there was a second face, where you have
marked the neck, a boy or a woman perhaps. Nose, cheeks, hair: all
there; at least as well as the rest.
Berj says:
If you remember, with some processings I thought there was a
faces-montage in Leodog. But I let it go for the time being because it
was too conditional upon processing, whereas Leodog by himself I can
see without difficulty in the raw. The King, I can see him and
his crown clearly without any processing also. What you are calling a
boy or a woman in The King's neck area looks more like a
bearded biblical figure to me, but again, the montage possibility is a
higher-order effect if it is real, and we are still in the stage of
trying to determine if the first order effect is real or imaginary.
The King's massive crown was a puzzle until I realized that it best
resembles a castle - take another look at Jan's Karlstein picture,
especially the central castle tower, for a comparison - not that
necessarily it is Karlstein, or even necessarily a castle at all.
Greg [bringing attention to image processing on the Mona Lisa] says:
Of general interest:
http://www.lumiere-technology.com/Pages/News/news3.htm
Jan says:
Hi Greg, todays's CBC - through their correspondent in London Harry
Forrestel - presented pictures of Mona with eyebrows (which
were so far hidden) and another one of Mona with cute mustachio (I
still believe that was a joke - Leo could have easily told Mona to
get a shave first (Oh, Figaro, Figaro! :-)
Since some other scientific team already discovered that the eye
positions and upper skull dimensions of Gioconda are almost identical
to those in famous autoportrait of him when he was old, it would not
surprise me if they find out that Mona is actually young
Leonardo.
It brings me to the VM. Come to think of it, another technology,
ultraviolet observation of artifacts, was commonly known in Voynich
time already - it was used for checking of the identity of artifacts.
Apparently he did not do any of those tests before his famous
"signature" discovery.
Or maybe he did not see there anything first time? Well, we see it now
:-)
Berj says:
Attached are two TIFF's of a crop from f3v, one raw - hcVMSf3v.tif, the
other the processed raw - 1xhcVMSf3v.tif, although the raw
may be the better, and the processed serving merely as a different view
check.
Do you see what I see?
Assuming you see something organized, do you think it is intentional,
or accidental?
I have begun to suspect that every page of the VMS, at least the
illustrated pages, has masked and / or hidden imagery.
Dennis says:
I'm not convinced, that I see anything actually hidden: hcVMSf3v_3.jpg.
Berj says:
Although not necessary, at least not for me, it is easier to see it if
the picture is rotated c.c.w. 15 degrees.
Anyway, since no-one else seems to see it, I've attached
[L1xhcVMSf3v.jpg] a labeled version of the processed image - can be
blinked
against the first two I sent. The object is a considerable part of the
left and upper portions of the blue flower bulb, and to me it appears
unambiguously as either a death mask, or a sleeping face.
That it is an accident, would to me be incredible.
Dennis says:
Ok now.
I had originally thought the mouth to be a drop of fluid which dripped
onto the original, and discounted any further shading variations
in the area.
Berj says:
Good. Each new face that gains consensus as to its reality reinforces
the possibility that The King is real. The manuscript's illustrations
are loaded with faces and even other hidden or subdued details - I find
more of them every time I look. I think the reason I did not
notice these before is because I had mentally operated under the long
traditional bias that the Voynich is mainly crudely drawn herbal
illustrations. Apparently this bias, inherited from the long
established standard view of the ms, had blocked me from seeing the
true
nature of the illustrations. I have now put my mind into a state where
I disregard the inherited-from-previous-traditions bias that we are
viewing crude herbal illustrations.
My stock of found faces etc. is growing. Attached is another example, a
processed image cropped from f24v [1xcVMSf24v.tif]. Again,
the raw f24v shows it well and the processed pic is just to save time
showing it to you. I call it: The 9 Schnazbrothers. If you don't see
them immediately, look at the center bottom leaf first - the embedded
face is looking out directly at us. All nine of the Schnazbrothers
are projecting different expressions - as if the artist meant to
illustrate a catalog of human emotions. The Schnazbrothers are crude
compared with The King. However I have found a couple of more faces
with the technique of The King. So far, The King is still the
supreme achievement, and it may be that the artist was developing his
technique in the manuscript's pages.
Greg says:
Hmm. It just suddenly occurred to me to try something: I blurred all
your images and, lo and behold, it becomes much easier for me to
see the faces you're seeing: the lion, the king, the castle and this
mask thing. I think that's the answer to your previous question.
By the way, I've included an image [TheKingVMSf37v-blurred.jpg] of the
king with the king, the boy and the castle-crown outlined
roughly.
Robert says:
Years ago here in Atlanta there was a billboard with an ad for
spaghetti, and people could see the face of Jesus in it. I could see it
too,
but found it no more real than other stuff people see.
Berj says:
Possibly it was intended for the local market by the ad agency that
created the billboard. Similar to Jan's skulls in whiskey ice cubes.
That is to say Jesus sells spaghetti and skulls sell whiskey. Something
about that seems proverbial :)
Anyway more seriously, I have indeed been thinking that The King is The
Shroud of Turin of the Voynich manuscript, and have been
pondering if instead of a wordly king, that f37v image is actually
intended to portray Jesus Christ. I lean toward it being a wordly king,
especially since I believe The King is tied in with Leodog, but I've
been convinced for a long time that behind the VMS there is a
strongly Christian tendency.
Greg says:
I think saying we have 'consensus ' is going a bit far.
I am still of the opinion that you're reading more into this than is
there. I can now 'see' the king and crown easily, but is that real or
the
power of suggestion? We should figure out some way of doing a blind
test of this. Also, I would be more convinced by a number of
supposed images of the same scale and style than each one being
different, and even more convinced were they linked by some logical
common thread.
I see where you're getting the 'death mask' from, but again I am
sceptical. These new leaves I don't see at all. Perhaps I need to stare
at
them for longer.
Jan [commenting on Rudolphine VMS genesis hypothesis] says:
Hi Berj, I once checked connection of the VM with Rudolph's mad son
Julius d'Austria, see:
http://hurontaria.baf.cz/CVM/a14.htm
While there is no real conclusion, there was surely several manuscripts
originated in Rudolph's court alone. I was told about the above
suspicion by one Czech, but he could not remember where or how he got
it.
Berj says:
Yes I think that's it Jan - as I mentioned in the footnote I had a
vague memory of hearing the basic idea from you back sometime.
Actually it is surprising that the idea of the VMS being born in
Rudolf's court, or the court's immediate aftermath, has not had any
serious consideration. I could only find that brief post in the Night
Sky Live Project forum.
After all, if the VMS is weird, there surely was plenty of weirdness at
Rudolf's court. That story of his crazy son is a real sad one.
Btw, Egidius Sadeler engraved a portrait of Rudolf and he also did the
one of Krystof Harant.
Jan says:
At time of Rudolph, the city of Prague was very weird but also very
supporting for any research, even church representatives did not
want to oppose him. After all, Prague became a scientific center of
Europe, being the seat of Emperor and all. For instance: Hajek
created the very first star observation center with Brahe and Kepler,
many painters and sculptors grew there and also alchymists,
physicians, kabbalists and so on. There is an old story about statue of
Golem, created at that time by Rabbi Lowe, apparently the first
"robot". Dee went to Prague to continue his studies and other business
(say spying for Elizabeth). I am still puzzled with his flying
bug, but apparently it was wittnessed already in England. Drebbel
demonstrated there his "perpetuum mobile" and temperature
controller. I guess this was also a very fertile atmosphere for other
things, say for the birth of the VM.
The scientists there knew German, Latin, Czech and apparenly also
Spanish. If somebody wanted to hide his new discovery against
competition, and still wanted to write about it, then the strange
script and encoding was definitely a must.
Berj says:
I lean more toward the idea that the VMS script was a development of
some sort of scientific communication / language, like a
"universal language", rather than merely a cryptographic mechanism. If
it was the former, then it would automatically have
cryptographic properties.
Robert says:
Since there was recent discussion about the cans and heraldry, here's a
chart [ZodiacVMsNymphCanDistribution.GIF ] I just made that
might be of interest.
Greg, would you please add it as a Library contribution? Thanks!
Berj says:
Now that is indeed an interesting new perspective Robert - a cumulative
cans map of the zodiac section! It would appear that cans pile
up around Aries - never realized that.
Jan says:
Yes, that is the question: what was first - the chicken or the egg? I
mean what was the primary object: just to communicate by better,
say "scientific" language or to communicate but in secrecy. Actually, I
think "voynichese" can easily serve both purposes at the same
time.
I am inclined to believe that you might be right [that the VMS text is
a created artificial scientific language]: we know for instance
that natural language is not the best communicator. Say the English
language - it is actually the mixture of three languages, and
however simple and quick it is for verbal communication - it takes kids
5 years to learn the spelling. Latin on the other hand is easy to
write ( for Continental Europeans, that is :-) but kids may spend 5
years in learning the declination and various verbal tenses.
For our lingusts, it may sound like heresy.
Berj says:
Well, ....... the hypothesis that the VMS text is an obscure lost Asian
dialect written in an invented alphabet - fine, but why then not go
to the next step: as an experiment create / invent an "Asian dialect"
that makes sense out of even just one short VMS paragraph - for
the experiment it does not need to "decode" the paragraph at all, it
merely needs to work with its text and make sense from beginning
to end. I have not seen any attemts to do such an experiment - have
you? It would seem to be the thing to do to add some weight to the
Chinese or Asian natural language-dialect theory.
Jan says:
One needs to be expert in Chinese or any other close language.
Otherwise it would be just another exercise in futility. But the
language experts don't go for it. Every research must start with
homework and I think it is the only way to shorten the enormous time
otherwise necessary.
Robert says:
I currently think the Zodiac is for 29 Dec 1615, the same night as
f68r3, as I found a possible date of 1615 in the middle ring of text of
Aries and Taurus Light.
More on this as it becomes available...
Berj says:
Let us suppose you are right, and the zodiac pages, or some subset of
them are specific to 29 DEC 1615. Then, what is the VMS
author's purpose with that? A comet, a birth of a monarch, a major
historical event? And does the message integrate with other
messages throughout the manuscript?
Robert says:
Well, I don't know the purpose yet. But I can say that some of the star
labels on f68r1,2, and 3 can be found in both the Almanac
(Recipes) section, and in the Zodiac.
Berj says:
Anyway, I've been finding faces left and right, varying greatly in
technique and refinement, and designs. Some of them are so faded
that if they are real, I wonder if paint aging - hundreds of years - is
involved. I think there was a lot of experimentation - in some places
it looks like text letters were written and then overwashed with the
same color and the underlying text was basically ruined. I often
wonder if the parchment was re-used: that the faces were studies on the
originally blank parchment, and then later the parchment
sheets were used for the VMS material.
Question: if the VMS was being created around Rudolf's time, was there
any other place in Europe besides his court where one would
find so many diverse high voltage types interacting, so that it would
be natural that someone got the idea of embedding master art in
low-level art?
Jan says:
I think Voynichland is full of people dreaming about solving the VM.
Once in a while one of them gets an idea, carry it on and then
he/she hits a snag, the wall. It is called facing the reality. .....
Nobody really dares to see what lays behind that wall.
Why? I tell you why: subconsciously, we are afraid that we might find
the solution, which we will not like.
Berj says:
This I agree with. I have had the same view a long time. Sometimes the
concept of "denial" seems very appropriate. Back during the
PM-curve controversy on the old vms-list I felt that some of the
attackers were in denial about the curve being most likely a plotted
curve. I then invented the metaphor of "The Ostrich Club" to refer to
them :)
With the faces in the VMS we have a more complicated situation. As Greg
pointed out, the PM-curve is clearly there, but the faces
come down to subjective judgment. In my view some of these faces are
definitely real and were intended by the VMS author(s) /
illustrator (s).
I have been finding a broad spectrum of hidden imagery and these
include some different techniques by the artist. I have finally got
what to me is a reasonable hint for a longtime major puzzle - why there
is in f67v2 that RGB color-theory diagram - at least I cannot
see any other way to think of that thing. Here's my reasonable hint (to
myself - not trying to argue for it yet): I am getting the
impression that the VMS artist experimented with color-painted art
viewed through different color filters. As if that thing at the top of
the f42v plant is a suggestion of wearing goggles. I'm getting
indications, and this may be very difficult to argue for, that the VMS
artist was experimenting with the production of hidden 3D effects, that
become noticable only when the page is viewed through a
color filter.
Some of the images are so faint that I too have doubts they are real,
and I'm concerned that I am just selectively seeing patterns in
random image data. Others are quite definite, but quite subtle and seem
to be experimentations in a kind of abstract art: for example, I
have a candidate for what seems to me to be a kind of Arcimboldo
synthesis-style taken to an abstract level.
I'm wondering if I should present a list of the hidden images I have
found along with brief comments. Greg mentioned considering
some kind of blind test, but I can't think of anything productive,
other than to say here is a list of folios - do you see anything
hidden,
and if so, what do you see? That could take forever due to the nature
of the problem as well as people's interests and motivations. In
my case I have been studying the Voynich pages since 1999 and only now
I am seeing this hidden VMS layer.
I think of the dozen and a half or so hidden images I've collected so
far that the f3v Deathmask is the most clearly real and intentional
face. As it appears to me, the Deathmask is the death of any notion
that there are not hidden faces in the Voynich illustrations. It seems
to have almost photographic qualities and I have been trying to figure
out how it was done - was some kind of magic lantern projector
used to project onto the parchment an image of the face of an Egyptian
mummy, and the light-image then used as a guide to paint, or
what? And it is a miniature! What did it look like hundreds of years
ago when it was fresh and before wear and tear? How was it
done?
It is because I am seeing traces, at least traces, of Arcimboldo's
influence in some of these hidden drawings, that I've thought it is
useful, if not necessary, to have available a Rudolphine VMS genesis
hypothesis. Presently, on account of the PM-curve, my favorite
suspect for VMS conceiver, if not actual rendering author, is still
Robert Hooke, but I am forced now, whether or not I like it as you
say, to look back a bit earlier, and at least ask myself how much was
Hooke influenced by Prague's golden age, and how much did he
know of Arcimboldo? Hooke is still the only guy who seems to fit the
bill for the entire spectrum of advanced mysteries in the
Voynich - he started out as an art student, and to keep the Chinese
hypothesists happy, we can even add that during his work on a
universal language he was also studying Chinese.
So, Hooke still looks good to me, but I have to look back earlier to
Arcimboldo. In fact I admit that these recent developments have
caused me to frame the genesis of the VMS with Arcimboldo on the early
end of the timeline, and Hooke and Kircher on the later end.
In one sense these hidden art possibilities are much more difficult to
deal with than the PM-curve was. If a trial equation for the
PM-curve showed that it had to be forced with ever more decimal places
to match the actual PM-curve, then it was clear that the
thought behind the trial equation was flawed, and a new thought was
needed to be cast as a trial equation. But with these art objects we
don't have that mathematical certainty of gauging the approach to exact
matching by counting decimal places of precision. Are we
seeing a hidden real face, and if so, what is going on with it?
Greg [commenting on searching techniques within GC's voyn_101.txt
transcription] says:
Has anyone rebuilt the old interlinear file to include GC's
transcription? That would be a good thing to do.
Berj [initiating a near-blind test for hidden imagery in f76r] says:
Attached are two images: a rotated-40-degrees-cw crop from f76r, and
its negative, for blinking:
cVMSf76r.jpg
ncVMSf76r.jpg
Do you see anything organized?
If yes, what is it that you see?
Or, Berj you are hallucinating.
The apparent size is critically important for viewing this: at my
normal distance from the screen of ~75 cm, an adjusted picture width
of ~9 cm is pretty good.
I ask only that you allow the possibility that experimentation MAY have
been going on in the composition of f76r.
Greg says:
Oh, I see it. A face. Possibly attached to a body. A prehistoric
ASCII-art 1950's pinup, even. Again, it helps to blur it slightly.
[concerning hallucinating these hidden images]: Or the VMS is a great
cosmic joke. :)
Creating something like this deliberately would be difficult, but not
impossible. It would mean though that the text was likely
gibberish. I won't commit myself at this time as to whether I think it
is deliberate. Again, my instincts say no, but a pinup?!?
Berj says:
r. What I am seeing is a guy's head/face with long hair and possibly
slightly open mouth with an expression somewhat melancholy - he
looks VMS period. He is 3/4 profile facing to the right. He has a thick
eye-brow ridge. The top of his head may be abbreviated but
with a towering projection in the middle.
Now we know what the apparently non-linear scripting and selective text
touch-ups are all about!
There are more of these, but f76r is the clearest I've yet found. If
you can do the outlining with your paint program like you did with
The King, I'd like to see it.
Concerning the text being maybe gibberish, well that I admit was my
first thought. My second thought was: hold on, not so fast - why
bother with a strange alphabet and different grammars? Why not just
fill in plain text fluff, even harmless herbal gossip? Also I'm not
sure yet if all text bocks have hidden steganographic pictures - some
definitely appear to be just what they look like: clean but strange
text, say f20r - unless we are supposed to "connect the dots" (gallows
maybe) to get some sort of line drawing. So like you, presently
I'm still quite open to the text being multi-purpose: steganographic
text-mosaic, connect-the-dots, some variation of those,
straightforward cipher cryptogram yet to be broken, or simultaneously
some combination of the preceeding.
It occurs to me the artist must have studied and experimented with inks
if the selective "touch-ups" were to be part of the
steganographic text-and-gaps mosaic technique. Also, if we had the
image processing procedures codified (yes I know this isn't at all
easy and you need time) I've got a candidate for a text-block that
appears to project a really eerie three-dimensional big figure eight in
certain colors - if real, then I imagine the artist was working with
stained glass filters installed in some kind of goggles. Still it is
amazing how this could have been done back then.
Robert says:
Sorry, all I see is text.
You know those black and white car tags that say "FLY"? For the longest
time, I couldn't see the word "fly". All I saw was a jumble of
black blocks. Then one day, it snapped into view. Now I can see it or
not, as I choose.
Berj says:
Well like I said I was looking at the VMS all these years and not
seeing them and not even suspecting them.
They have snapped into view.
[end of off-J discussions from 17 OCT 2007 to late evening 22 OCT
2007.]
*****************************
108
From: Berj N. Ensanian
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:40:59 -0400
Subject: J.VS: Faces: a major theme in the Voynich Manuscript,
and VMS history considerations
Dear All
Greg and I have organized and brought up-to-date Library deposit #
12-1-2007-10-12 now holding 18 images of altogether 10 possible
hidden / steganographic faces or faces-groups we've been considering in
the manuscript:
1: 1cf24r.jpg (Mr. Flower)
2: 1xcf40r.jpg (The Ghostface Terror)
3: 1xcf75v.jpg (Mr. Snooper)
4: 1cf87v.jpg (Sir Greenleaf)
5: 1xcf102v1.jpg (Miss Pharma)
6: 1cf37v.jpg (The King)
7: 2cf102r1.jpg (Leodog)
8: x2cf102r1.jpg (Leodog)
9: L2cf102r1.tif (Leodog)
10: TheKingVMSf37v.tif (The King)
11: LTheKingVMSf37v.tif (The King)
12: hcVMSf3v.tif (The f3v Egyptian mummy Deathmask)
13: 1xhcVMSf3v.tif (The f3v Egyptian mummy Deathmask)
14: L1xhcVMSf3v.jpg (The f3v Egyptian mummy Deathmask)
15: 1xcVMSf24v.tif (The 9 / Nine Schnazbrothers)
16: TheKingVMSf37v_blurred.jpg (The King; image version by Greg
Stachowski)
17: cVMSf39r.tif (Rudolf's Court montage)
18: 1xcVMSf39r.tif (Rudolf's Court montage)
The last two images: one raw, and that raw randomly processed, are
suitable for blinking, and I've dubbed the picture "Rudolf's Court
montage". I'll introduce and discuss it here for the first time, below
toward the end.
The two blinking images for the f76r steganographic text-mosaic
portrait are in Library deposit # 14-1-2007-10-22. Although this too
is a face, on account of it being formed from the text script and its
gaps and therefore bearing greatly upon the critical question of just
what is the Voynich text?, I thought it best to give it its own
deposit, and then add other similar examples there. Down the road, once
we have a much better survey of the kinds of steganographic pictures in
the manuscript, we might re-organize the Library's collection
of steganographic images. We'll see. [1]
Greg too had immediately seen the text-mosaic head-face in f76r, but
thought it was a woman, an ancient pinup babe so to speak. I
think the reason is because of the hair - which I described as VMS
period - when men had long hair that bulbs out at the sides.
Presently, off-J, we are experimenting with possible identifications of
this f76r face, and thanks to a long running power of suggestion
dynamic elsewhere from Robert, we have actually started tagging this
face as "Copernicus", athough its jaw doesn't seem square
enough, and I know of no solid clue to point to it being Copernicus.
We'll see how it goes. In any case it is a phenomenal piece of
clever, and obviously painstaking work, and it radically alters the
traditional notions of the mysterious, seemingly un-crackable
Voynich "text".
Of all the examples we have so far been considering, the f3v Egyptian
mummy? Deathmask is the one that has me the most puzzled as
to how it was done. By way of comparison, the masterpiece of The King,
per our discussions, we can visualize coming about via a
combination of artistic genius, great experience and technical skill
and excellent eyesight, a good magnifying glass and special
brush-tools, thorough familiarity with the behaviour of the employed
brown paints and washes, and finally the choice of parchment
rather than paper, to result in The King as we now see him hundreds of
years (presumably) after he was rendered.
But the f3v Deathmask appears to me as something different. It is
almost a miniature feature, about 2.5 cm compared with the
approximately one centimeter of The King. The blue flower bulb that
contains this face, and the stem that forms the mummy's
royal-style beard appear to be ordinarily painted, but my impression of
the face itself is that it is at least partly a transfer onto the
flower bulb. What to me is most striking about it is its photographic
quality - I remarked on this earlier, as recorded in comm. #107.
How was it done?
Is it even remotely conceivable that back then, and one really has to
wonder just when "back then" was, especially if this face's model
really is an Egyptian mummy familiar to educated Europeans, that
someone developed an imaging technique akin to photography?
That perhaps someone discovered that a particular blue paint - the
paint of the flower bulb the Deathmask is in, reacts to light, and
they achieved image recordings, on parchment? Perhaps the paint reacted
to direct infrared radiation and the Deathmask is a kind of
direct infrared thermo-photograph from some sort of camera obscura?
Much research into this would be required to see if any of this is
plausible. Presently I am genuinely puzzled by this, and I readily
admit the foregoing is fully subjective, except of course that the
"Deathmask" face is unequivocal and intentional.
To me it is another disturbing instance in the ms that seems to
completely go against all standard notions of VMS history, goes against
even an origin in the later 17th c., and like the apparent f67v2
color-theory diagram, points to the late 18th and early 19th centuries,
when photography was being developed (!) and Napoleon had Fourier
handling the science in his (Napoleon's) expedition to Egypt,
and Fourier was opening Champollion's eyes to possibilities that would
eventually get the youngster cracking on the Rosetta Stone.
The notion that the VMS was made in the 19th c. is fringe, usually
considered in theories that has Wilfrid Voynich and his artisans
preparing the ms as a hoax, but around the time of J.VS comm. threads
#57 and #69 Jan and I did briefly consider a hoax and / or
non-hoax 19th c. VMS origin: by the English Strickland family of
Jesuits associated with the Villa Mondragone - they might have
produced the book without any intention of hoaxing, the book became
lost during the Risorgimento upheavals, and was later found by
someone who might either have forged Marci's "last" letter to create a
provenance, or happened to also have the Marci letter and stuck
it into the VMS thinking that the two must go together legitimately.
Speculations.
While I was trying to figure out the Deathmask, it naturally occurred
to me to see if I could discern clues on the other side of the
parchment, folio 3r. Looking there on f3r at the upper left of the
page, the Deathmask is visible on account of the thin parchment and /
or bleedthrough. Otherwise the situation is confusing - I had a
sobering encounter with phantom effects - in the x8 image I thought I
could see another face, full front view staring out directly at us, and
with its mouth perfectly aligned with the Deathmask's profile
mouth on the other side. On account of this face looking like it had
big circles framing its eyes I thought of it as "f3r Goggle-man".
Going to the high-resolution SID image of f3r, Goggleman disappeared,
except to appear vaguely in only certain magnifications.
Going to the best - the TIFF image, Goggleman is pretty much lost,
except that I see possible indications of tiny parchment pressings
or gougings, that in the most extreme liberal view of the matter would
conceive that Goggleman was an attempt to ever-so-faintly
"engrave" a face on parchment.
In sum, Goggleman changes dramatically depending on image processing
and magnification, ranging from vanished, through
ambiguous patterns, through a human face to a bizzare alien face. All
this underscores the difficulty of investigating these
hidden-VMS-layer pictures, and using the best available high-resolution
images, while trying to assess what level of magnification the
artist might have been using. Ultimately it will be necessary to
examine the actual physical parchment of Beinecke MS 408 in good
filtered light and with several different magnifying glasses and
eyeloops.
We have been discussing the problem of subjectivity and the difficulty
of good blind tests. For one thing, merely stating openly the
possibility of steganographic pictures in the VMS, automatically
unavoidably starts the power of suggestion. As I mentioned in comm.
#107, I do definitely believe there was long operating in Voynich
research a kind of negative power of suggestion that prevented these
hidden images from being noticed: the VMS illustrations were deemed
crude herbal variety drawings. Not to mention the well
entrenched from-day-one myopic research focus on deciphering, or
reading, the text.
But The King is unequivocally a strange feature in the manuscript, and
therefore, regardless of whether or not he is real in the sense of
being an intended artistic depiction of a face, his question is
definitely real: just what is this remarkable feature? And it seems
that the
wide opened mouthed "Little Greenface" just above The King [2] is
reinforcing the impression: Oh yes definitely, The King is real!
Long live The King!
Thus, at this point, I can already entertain that one of the major
objectives of the Voynich manuscript was to present an entire spectrum
of faces. We certainly have hundreds of them with the overt plump naked
ladies, and in communication #70 I considered in detail the
aspects of six VMS sisters in f81r, and much of my analysis was based
on their facial expressions. For what it's worth:
A major theme in the Voynich manuscript is the realistic, as well as
the caricatured presentation of the spectrum of faces, primarily
human, but also including animal, and chimerical.
Do we know of an artist "back then" who was peculiarly concerned with
faces and expressions? When you consider the rather limited
spectrum of facial expressions seen in some of the multi-person scenes
painted by the Renaissance masters, the economically rendered
spectrum of faces of the six VMS sisters of f81r is impressive, in my
opinion.
Finally, let me introduce the "Rudolf's Court montage" of f39r. It is a
montage of faces rendered by the same technique as was The
King, but it is embedded within blue paint, and from my studies so far,
the blue paint may have been more of a challenge for this kind
of art than the brown paint of The King. Just before I randomly chose
f39r to explore for stego pictures, I happened to be browsing
portraits of Rudolf II, and when I found this f39r montage, its central
portrait face immediately reminded me of a mannerist caricature
style, massively joweled sour-puss expression Rudolf with a Tycho Brahe
mustache, and so "Rudolf's Court montage" popped into my
mind as a label for this example. Perhaps unfortunate power of
suggestion - it may not have anything at all to do with Rudolf II, and
if
it is good enough in details to help zero in on a historic figure, this
label might hinder us in that, but such are the quirks of
investigating the world's most mysterious manuscript, now since
recently stretching even that appellation as barely sufficient.
The f39r herbal illustration culminates at top in a blue-bodied flower.
The blue portion of the flower is roughly 2.25 cm in length.
Within this span I see, placed vertically, a chain montage of at least
six faces. By far the largest face, "Rudolf", occupies at least a third
of the span, and is situated a bit off-center, up, and to the right.
Rudolf is 3/4 profile, facing to our left. He is caricatured to
resemble a
pig-face. Curiously, the top-most face, looking directly out at us,
also gives an even stronger pig-face impression with its pig-snout
nose (although it might be a dogface). If this montage represents a
royal court, then we must ask: was one of Europe's courts especially
labeled as a court of pigs? A kind of early precedent to Orwell's
Animal Farm?
Between the top pigdog-face and Rudolf there may be two faces, but for
sure at least one, that somewhat resembles an ancient
hair-haloed Santa Claus of sorts, or better, a Lon Chaney Jr. Wolfman,
facing us directly. To the right of Wolfman is something
resembling Schliemann's mask of Aggamemnon, profile of its left side,
and tilted upward. Beneath the massive jaw of Rudolf is a face
aligned horizontally, a profile facing upward - to me it resembles an
ancient Greek drama mask - the unhappy version. Near the bottom
and at the left edge, is a profile face, its right side, tilted and
gazing downward about 45 degrees from the normal vertical. To me this
face looks like it could have been copied from an ancient Greek vase -
it just looks like an ancient Greek, and it is one of the more
pleasant faces from among all we've been considering - he appears
philosophically contemplative.
Rudolf and the Greek are by far the easiest to see, in the raw TIFF -
there is no question whatsoever in my mind they are intentional
artworks. And because the technique is similar, Rudolf reinforces for
me the reality of The King. The others in Rudolf's court are faint,
and when we consider the tiny sizes of these faces, we have serious
problems judging their reality - for example, the pigdog at the top
is on the order of 2 millimeters! By itself that is not at all unusual
for a master in miniatures, as we've already said with The King. But
this is a steganographic embed of such a small dimension, and with
presumably ancient technological aids. So we can't really be sure
one way or the other before having our rigorous mathematical image
processing procedures in place, and without directly examining
the physical VMS folio.
I am not sure, but among the faces I have been studying, I often get
the impression that profile and frontal presentations are combined.
In this f39r example Rudolf looks to me like he is a juxtaposition of
profile and frontal, but delineated horizontally mid-face - a rather
complex juxtapositioning. Another theme seems to be faces that are
intended to project a man-animal or animal-man chimeras. I'll
present more examples I've found, once I've had a chance to study them
more closely and am able to describe them well enough for
consideration.
Berj / KI3U
[1] The online portal to the J.VS Library is here:
http://www.as.up.krakow.pl/jvs/library/
[2] TheKingVMSf37v.tif or TheKingVMSf37vKI3U.jpg
****************************
109
From: Berj N. Ensanian
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 17:09:16 -0400
Subject: J.VS: New blink pics: hypothetical steganographic
handscript mosaic text-art portrait in Vms f76r
Dear All
Concerning Voynich ms f76r I've sent to our Librarian Greg, as an
addedum to deposit # 14-1-2007-10-22, three new images for
analysis of the hypothetical steganographic text picture in its upper
half [1,2]:
76rVMSblink1.tif
76rVMSblink2.tif
76rVMSblink3.tif
These images are TIFF's suitable for blinking: blink1 is the raw
Beinecke-source TIFF but rotated 40 degrees clockwise (to make the
stego face assume a normal orientation), and blink3 is blink1
negatived.
The blink2 is a hand drawing by me, showing the bare minimum outlines
of what I am perceiving in f76r, aligned with the other two
images, as best as I could do it. I must emphasize that in f76r, both
in its raw and the negative of it, I am seeing the head / face not as
just an outline, but rather as a fairly three-dimensional object.
Again, the solid angle of the stego face to your eye makes quite a bit
of
difference to the ease of seeing the effect, and for me what works well
is to adjust these blink pictures to a full width of about 9-11 cm
and then view them from a distance of 50-75 cm.
The outline drawing can also serve to reference what might be within
the text block. Assuming you see something organized in f76r,
roughly similar but not quite the same as the blink2 outline, then the
blink2 outline can serve as an initial reference drawing, like a
coordinate system almost, and be modified. Of course the text-word
locations can also serve for location referencing of the face's
details.
The drawing shows the voluminous hair of the person. I've thought that
it also resembles those wigs that are worn in English courts. It
seems also that the stego head is wearing a cap on top. There may be a
second face juxtaposed with the main face - both sharing the
prominent pupiled eye, which is the left eye of the other face, a
frontal, appearing to me as a much older man than the main face, and
much of his beard is the main face's big pile of hair.
So, is it real? To me it is, without question. I can see it plainly in
the raw TIFF, and that has me wondering why it took so long to
notice it - undoubtedly one reason is the approximately 40-degree
upward tilt with respect to the text horizontal. It is a script-text
version of text art - my own familiarity with that type of art is
primarily from radio-teletype where some absolutely amazing
3D-illusion masterpieces were already circulating in the networks
before World War II. Of course much later in the early computer
days it was a popular art form again with the early plain-text
printers.
But this handscript text-art, especially since it appears to be
intentionally steganographic, can take full advantage of the
flexibilities of
hand scripting: everything can be variable to achieve the desired
effect (by the experienced master): letter variation-shapes, gaps,
freedom from ruled lines, selective touch-ups and perhaps even with
different inks, non-linear composition, and so on. I'm sure there
are more puzzles to be solved in this f76r stego picture: even though I
can see it well in the raw, it becomes much, much better and
impressive in the negative, and this makes me suspect that filter
(stained glass) goggles were to be worn when reading the Voynich
manuscript, that possibly the f67v2 color-theory diagram (as I call it)
was even supposed to be some kind of calibration for that, and
that the inks and paints were keyed to filtered light. All speculation
at this stage, but rather natural speculation following from what
I'm seeing in f76r, and so crudely trying to point out with the blink2
drawing. But I'd be genuinely very interested in considered
explanations for: why nothing intentionally organized as a
steganographic text-mosaic feature is present in f76r.
I happened to be thinking of old Trithemius, carrying on an imaginary
conversation with him in my mind and asking him what he
thought of all this, when I imagined that he replied reminding me to
revisit J.VS communication #51.
Berj / KI3U
[1] The online portal to the J.VS Library is here:
http://www.as.up.krakow.pl/jvs/library/
[2] J.VS communications #107 and #108.
**********************
110
From: Jan Hurych
To: J.VS
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 22:23:59 -0400
Subject: J.VS: THE HANDWRITING ANALYSIS OF SOME POSSIBLE
AUTHORS OF THE VM
Hi Greg,
I just finished new article, this is the info:
=======================================
28 OCT 2007
Meta-data for J. VS Library deposit: # 7-4-2007-10-28
This deposit contains an article investigatings the handwritings of
persons connected with the VM history.
THE HANDWRITING ANALYSIS OF SOME POSSIBLE AUTHORS OF THE VM. by Jan. B.
Hurych
The article provides the comparisons based on factors used by forensic
handwriting analysis. The conclusion is that none of the
analyzed persons (Kircher, Marci, Baresch and Horczicky) could be
proven to be author by handwriting only. Added is also the first
hand comparison of Mnischowsky's handwriting and its similarity to the
handwriting of the Horczicky's name in the VM is suggested.
Further research is recommended.
In the form of one htm file: jbh5.htm
===================
The article and pictures are zipped in one file and can be downloaded
from:
http://hurontaria.baf.cz/JVS/jbh5.zip
regards,
Jan
****************************************************
111
From: Berj Ensanian
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 21:50:01 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: J.VS: off-J discussions 23-29 OCT 2007: various
topics
Dear All
Below [1] is the redaction of much of our off-J discussions from 23 OCT
2007 following comm. #107, and to this evening.
Berj / KI3U
[1] Redacted off-J discussions 23-29 OCT 2007. In order of first
appearance are J.VS members: Berj N. Ensanian, Robert Teague,
Greg Stachowski, Jan Hurych.
Berj says:
Greg had immediately seen the text-mosaic head-face in f76r, but
thought it was a woman. I think the reason is because of the hair -
which I described as VMS period - when men had long hair that bulbs out
at the sides.
Now, Robert has long put forward that the upper portrait (a crude one)
in f68r1 represents Copernicus. I've attached two images of
Copernicus - a crop from the Polish banknote [cCopernicusMoney.jpg],
and that same picture horizontally flipped and negatived
[nrcCopernicusMoney.jpg]. The latter is approximately the type of
portrait that I see in f76r - you can see the hairstyle I was talking
about. The f76r portrait has a more rounded jaw than the square jaw of
the banknote depiction of Copernicus, but the approximation
serves to point out what I see in f76r. In addition, the horizontal
flipping gives me the idea that f76r was created with some kind of
technique, perhaps optical, that inherently resulted in a left-right
polarity reversal.
What say?
Robert says:
Here is the pic of Copernicus I found [Copernicus.jpg], and the VMs
image [CopernicusVMs.bmp] for comparison.
Berj says:
r. That f68r1 upper portrait reminds me of something I've been meaning
to mention to you. Look at the man's (Copernicus maybe) left
eye - which is on the right in the drawing. That eye is actually a
Voynich alphabet letter: GC-e or EVA-l. So I'm wondering if the
group at eye-level at right of the face, GC-9h9, should have the
eye-letter added to it: GC-e9h9 and if that would give you a better
approach to demonstrating "Copernicus" and / or 29 DEC 1615.
Aside, Greg and I are organizing the faces depository, and I'll have
some more to show soon.
Greg [commenting on updating hidden-faces Library deposit #
12-1-2007-10-12] says:
I had a bit of fun hunting all the images down, but they're all in now.
New meta is good also.
Berj says:
r tnx. I had an encounter with the effect of phantoms resulting from x8
res. images - which I'll comment on in the #108
communication. It underscores using the best available images in
investigating these strange features.
Greg says:
Indeed.
On the subject of portraits of Copernicus, some of you may not be aware
that his grave was discovered and his face reconstructed by
forensic experts a couple of years ago:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9913250/
Of course that has no bearing on Robert's hypothesis.
Berj says:
Hmm. Interesting, if it is to be believed. Guess we are not the only
ones chasing lost faces :)
Greg says:
:) Indeed.
This is from the website of the national police forensics unit which
did the work:
http://www.policja.pl/portal.php?serwis=pol&dzial=107&id=3837
It's in Polish, but the pictures are obviously clear enough. Apparently
they worked only from the skull and suitable
anthropological/biological data, not using any of the known portraits;
the only thing 'added' is the period clothing. As it turns out, it's
not far off some of the painted portraits:
http://er.uqam.ca/nobel/r14310/Ptolemy/Copernic/index.html
Interestingly they (the forensics unit) seem to have done some analyses
of paintings as well as more typical police forensics work.
Jan says:
Amazing - I think the reconstruction matches very well the painted
portrait of him.
Berj [commenting on J.VS communication #108] says:
With "Rudolf's Court montage" [cVMSf39r.tif and 1xcVMSf39r.tif ] we can
see, assuming it is accepted as real, that faces-density can
be high. So we might find some little area of paint somewhere in the ms
where a whole bunch of stuff is going on. But I wonder
mostly: is the pig-faced "Rudolf" depicting an identifyable person, and
if yes, who?
It is difficult balancing discussing potential / possible new
breakthroughs with subdued-enthusiasm in the tone of the discussion.
Voynichology is full of assumed-as-facts that are not facts in the
mathematical/scientific sense. I think we ( J.VS) have been pretty
good so far in walking the line between potential facts and
demonstrable facts and demonstrable maybe-facts. Certainly and of
course
we can and must improve, remain ever conservative.
But what my sentiment comes down to is that this new stuff deserves to
be put before the Voynich world. If it proves to be a dead-end
then it is merely one more dead-end in the mountain of Voynich
dead-ends. There is no way to make some progress on the VMS
without daring to go into some new territory. And consider this: if
everything so far from Mr. Flower to Rudolf's Court montage
proves to be phantom, then the path to realizing that is in itself an
important and valuable VMS research topic - we are not wasting
time here - if ultimately we see they are mistakes, then that knowledge
is valuable - don't you agree?
Greg says:
I agree entirely. My only concern is to put the matter forward in a way
which will draw attention, yes, but also maintain that scientific
detachment which goes hand in hand with credibility.
[commenting on investigating-technique with f76r]: I find the blurs
slightly better than blinking in this case.
Berj says:
Greg, Attached for addendum deposit [# 14-1-2007-10-22] is a .bmp
panorama of the three f76r blink pics
[VMSf76rHStegoFace.bmp], resized to 46%, and in the order from left to
right: blink1, blink3, blink2
[addressing Robert who has just checked the from-online downloading
integrity of VMSf76rHStegoFace.bmp]: That was fast! Thanks
Robert - appreciate it.
By the way I am seeing possible text-art patterns of the f76r type in
f58r and f58v. The f58r looks to me like a full page picture of
either a kitty, or a little dog - not sure yet which, but pretty sure
it is one or the other, if it is in fact a real stego picture. If a
kitty, it
would be interesting to speculate that the VMS author was a cat person
:) or in any case someone who thought enough to include his /
her pet in the manuscript.
The f58v again is full page, and looks like part of a right arm, with
the hand making some kind of hand signal that prominently
features the thumb. But I could be completely wrong here.
[addressing all]: So, I wonder if the f76r portrait, assuming it is
real, is a self-portrait of the VMS author, especially I wonder this
because of 76r being the very center of the VMS from the nested-shells
/ Slavic dolls model point of view (comm. #51). I've anyway
always believed that the author must have left his / her sine in the ms
somewhere. If that's him, he does not look at all Asian to me - he
is clearly a western type Caucasian, and therefore likely a European as
most of us have believed all along. That of course doesn't rule
out Chinese authorship, any more than text-art rules out the text being
simultaneously meaningful in some other way. It just makes
everything more complicated, and makes me think the VMS author was
actually out to create "the world's most mysterious
manuscript". And as we know, succeeded.
I'm not sure that the text-art throughout the pages was variously
successful - f76r is the easiest for me to perceive. The VMS could
have been an experimental notebook, rather than the collection of the
author's best works. On the other hand, the f76r may simply be
intentionally easier to perceive, while the others are demonstrations
of much more advanced and subtle 3D techniques.
In any case, the next easiest-to-perceive hypothetical stego text-art
that I see is what I am calling "The Owl" in the manuscript's last
normal page, f116r. To me it appears like a 3/4 page-height perched
bird with big round eyes looking out at us, and I thought
immediately it is an owl, before realizing I was viewing the last page,
and the symbolic aspects of the author's ending note: Be wise!
I hope you'll forgive the unavoidable power-of-suggestion. It would be
merely redundant at this stage for me to just say: see anything
stego in f116r? because by now it is clearly and obviously reasonable
to assume that that question applies in general throughout the
ms, and discussion of any particular example has to begin with some
kind of description of it, and it is always possible someone will
come up with a persuasive refutation that an intentional steganographic
text-art is present.
Greg says:
Here's something to ponder. When you first asked about the f76r face, I
replied that yes, I could see one, although I remained (and
remain) unconvinced that it was deliberate. Now, you have posted your
drawing, and it turns out that the face I saw was rather
different, and much smaller. So we have another issue to contend with,
which to me suggests again that these are illusions.
Though, then if we disagree on individual examples, the idea is
interesting.
Berj says:
I had surmised that we were seeing different things in f76r. Also,
since then I see the additional second, juxtaposed face. From what
you see, can you rule out the idea (for yourself) that the artist might
have been doing what artists often try to achieve: create an
illusion?
Greg says:
No, I can't rule it out. There is also no test I can think of at the
moment to handle this.
Berj says:
And that brings up what I think is a crucial point, in light of the
admitted subjective nature of the problem:
With these hypothetical steganographic pictures in the VMS, is it
necessary to any degree that an observer giving an opinion have any
depth of Voynich manuscript knowledge?
I don't think so. You put a Voynich page in front of someone, and
either they see stego pictures or they don't, and if they do, they
might
or might not see something similar to what someone else sees. That is
to say, the "expertise" here is the person's inclination to
perceive, or not, an intentional or accidental pattern in the page
being viewed. I can show a work of 3D radio-teletype art to someone
and whether or not they see it is completely independent of their
knowledge of the technology and circumstances.
In other words, whether or not a person sees or doesn't see a
steganographic picture in a Voynich page is independent of their
Voynich
manuscript knowledge. Anyone's (with normal healthy eyesight) sincere
opinion on the reality or non-reality of a hypothetical
hand-script text-art face in f76r is equally valid. Expertise in the
VMS per se is irrelevant. Not so?
Btw, did I mention that there is now online a 16 billion pixles image
of Leonardo's Last Supper:
http://www.haltadefinizione.com/en/
Greg [addressing Berj's question] says:
Kind of.
There are three questions being considered:
1. Is there an apparent image?
2. Given 1, is that apparent image 'real'? (In the sense of being a
deliberate creation of the artist, rather than an accidental effect.)
3. Given 2, how does the image fit into the VMS?
With 1, all that is needed is eyesight and imagination. However, to
judge 2, one also needs some experience with art, images,
psychology (in a very loose sense). To answer 3, obviously some
knowledge of the VMS is necessary.
It is easy to conflate 1 and 2, when they are not the same. Is the
question being asked here:
" Anyone's sincere opinion on the reality or non-reality of a
hypothetical hand-script text-art face in f76r is equally valid. "
no. 1 or no. 2? What do we mean by the 'reality' of the image? Further,
are these questions really independent? Let's say we find what
looks like a deliberate image of something only known in the late 20th
century. Say a nuclear hazard warning symbol. What then? Do
we try to fit that into our knowledge of the VMS, or do we use our
knowledge of the VMS to dismiss the image as false, despite
already having decided that it is deliberate (for whatever reason).
The example is perhaps a little contrived. My point is that it's even
harder than is usually the case with VMS stuff to find some
baseline and procedures in exploring this new idea. Perhaps it is the
case that no VMS experience is necessary. But where do we go
from there?
Berj says:
Jan, your article [THE HANDWRITING ANALYSIS OF SOME POSSIBLE AUTHORS OF
THE VM; J.VS comm. #110] is what I
call real production! The Mnishovsky angle I have to think a lot more
about before I can comment well on it. First of all, is there
somewhere some unquestionably solid evidence that (from Marci's last
letter):
" Dr. Raphael, tutor in the Bohemian language to Ferdinand III, then
King of Boehmia, told me .... "
is identical to: Dr. Raphael Mnissovsky (spelling). In other words:
"Dr. Raphael" = "Dr. Raphael Mnissovsky" ??
Or is this one of my dumb questions?
Greg, I agree with your points. However, I think the first thing with
the possible steganographic images in the VMS is to get past your
point no. 1 - it implicitly suggests consensus on what the stego
picture is, say a long-haired head-face taking up most of a block of
text
etc., for example.
Here is what I am getting at (contrived scenario): 20,000 [scientists
and learned scholars] look at f76r and conclude it is just a block of
strange hand-script text showing no particular pattern, even
accidental, and certainly nothing in the way of an intentional stego
picture.
450,000 "man in the street" look at it, and 389,000 of them all say
there is a portrait, a fairly 3D one, of a man facing right and tilted
up, and with long hair that bulbs out at the sides, and they all sketch
roughly similar copies of what they see. So you've got altogether
389,000 face-seers against 81,000 nothing-special-seers. What is the
"scientific" conclusion here?
What I think we will see, now that some of these pictures of possible
stego faces are online, like the jpg version of the panorama of
f76r [VMSf76rHStegoFace.jpg] on wikipedia, that over time there will be
here and there online commentary on them, in all sorts of
diverse forums. And we will have a sort of laboratory in action by
keeping our eye on these comments, and seeing if there is any sort
of consensus emerging. Needless to say we can't possibly practically
sample anywhere near a half a million reactions, but there will be
accumulating data. And much of it will be valid data - sure there may
be phony efforts, for one reason or another, rather than genuine
efforts, to sway opinion one way or the other. But valid data will
accumulate.
This points out the advantage of the steganographics question over the
PM-curve question. For the PM-curve question you need for
decision-makers a specialized group, mathematical scientists and
preferably astronomers, PLUS they must have at least a little
familiarity with the VMS. But the reality of the stego pictures, your
point no. 1, can be decided by the man in the street.
In his just published paper that you just installed in the Library
[deposit # 7-4-2007-10-28] Jan notes about the text:
" .... I suspect it was not only written, but literally "painted",
i.e.more carefully drawn by pen. "
That is consistent with hand-script text-art, isn't it?
Jan [replying to Berj's question on Mnischowsky] says:
Yes, it is commonly accepted that Marci's Dr. Raphael is Mnischowsky,
actually Rene has the name corrected already. True, Marci
calles him only Dr. Raphael, but Mnischowsky was a lawyer representing
the state in the case against Wallenstein, he was Czech and
tutor of Emperor's children (my sample is actually from his texbook in
Uppsala, apparently stolen by Swedes in 1648 in Prague) - so it
must be him and Voynich already discovered that.
Also, as Imperial physician, Marci was able to know him personally from
Court. We do not know if Marci's info in his letter was
directly from Mnischowsky or through Baresch (Raphael died 1644 so
Marci would have had to ask him before that :-).
As for the whole theory of him faking the VM, I do not know who came
[up] with it , it seems rather fresh idea by somebody from
Czech Wikipedie (no typo, that's the title): some points there are
dubious or even wrong, but to my surprise, there are elements in his
handwriting that fit the handwriting of the "signature" in the VM. So
he could have been the owner before Baresch and that is only
mine, but first ever observation and it may be crucial for future
provenance.
There is a hint that Raphael Mnishowsky was born in Poland. What about
this:
http://www.voynich.net/Arch/2000/06/msg00143.html
Also, at:
http://historie-heraldika.cz/Seznam_ostatnich.html
is stated he helped another Polish gentleman, Bartolomej
Paprocký z Glogol a Paprocké Vule translate his book
Diadochos into Czech
language and more. Mnishowsky's original name was Sobiehrd. The page is
in Czech language - if you cannot understand something,
pls let me know, I can translate .
Greg says:
I googled and at least the Sobiehrd name has been known for a while,
he's even listed in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raphael_Sobiehrd-Mnishovsky
The Polish connection is interesting, though. I shall look into it.
Paprocki was a fairly famous chronicler, genealogist and herald (as in
expert on heraldry):
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartosz_Paprocki (in Polish)
Jan [commenting on Mnishowsky] says:
His original name was Sobiehrd, and he was Catholic while the other
branch was Protestant. He changed his name to Mnishowsky,
probably just to duistinguish it from them. René has clearly in
his page Horsuv Tyn as his birthplace (near Pilsen) , however I have
read somewhere the rumor about him being born in Poland. Another rumor
is that he studied in Krakow. Now if he translated
Paprocky's book from Polish language, he had to learn Polish somewhere.
How could he learn it in Prague, Paris or Rome?
I wrote my friend-cryptograph in Prague, apparently the book in Uppsala
is more about cryptography than about Czech language.
Actually it is the one of the recommended readings for cryptography
students in Slovakia, however is is nowhere to be bought (was
printed 1992 by GRADA). He may give me the expertise on the book, I
hope they have it at university library, at least. Will write to
you as soon as I know more.
[end of 23-29 OCT 2007 off-J discussions record]
*********************
112
From: Berj Ensanian
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 13:32:41 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: J.VS: Comments: THOU SHALT NOT FEAR THE VOYNICH
MANUSCRIPT
Comments on the manipulation of public perceptions of Voynich ms
research and progress:
It seems to me that the Voynich page in the popular online wikipedia
[1] is evolving into a very interesting database for those
interested in studying the psychology of various personas variously
visible in the Voynich world. You can quickly and easily get
yourself a wikipedia account, and then log in and explore the history
of edits of the Voynich page, a wonderful permanent record that
is quite readily navigated. Well done wikipedia!
Attempts at controlling the wikipedia-public projection of the highly
competitive Voynich scene is complex and diverse of course, but
here in particular I wish to say that ancillary to all this, I hold
that it takes, in addition to hard work and luck, a measure of courage
to
open or pioneer possible new inroads into the Voynich mystery, whether
they eventually prove to be fruitful or not, essentially correct
or misguided. The Voynich world has after all its long entrenched views
and interests and socializing aspects that could easily be
jarred, sending ostrich feathers flying all over the place so to speak,
if some surprising new potential research developments threatened
the status quo, and in particular threatened the Voynich public's
perception of the real worth of some of its "expert" personas,
especially the type that focus on producing, not original ideas and
work, but rather focus on producing the projection of being a
Voynich expert.
In contrast, I hold that it takes no courage at all, but merely the
mind of a reacting automaton to attempt suppression of the discussion
of new ideas that threaten the status quo.
At the end of the evening of 31 OCT 2007 there was in the Voynich
wikipedia a modest presence of material associated with the
Journal of Voynich Studies, material that had taken several days of
learning enough wiki editing to integrate properly and
conservatively:
In the "Steganography" section, there was a small crop image from f37v,
about 86 kilobytes altogether, with the filename
"TheKingVMSf37vKI3U.jpg". There was a quite short paragraph describing
possible steganographic master artwork embedded in
low-level art, a new possibility in Voynich considerations. There was
an image showing a study of the f76r text-page from the point of
view of it possibly being hand-script text-art, another new
possibility, that if true, certainly profoundly impacts all
considerations of
the Voynich text; moreover its question is one of the few in Voynich
work which can be decided by equal-weight input from the
proverbial man in the street, who otherwise has no particular
familiarity with the Voynich manuscript, nor any special interest in
it.
In the "Illustrations" section, under "Astronomical", there was a
picture "VmsPMCurvePano.jpg" with the rather conservative caption:
" In the f68r3 astronomy panel a curve linking the moon and Pleiades
may have been deliberately plotted - its shape carefully
controlled. Upon that hypothesis one analysis concludes that the
mathematical equation of the "PM-curve" derives from an ellipse - the
implications altogether suggesting a composition better placed in the
17th century than the 15th. Above: panel detail, and magnified
curve on reference crosshairs. "
Altogether, with respect to these comments here, there were in the
Voynich wikipedia a little paragraph, three pictures with captions,
the references for the pictures, and two lines in the External links at
bottom, one with the J.VS url, and the other with the Voynich
Timeline url, a J.VS project for the general interested public. On the
morning of 1 NOV 2007 all but the two lines in the External links
section had been edited out, leaving the old long-entrenched impression
of what is politically correct in the Voynich world.
Interestingly, the wiki edit history shows the budding Inquisitor to be
a nominal "expert", with some admirers, on the new (and old)
vms-list. Even more interesting is the reason this persona has recorded
for editing out the plain vanilla straightforward little 86
kilobytes crop from the Beinecke MS 408 source,
fTheKingVMSf37vKI3U.jpg. One can easily get the impression of a VMS
"expert"
gone mad with fear, fear of the unexpected in the world's most
mysterious manuscript.
To each his own. Were it not for the interesting psychological aspects,
it would be a waste of time bringing this up. The psychologists
and historians eventually studying these matters will have much
interesting material in the permanent record, including that of the
history of wikipedia edits, to comb over and analyze - I look forward
to that as a Voynich field in its own right. But for me, I have to
continue to believe that true progress in chipping away at the Voynich
mystery requires the maxim:
THOU SHALT NOT FEAR THE VOYNICH MANUSCRIPT
Berj / KI3U
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voynich_manuscript
**************************
113
From: Berj Ensanian
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 12:45:25 -0500 (EST)
Subject: J.VS: Discussion: standard image processing
protocols; some technical considerations
Dear All
Following below [1] is the redacted discussion we had off-J yesterday,
4 NOV 2007, on our continuing considerations for a standard
procedure for precision, and completely determinate image processing.
This consideration has been on one of our front burners since
communication #102. I think we are gradually converging toward what
will eventually become good simple protocols, while at the
same time in warranted circumstances we can continue to accept as
useful some more or less "randomly processed" trial-and-error type
research images, when they are not critical for establishing some
precision conclusion or other.
Berj / KI3U
[1] 4 NOV 2007 off-J discussion of technical details toward an image
processing procedure standard.
Discussion participants in order of first appearance are: Berj N.
Ensanian, Jan Hurych, Greg Stachowski.
Berj says:
I have an opinion on GIMP.
I've been working on producing an improved processed blink image for
the f76r text "portrait". I have ideas on what I want to try, but
of course the problem stopping me is lack of suitable image
manipulation tools. As I mentioned before, to me the simplest and most
flexible route is to have a standard specified vector or matrix format
for the pixels in an image, TIFF we've agreed is the highest
priority; and then I can specify mathematical operations on the matrix
elements (pixels). And these math operations can be as simple
as subtracting the 2^n -1 value of a pixel from the 2^n -1 value of a
corresponding pixel in a reference image. To me this is completely
straightforward, and conveniently leaves aside all discussions of "hue"
and "transparency" and "color theory" and so on, as optional for
when they become relevant.
Robert mentioned as a very powerful freeware image processing program
GIMP, and he also said it had a high learning curve - I
downloaded it and began using it last night, and it is indeed
wonderfully powerful, but indeed its learning curve is quite steep. I
find
myself irritated with having to learn things like "alpha channel" and
"Layer attributes" and on and on. All I want to do for a first
experiment is subtract one f76r image from a slightly processed version
of that same image. But it is first necessary to climb the GIMP
learning curve. In the end, all that GIMP terminology will be
superfluous to my route of exploring f76r.
Thus, my opinion on GIMP is that it is a fantastically powerful free
gift, but I would like to see J.VS's image processing standard
specified as per above in the minimum necessary mathematical physics
manner. And that would in no way prevent those who want to
discuss the conventional optical physiological physics of the images in
terms of "hue" etc., from doing so.
At bottom, the images are a set of numbers. I want to stay as close to
the set as possible, leaving physiological interpretations for when
they are appropriate.
Jan says:
I would like to say more about the picture processing but little do I
know, all my attempts are try and fail. What we may need is the
person who is involved in graphics - sure, we can achieve a lot just by
ourselves but the progress will be slow. What is also a drag for
small pictures is the fact that there is a maximum resolution and above
that is the serious distortion. So filters seem to be the answer.
Berj says:
r Jan. Here is a simple way to illustrate what I am thinking with the
image processing protocols. Lets pretend we have a simple
gray-scale "TIFF" image, a square one, and it is composed of a total of
16 pixels. And further, lets pretend that the digitization of the
pixel gray-values is 3-bit, that is n=3, so that we have 2^3 = 8 and
therefore the 8 shades of gray run 0-7. And we might have the
convention where 0 = white, and 7 = black. Take this example "image":
0272
2777
2272
2272
We can tell from these pixel gray-values that we've got here a picture
of a black cross on a very light gray background, and the cross
sits to the right of the picture's vertical center-line, and finally
for some reason, there is a pure white spot at upper left - noise
perhaps.
Lets call this image-file: cross.tiv
Let us pretend that we have a simple standard that gives us the
coordinates (or vectors) for each and every pixel in cross.tiv. In
other
words I can use even ancient GWBASIC to open cross.tiv and pluck out
and change its pixels, and save the result.
Let us now say that I use GWBASIC to open cross.tiv and perform a
transform operation: I do the same exact thing to each and every
pixel, and save the transformation result as 1xcross.tiv.
Lets say that the value of a particular pixel is "v". And lets say my
transform calculates "u", being the new/transformed gray-value of a
pixel, from this equation:
Eq. 1:
u = 1 + (-1)^v
The saved 1xcross.tiv will now have this:
2202
2000
2202
2202
In other words, I have removed the noise spot at upper left, paying the
price of the cross now being white instead of black. Getting the
cross black again can also be done in a variety of ways of course,
depending on what is considered procedurally acceptable. For
example, if it is considered procedurally unacceptable to do editing,
or even clipping or thresholding operations, which affect pixels
differently, and it is insisted that as before each and every pixel is
subjected to the exact same transform, then we might do to
1xcross.tiv this transform:
Eq. 2:
u = [7-v] - [3/2][v^(v/2)]
and the result (saved as say 2xcross.tiv) would be:
2272
2777
2272
2272
and we got what we wanted, a new perspective (i.e. the noise removed),
and not with arbitrary editing, but a transform that treated
every pixel the same. We need no explanations involving "editing", or
even arguements to justify threshold operations. And every step
along the way is clearly understandable, and do-able with simple tools
like GWBASIC even. Moving on up to actual complicated
images, say RGB with three pixel matrices, one for each color,
proceeding as per above, keeps the image processing down at the level
of: operations upon sets of numbers. If color physics and perception
physiology like "hue" and "contrast" and so on are of interest, then
they can be properly defined with their own transforms. And, it becomes
the burden of image processing programs to explain what
transformations are accomplished by special terminology like "alpha
channel", and "transparency" and "layer" etc.
Greg says:
What you're describing is pretty standard in image processing of any
sort. That is essentially exactly how it is done. It more or less
works like that in Gimp, with the proviso that values 255 are clipped.
Here's an explanation:
http://www.linuxtopia.org/online_books/graphics_tools/gimp_advanced_guide/gimp_guide_node55_001.html
Of course, because the RGB values are processed separately, how
addition/subtraction works depends on the colour space: the result
using RGB may not be the same as that in say HSV. (Actually quite what
'addition' etc really means for 'colours' is an interesting
discussion in itself.) Anyway, we can also do the kind of thing you
want in ImageJ, and I've also been looking at this:
http://www.vips.ecs.soton.ac.uk/index.php?title=VIPS
and I think it would provide the mathematical approach you're looking
for. I don't have time to test it at the moment, perhaps you
could. By the way, 'alpha' is essentially transparency, and layers are,
well, literally layers, which can be blended with the layers below
(through things like the 'subtract' mentioned above).
Berj says:
What I'm trying to say is that all we absolutely need for the
foundation of a standard is the vectors specification for the TIFF's.
So that
any old program, say BASIC out of DOS, can open that TIFF matrix and
operate on it. The result file can be viewed with anything:
Irfanview, GIMP, or whatever.
The example I gave earlier [cross.tiv] can be thought of as "filtering"
or "selective masking" or "editing" or whatever by any particular
image handling program, but at bottom it was a transformation, or
actually two transformations, a second after the first, upon the
numbers composing the image. The transformation specifies what is
actually done, and there is no reference to any particular
program's own terminology.
Suppose you need an operation that requires math beyond your skill.
Well, just get the sophisticated transform equation from a
member who has the skill, and then just program it.
Also, suppose you had done a critical image processing with a
particular image program, using its, say, "adjust gamma" routine, and
then it comes out that that gamma routine in that version of the image
program has a bug in it. Now what?
I looked at that
[http://www.linuxtopia.org/online_books/graphics_tools/gimp_advanced_guide/gimp_guide_node55_001.html]
and it
is excellent, and in a way makes my point: the terms "foreground color"
etc. are superfluous. Terms like that seem to be part of the
graphic artist lingo that image processing programs like GIMP employ.
When I'm processing images for research, I'm not thinking
about foreground color, layer, alpha channel blah blah blah - I'm
thinking that the source image is a set of related numbers, and I am
going to do a mathematical operation on those numbers, taking / mapping
them into a new space so to speak, according to an idea I'm
currently testing.
So again, I'm saying I think all we absolutely need for the foundation
of a standard is the vectors specification for the TIFF's.
I tried painting some guidelines into the f76r blink3 - the result,
76rVMSblink4.tif is crude, but definitely much better than my blink2
sketch. I've attached it for addendum deposit into [J.VS Library
deposit] # 14-1-2007-10-22. I'll send the updated meta shortly.
I've found that blinking this blink4 against either the blink1 or
blink3 works best in this way: stay with blink1 or blink3 for longer
durations, and switch only for a split second to blink4. And repeat
that.
Greg says:
Well, just looking quickly at the tiff I converted from the SID of f1,
it looks like it is roughly 45kb of header data followed by 3-bytes
per pixel (RGB) data in little-endian format. How the bitmap is
organized I don't know, given the overall simplicity of these
particular
tiffs (no compression, not multipage) it is likely to be a simple
array, but it doesn't need to be. Reverse engineering it exactly would
mean poking about in one of these for a couple of hours to see which
way round the pixels are etc., referring to (say) this as you go:
http://www.fileformat.info/format/tiff/
The question is, what's the point? It's the 21st century, nobody writes
code from scratch to read standard files anymore. Link against
libtiff:
http://www.libtiff.org
and it will read any tiff you like into whatever array you like in
memory for you, without you having to worry about the details of the
file format. Then operate on that array all you like. Alternatively
convert the tiff to a raw bitmap using some conversion software, and
read the bitmap.
[commenting on: The transformation specifies what is actually done, and
there is no reference to any particular program's own
terminology.]: The link I gave you to to the description of what Gimp
does for subtraction included the equations which are applied to
the rgb pixel values. That's good enough for me to implement my own
version should I wish to.
[commenting on: So again, I'm saying I think all we absolutely need for
the foundation of a standard is the vectors specification for the
TIFF's.]: The TIFF specification (links above, the full spec is linked
from the libtiff site) documents tiffs in general, the details of these
particular ones would need to be reverse engineered as I said above.
I do agree that we have to be able to specify exactly what the applied
_transformation_ was, and is is therefore good to be able to
program that transformation ourselves (although GImp for example is
well documented). However, at some point you have to start
trusting the basic, standard tools like libtiff as well, otherwise you
end up rewriting everything from scratch: compiler, I/O libraries,
operating system. Where do you stop? If anything, I would trust libtiff
to get reading a potentially complex file format like tiff right
better than my own code, as it has been developed and debugged over a
much longer period of time by a lot of people.
Berj says:
I didn't know about libtiff (will look into it), but if it is a
well-documented method of specifying vector access to the pixels in a
tiff
then we're all set. I'd think a test would be to create a tiff from
scratch - say a black long-stemmed cross on gray background, like the
16-pixels example [cross.tiv] from earlier. Then see if the created
tiff actually shows that with an image program.
Anyway I think we are converging here on protocols for image
processing. At some point I'd think the J.VS Library would have a
general deposit for various sophisticated [image processing]
transforms.
Greg [commenting on: ....... Terms like that seem to be part of the
graphic artist lingo that image processing programs like GIMP
employ.] says:
Well, this is a disadvantage of using the Gimp for this work. It is
designed for graphic artists. The functionality is mostly there and
documented well, but hidden under 'artist' terminology. Which is why I
think something like VIPS or ImageJ or coding from scratch is
more suited to what we want to do. I'd still counsel against writing
everything from scratch though: use the libraries like libtiff, use the
frameworks like ImageJ, let them handle reading the file, and
concentrate on coding the interesting things which are the actual
transformations.
[commenting on creating a test tiff from scratch]: The problem with
tiff is that is is a very flexible format, which means there are a lot
of things which are called 'tiff' but which are read and written quite
differently with the relevant information given in the header (at the
very least they can be big-endian or little-endian).
So I think that while if would be easy enough to create a 'tiff' from
scratch there is no guarantee that the same code will read any
_other_ tiff you might come across (say written by Gimp), unless you
write it in accordance with the full spec -- which essentially
means rewriting the whole of libtiff. Which is why it is better to use
the library in the first place. That said, my gut feeling is that the
tiffs produced by converting from the sids using Lizard's tools are
probably fairly simple. They certainly don't have any compression,
but they might have some odd pixel ordering (for example tiffs can be
written in square blocks rather than entire full-width raster lines,
which is faster if you don't need to read the whole image). Without
looking carefully at the header it is difficult to say.
Berj says:
Alright then, it seems that exploring libtiff is the next step.
[end of redaction of 4 NOV 2007 off-J discussion of technical details
toward an image processing procedure standard.]
*********************
114
From: Berj Ensanian
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 22:12:25 -0500 (EST)
Subject: J.VS: Preliminary 1st outline for protocols for
precision Voynich image processing
Note: see J.VS communication #113 for previous discussion leading to
here.
Berj says:
Here at Adobe's developer resources page:
http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/tiff/index.html
they have the TIFF 6.0 Specification as a 385kb PDF document - well
written. They also have a couple of Supplements docs I haven't
yet looked at.
Anyway, based on our discussions so far here's a very preliminary
outline I conceive for to-become-protocols for precision Voynich
image processing. Some of the points, like 3.) are not yet
known-as-fact, but hoped to be so. And also it needs references in
several
places, like where to get the MrSIDViewer.
1.) The Beinecke Library provides images of MS 408 (Voynich Manuscript)
online, with the best quality images in the Lizardtech SID
format.
2.) As one of its functions the Lizardtech's MrSIDViewer extracts /
converts the SID into the maximum-available image-information
TIFF format.
3.) All the converted-from-Beinecke-SID's TIFF images have the same
TIFF format, for example: Little-endian and so on.
4.) A stable, well-documented, and easy-to-use array handling program
(essentially a spreadsheet program) - will take the TIFF and:
4a.) report the TIFF's organization: width & height in pixels,
number of pixel matrices ( e.g. just one if it is gray-scale),
digitization
resolution n for 2^n, etc.
4b.) load the numerical values of the pixels (say values between 0x00
and 0xFF) into a simple array that permits viewing and
operating upon the pixel bytes-values in Arabic numerals form (e.g.
0-255).
4c.) permit operations upon the array, and save the new array as a TIFF
in the same format as 3.)
5.) Image processing is then handled by this array / spreadsheet
program, for example let:
X = array (image) #1
Y = array (image) #2
Z = X - Y (a new image #3 that was created via pixel-by-pixel
subtraction of Y from X)
Needless to say if Z has some negative numbers, you can then have the
spreadsheet program clip them at zero.
Therefore the complete image processing procedure would be specified by
the formula, or steps-taken with the spreadsheet program:
Z = floor-clip{X - Y}
As long as it was crystal clear what precisely was done, the processing
steps could even be expressed in plain English, instead of
giving the Z = formula.
I think the above strategy answers our main concerns with image
processing protocols: precise specification of the image
transformation, plus simple enough for practical use even by
non-advanced-mathematical Voynich workers. We can also build up a
J.VS Library deposit holding specs for standard Z = formulas for, say
contrast adjust, negatived, converted-to-gray-scale, and so on.
It seems then that the hurdle is getting the TIFF into a good
spreadsheet. If a spreadsheet (I have almost no familiarity with
post-1985
spreadsheets) can't do it on its own, then an additional program, maybe
something from libtiff, is needed. Also, if the spreadsheet
cannot on its own handle a particular sophisticated math operation in
the array, then as long as it is able to exchange arrays intact with
a mathematics program all goes well.
Greg says:
Good mail, Berj. The VIPS package which I linked to a few mails back
bills itself as a 'spreadsheet' for image processing. I haven't had
time to test it but it may be what you want. If not it should not be a
problem to use a maths program like Octave/Matlab, although the
learning curve will be a bit steeper. Conventional spreadsheets like
Excel aren't really up to this job I'm afraid.
Berj says:
I'll go have a look at the VIPS program as soon as I get a chance. I
was thinking of Jan's comment about filtering. Here's an example of
how simple and straightforward that could be within the protocol:
Lets again use the 4x4 pixels example, and say that it is already a
gray-scale image, say of an area where we are hunting for a hidden /
masked / erased / acid-treated "signature":
3454
2444
2464
1434
Lets say we suspect there is a letter in there, and we want to filter
it out if we can. We can specify a filter by telling the array handling
spreadsheet to "let through" just one shade of gray, namely the
gray-level = 4, and make all other pixels either pure white, 0, or pure
black, 7, say for now pure white. The spreadsheet will produce this:
0404
0444
0404
0404
and after saving it to TIFF and viewing it with say IrfanView, we will
see an "M" appear. That is a simple filter operation, anyone who
can work with the spreadsheet can do it, and it was beautifully
precise. As to whether or not it is an acceptable filtering transform
for
concluding that there is an "M" in there, well that is of course a
different matter. But certainly we can conceive of putting a physical
filter of some kind in front of the original picture, a physical filter
tuned to allow only that one shade of gray to get through. And of
course we could have a filter that allowed a selection of gray shades,
i.e. more than one, to get through.
So my point is that these protocols are converging toward addressing
our two main concerns: that the image processing is a precise
transformation independent of the actual tools, however simple or
advanced, used to accomplish the processing, plus it is all simple
enough so that any Voynich worker can do it. If you can work with a
spreadsheet, then you can do this, and the protocols ensure that
there is not the slightest ambiguity about what you did to the source
image.
[ end of J.VS comm. #114. Berj / KI3U ]
*******************************************
115
From: Berj Ensanian
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 13:54:53 -0500 (EST)
Subject: J.VS: Image processing protocols; Mnishowsky;
steganography; Aldebaran; Alphabet Tables; ENGLAND
[Note: below is the redacted off-J discussions following 7 NOV 2007 and
J.VS communication #114, to ~ noon EST 12 NOV 2007.]
Jan [to Berj about image processing] says:
What I meant by "filtering" or whatever name they give it, say
deconvolution and else, I meant it in general sense, i.e. any
processing
of the picture (ie. there is a deconvolution filter, meaning
deconvolution is a kind of filtering). And filters are just tools for
filtering.
As for processing, there are several graphic editors that offer user
the manual setup to the processing matrix by themselves, or as they
call it mathematical processing (say logic OR, EXCLUSIVE OR, nonlinear,
etc.). I am afraid however that we may never know
exactly what they do and of course it is applicable to some formats
only. Another problem is how accurate is their process to be able to
consider the results true.
I guess since you went so far in your definitons, you may as well set
up your own program, the program where you know what is
exactly happening. Of course, you can then create your own, better
filters for certain purposes, that would be reusable and further
improved, if necessary.
Greg says:
Any image/mathematical processing worth its salt will document exactly
what the processing is and any restrictions on the format
(once the image has been read into memory, file format will of course
be irrelevant from the point of view of processing, but other
things like RGB may not be). I wouldn't recommend using any program
which is not properly documented for the work we're
discussing, even if for 'ordinary' image processing it would be fine.
Jan says:
Exactly.
Greg says:
Gimp is well documented, for example, and of course professional-grade
mathematical processing software like Matlab or Octave are
too. This includes documenting accuracy, such as double/single
precision etc.
Berj says:
Good point Jan. I think in some cases it could be practical to find out
what was done by a particular graphics program by trying known
protocol transformations on the same source image, and then taking the
difference image with the unknown-transformed image: if the
result is a uniformly blank image, then the known protocols procedure
are the equivalent of what was done.
Greg says:
There may be minor rounding errors which are in fact insignificant but
will show up, but yes, this is a good method. I would only do
this as a final test though, and rely primarily on the documentation.
Some of the more complex transformations can be pretty hairy.
Berj says:
This [image processing according to protocols] will all take some time
to show as practical, and is meant for critical image analysis
situations: where important conclusions on what the VMS is showing are
involved, for example the hidden numbers that you [Jan]
tried to zero in on in f102v2 (Search for hidden numbers in the VM,
comm. #99).
Jan says:
I am preparing the article about Mnishowsky. It seems he knew more
about VM than we thought (and as some think - he may have
been more involved, too).
Berj says:
I am quite curious about what you have found out about Mnishowsky. As I
mentioned some time ago I have had it in my head for a
long time that whoever did the VMS, the letter "M" was important to
them.
[commenting on McCracken's 1948 paper in ISIS on Kircher]:
Incidentally, he [McCracken] gives an English translation (on ISIS
article pages 225-226) that Kircher did in his 1663 Polygraphy book
that I find curiously interesting.
Jan says:
What a coincidence - you must read minds! I am just studying
Trithemius's Polygraphia so I will have a good way to compare them.
There are all three parts of his Steganographia on Net (fortunately) ,
but nothing about Polygraphia, that's too bad. So I have only
several descriptions, but maybe enough to find out how much Kircher
advanced it.
Steganography was long time suggested for the VM but never taken too
seriously. But your pictures, the numbers discovered and if I
may, suggest, take a look at 1006246, 7 and 8 [f99r, f99v, f100r]. The
roots there are weird, but each has distinct number of sub-roots,
clearly countable. Why would herbal show different roots so neatly
lined-up?
Berj says:
Yes any doubt about roots being elements expressing coded information
ought to be laid to rest by the root in f52r.
Greg says:
While I was writing the previous mail I downloaded the nips zipfile
[for the VIPS graphics program] to make sure I wasn't writing
rubbish, and it works fine out of the box, as it were. Just uncompress
and run. Documentation Wiki, links to PDF manual etc):
http://www.vips.ecs.soton.ac.uk/index.php?title=Documentation
FAQ:
http://www.vips.ecs.soton.ac.uk/index.php?title=FAQ
Software:
http://www.vips.ecs.soton.ac.uk/vips-7.12/
You need both nips and vips: nips is the graphical interface and vips
is the library which does the heavy lifting. For Windows
download the latest nips .zip file, it includes the vips library which
is why the file is so big [21 Mb]. The nips executable is in bin.
Berj says:
Would it install itself in windows XP?
Greg says:
It seems to work fine on XP. It doesn't install though, you just unzip
it, and run the nips executable which is in the bin directory. The
link to the original is:
http://www.vips.ecs.soton.ac.uk/vips-7.12/nip2-7.12.5a.zip
Berj says:
Greg, I got it from the official site ok. Apparently, as you said, one
just fires up nips.exe - I loaded f5r into it - it came in as a little
thumbnail. I got a histogram on it also. Anyway, browsing all the
options it does look like this VIPS is quite powerful from the point
of view of the proposed image processing protocols - I saw options in
there for retrieving the matrix, format reporting, and so on. This
V IPS deserves some exploration and I hope the rest of the gang will
have a look at it also.
Robert [to Greg, on possibly deciphering "Aldebaran" in several of the
astro pages] says:
I use GC's transcription for research, but I use EVA to talk about it,
since I've got it pretty much memorized, and GC's is a pain. If
that's what you mean.
Greg says:
My point was that as far as I know there is not a 1-1 mapping between
EVA and Voy101 (correct me if I'm wrong) and therefore the
results might come out slightly differently. Say some of the required
substitutions might go away. Similarly for other transcriptions
like Currier. So it would be worth repeating the analysis of the
Aldebaran labels with different transcriptions to check the result.
Robert says:
No, there is no exact one-to-one correspondence. As you saw in the
chart, "a" and "o" can mean either "b" or "l". I've got the two stars
in the upper right pie slice of f68r3 translated too, using the letters
I have. is Algol, abbreviated and written "LGLO". is Mirfak, using
the earlier name Algenib. "LGBON" or "LGNOB". Apparently "o" is not an
acceptable word ending, so the last couple of letters is
switched. "LGLO" should be "LGOL", of course. Using "o" (L) as a
contraction of "AL" is common.
Berj says:
This lets me bring something up I've been meaning to: having another
look at Mary D'Imperio's transcription alphabet (Table Fig. 19
in her book). I think she later abandoned it in favor of Currier's.
Jan [to Berj about f37v The King] says:
I have only one comment to your "head of king": at that time, most of
manuscripts were dedicated to some royalty or benefactor. The
VM of course could not have it so obvious, but maybe the head is some
sort of similar dedication?
Berj says:
Interesting thought Jan. I think that is not at all a bad explanation.
The King after all, if real, is a magnificent master work. But which
King?
Jan says:
Well, there should be any similiarity with portraits, but I doubt it.
Even if it was drawn accurately, we do not have all portraits
available.
Berj says:
I do have another hidden king with a crown that I've found, but he is
younger, and the artwork making him up is definitely nowhere
near the level of The King. I'll get around to him soon.
Your idea that The King [of f37v] is a dedication portrait is truly
imagination-firing! He definitely does not resemble Rudolf II I'd say.
I've learned more playing with VIPS. So far I do like VIPS, and hope
that all will give it a whirl. I found more hidden/masked text in
some leaves of f53r with it.
Robert says:
I have a short file titled: "Experimental Minimal Alphabet for Broad
Phoneme-Spectrum Transcription". But who wrote it isn't in the
file. Does anyone know, or is willing to own up to it? : )
Berj says:
That was me Robert - it is J.VS comm. #66. I'll attach the complete
communication so you have it intact again.
Robert says:
Thanks, Berj -- I just grabbed and made a text file of what I felt to
be the important part. When I came across it the other day, I noticed
some correspondences with the letter values I've recovered in the VMs.
You have "A" and "N" as "written once" with no additions.
EVA d and y have those same values, and (apparently) no others.
However, in my work, "B" and "L" are related, as are "D" and "O".
Berj says:
Interesting coincidene - I didn't realize it as I usually work with GC
and don't have EVA memorized. Also as mentioned, I'm now
taking another look at D'Imperio's alphabet. Also I've been pondering a
slight change in the TABLE 1 of comm. #66, in 3: swapping
the C and S. Here's the latest version of the table:
TABLE 1 : Experimental minimal Alphabet for broad phoneme-spectrum
transcription
Note: the Hindu-Arabic numeral index numbers are optionally expressed
by their corresponding letters. The Latin letters are meant to
represent phonemes, and the Table is primarily a set of relationships
between phonemes: therefore glyphs other than the Latin could be
used. The basic alphabet consists of the "Letter written once" set, but
optionally may be expanded by "Written twice" and "Written
thrice". | = space or other scripting device.
Index: Letter written once; Written twice; Written thrice
0: |
1: A
2: B; P
3: S; C
4: D; T
5: E; I
6: F; V; W
7: G; K; Q
8: H
9: J; Y
10: L
11: M
12: N
13: O; U
14: R
15: X
16: Z
Robert says:
Another thing your alphabet reminds me of -- On the right(?) side of
f1r there is a faded alphabet chart, with two, possibly three
columns side by side. There are Voynich letters written beside them,
and I spent some time trying to see them clearly (this was before
we had the SIDs). Hmm... maybe it's worth another look, now that I
think about it.
Berj says:
Yeah that f1r margin alphabet table is another reason for having a good
image processing protocol in place. I'm back to looking for a
very simple access to an image's matrix elements since that is they key
for any image processing protocols; I will have to get down to
business and read the TIFF specification with concentration. I want to
re-emphasize that I think the masked / hidden layer of the VMS
is extremely interesting, and new fertile ground that must be explored,
but we have to have a standard image processing protocol if we
are to believe our own images. Not so?
I took a sneak peek at Jan's new article on Mnishowsky [shortly to be
deposited into the J.VS Library]. One thing I'm getting from it, if
I have it right, is that back then translated books might have had
another purpose from the apparent one: to covertly introduce new
cryptography ideas. Hmm. Btw Jan, I had also done what you did with
Mnishowsky's picture - negative and horizontal flip - I was
looking for any sign of gallows letters, maybe around his owl-like
eyes, but I didn't see anything in that little picture.
Jan says:
The positive-negative picture of Mniskowsky was just to show his other
side - like with the Moon, we never saw it. Of course, it is just
a negative, not his back :-).
Robert says:
I just took a quick look at the SID file [of f1r]. Some more data might
be teased out of it, but one thing is clear on the chart: a = EVA
"d", which is what I've got from my recent alphabet work. Attached is
an updated file [Letter Values Table.doc], which includes some
experimental work.
Berj says:
r. If your alphabets table substitutions produce some words other than
"Aldebaran" anywhere in the VMS, even in X,Y system
anagram form, it would be very interesting. Of course I realize that is
a lot of work to investigate, and slow going.
Robert says:
One of my long-standing projects is working on the words directly below
the moons on f67r2. I thought they might be month names,
or astrological sign names, but neither fit.
With the success(?) of my Aldebaran work, I tried using the letter
values on those words. Here is my one success to date:
The word at the 5 o'clock position, EVA .
y t ch o d l y
N G E L A D N
B O
Unscramble the anagram: ENGLAND
Berj says:
Pretty cool Robert! I like it! If it holds up that will be something.
What do you make of the B and O ?
[end of J.VS communication #115. Berj / KI3U]
*******************************
116
From: Berj Ensanian
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 15:15:27 -0500 (EST)
Subject: J.VS: The Mysterious Dr. Raphael
Greg has installed J.VS Library deposit # 8-4-2007-11-10 here:
http://www.as.up.krakow.pl/jvs/library/8-4-2007-11-10/
10 NOV 2007
Meta-data for J. VS Library deposit:
8-4-2007-11-10
This deposit contains the article investigating the new facts about Dr.
Mnishowsky
THE MYSTERIOUS DR. RAPHAEL
by Jan. B. Hurych
The article provides the new observations about the life of Raphael
Mnishowsky, the hypothesis that he wrote Horczicky's name into
the VM and discovery that his book is actually more about crypotography
than about teaching Czech language. Further research is
recommended.
In the form of one htm file:
jbh6.html
and associated images.
*****************************
117
From: Berj Ensanian
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:27:03 -0500 (EST)
Subject: J.VS: Explanation for inclusion of X in: Experimental
minimal Alphabet for broad phoneme-spectrum transcription,
and more.
Dear All
ED MAJ SEEM REDONDAND DO ENGGLOODE DHE LEDDER X EN DHE DABLE 1 ALBHABED
OF KOMM. #FF
(OBDADED EN KOMM. #115) BEKOZ X KOOD BE REBLASED FFFEEDDH GGS.
DHE REASON X ES EENGLODED ES BEKOZ DHEES LEDDDDER HAS OONEEGGGOOE
FFEESOOAL SJJMBOLEEK
EFFOKADDEEON BBOFFFERS DHAD DHE GGS SOOBSDEDOODEN FFOOD SEFFERELJJ
FFEAKN. AN ABFFEOOS
EXAMBBLE FROM GREEGG EES:
XREESDOS
I've mentioned that it is a lot of fun working with the minimal
alphabet - it tends to stimulate thinking about various aspects of
putting
language down into script. Incidentally, as for the objection that it
permits of ambiguity, a more sophisticated scheme could overcome
that by defining different written-once / twice / thrice sets of the
basic alphabet, and using some device to indicate which set is
operative.
For example, suppose Table 1 from J.VS comm. #66 is defined as set #1,
and the slightly changed version in comm. #115, where the S
and C are swapped, is defined as set #2. Needless to say there is then
a tremendous number of possible minimal alphabet sets.
Consider an unambiguous writing of "Cecilia sings":
Set #1: CECEELEEA CCEENGCC
Set #2: SSESSEELEEA SEENGS
The visual impact evokes ideas, like defining a single glyph, like
GC-1, to optionally take the place of CC when set #1 is operative.
Or, define an intruding gallows glyph for EELEE.
Just about the simplest device that I can think of for switching from
one alphabet set to another, would be switching from the nth
alphabet set to the (n+1)th set, in a cyclic manner, by forcing a twice
or thrice when the current alphabet has no provision for it, and
there is no ambiguity with the spelling of the word which employs this
switching device. Lets try a switch from set #1 to set #2 with
"Cecilia sings":
CECEELEEA CCEENNGS
Next up, one could imagine the rule that a forced twice indicates
cycling forward, and a forced thrice indicates cycling backward, that
is from the nth to the (n-1)th alphabet set. And a forced
multiplication followed immediately by another forced multiplication,
might
indicate a jump to an alphabet set, skipping over some sets. A jump
might even encode its own offset by decoding the index Arabic
numerals corresponding to the letters that forced the jump, and the
offset number would be applied as per clock arithmetic (modular
arithmetic). A large ensemble of sets might even have identical sets
sprinkled across its main sequence.
Rules like these are rather simple, but it might quickly become
complicated for someone unfamiliar with the system to figure out what
is going on - inriguingly, there is the possibility of coherent text,
like "ALDEBARAN" and "ENGLAND" (see Robert's work in comm.
#115; this communication was inspired by it) appearing in short pieces
amid frustrating incoherent nonsense. Yet apparently, as long
as a decipherer knows the system, and can get a foothold by decoding
some coherent sequential text, the remainder can be translated.
The alphabet sets are reminiscent of color palettes - perhaps
(hypothetically) that is how the idea came to the VMS author to employ
the Voynich text glyphs as mosaic tiles to create a hand-script
text-art (today a common relative being ASCII text-art) and made the
amazing portrait (yes hypothetical) of f76r.
One of the main reasons this otherwise rather crude system of writing
with a minimal alphabet is interesting to me in connection with
Voynich work, is because I can imagine that the VMS author might have
created his system not by setting out with ultra-serious and
intense labor, but rather because he was having fun experimenting with
a minimal alphabet that light-heartedly naturally propelled him
/ her toward powerful ideas.
Berj / KI3U
***********************
118
From: Berj Ensanian
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:38:40 -0500 (EST)
Subject: J.VS: Colossus and MD- transcriptions
Dear All
I mentioned earlier this interesting BBC article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7098005.stm
which ties together some history, the latest on the WW II Colossus
code-cracking computer, modern computers, and even amateur
radio. Also as you know I've been re-visiting Mary D'Imperio's
transcription alphabet (Table Fig. 19 in her book). So I thought I'd
have
some fun:
Just for fun, we can make some substitutions of Latin letters /
abbreviations for Voynich letters, say these (here using Mary
D'Imperio's transcription alphabet):
Latin -> MD subs:
"c" -> B
"o" -> D
"l" -> I
"ss" -> K
"us" -> N
and thus translate "colossus" -> MD-BDIDKN ( or equivalently
EVA-cholody ). And then we can "decipher" colossus at least 4 times
in the VMS; for example it occurs on lines
f29v.8, 39v.14, 96r.6, and 100r.9
And interestingly, in f96r.6 and f100r.9 colossus is preceded by the
same group:
MD- BDI.BDIDKN
And we can translate BDI.BDIDKN -> col colossus and then muse that a
colossal apothecary's coliander is being discussed in this
mysterious old text that seems so full of herbal suggestions.
And this all proves absolutely beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt,
nothing much, except that for some of us the BDIDKN of the
Voynich mystery is for no lod in providing interesting coincidences :)
Berj / KI3U
*************************
119
From: Greg Stachowski
To: "J.VS:" journalvs@basicisp.net
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 01:51:16 +0100
Subject: J.VS: "The Research of the Voynich Manuscript" by Jan
Hurych now in the Library
A new article by Jan Hurych, titled
" THE RESEARCH OF THE VOYNICH MANUSCRIPT: The Strategies and the
Results. "
is now available as deposit # 9-4-2007-11-22 in the Library. The link
is:
http://www.as.up.krakow.pl/jvs/library/9-4-2007-11-22/
To quote Jan's abstract:
" The article provides the summary of the "Multiple working hypotheses"
and of the "Strong induction" as well as the results when
looking for similarities only. Instead, the author proposes to look for
exceptions or disagreements and draw inference from those cases.
When working on hypothesis, the first efforts should be therefore to
attempt to disprove it first rather than to prove it. It is generally
also more productive and more dependable method. "
Greg
***********************
120
From: Berj Ensanian
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 11:28:35 -0500 (EST)
Subject: J.VS: Multiple topics off-J discussions since 12 NOV
2007
Dear All
Below [1] is the redaction of our off-J discussions since 12 NOV 2007.
As usual, I hope I did an acceptable job editing the multiple
threads into a coherent flow. I thought it best to package this
particular edit now, as it is already long enough, and possibly new
material may be sprouting up soon that will increase
threads-complexity.
Berj / KI3U
[1] Redaction of off-J discussions from 12 NOV to mid-day 27 NOV 2007.
Discussion participants in order of first appearance are
J.VS members Robert Teague, Berj N. Ensanian, Jan Hurych, Dennis M.
Fedak, Greg Stachowski.
Robert [commenting on Berj's query about the B and O - see end of comm.
#115] says:
Nothing; they are alternate readings of those letters. In the file I
sent today is the "Vertical Letter Sequence Table". By the allowed
substitutions, some letters can have two values, the gallows four
(probably all consonants), and EVA "q" seven. The maximum
number of letter values here should be nineteen..
I intuit that 'q' doesn't have a value itself; just takes what's
assigned to it. That's why the "qo" table at the bottom. I'm encouraged
that
one possible value is "AL".
The Platform Gallows Table is just an experiment. I suspect the other
value of "ch" is a vowel as well. I found a program called
"WordFind" that can unscramble anagrams. In the "f67r2 Words Below the
Moons" file it confirms "England", and also gives me
"global" and "albedo".
Berj says:
Well England would become even more interesting if other words
underneath the other moons yielded country names. At some point
when you think you've got a pretty good collection of data, you ought
to write up the system in a simple to understand format - recall
last week I think it was that I tried an outline of your system, but of
course I don't know it well enough.
I did a quick experiment with the f76r test picture
[VMSf76rHStegoFace.bmp] that the self-appointed from-vms-list
Inquisitor had
knocked its jpeg version off the wikipedia Voynich page [J.VS comm.
#112]. I covered up its rightmost panel showing my outline
drawing, and had Mom look at the other two panels - the normal
(although rotated 40 degrees c.w.) and its negative, asking her if she
saw anything peculiar. She did not see anything in particular. Then I
uncovered the outline drawing, and she immediately said she saw
a face in the negative panel, and then could see it in the normal also.
Jan says:
Interesting point, I remember Turin shroud did not look like anything
too much , but the negative revealed a lot. They even constructed
the 3d model later from it.
Berj says:
Speaking of Shroud of Turing Jan, I wonder if the VMS author knew of
the Shroud of Turin.
As Greg and Dennis correctly pointed out early on, it is nuts to
re-invent the wheel with much of the TIFF business for our image
processing protocols. But it is necessary that at least those of us
directly involved in writing the J.VS image processing protocols
understand what we are talking about. So then, when a precision image
transformation is to be done, it is necessary only to specify
how the TIFF's structure was read (e.g. tiffdump). Then one can simply
write the formula that provides the access to the (x,y,z) of the
pixels without further explanation. Anyone who wants to check how that
formula was obtained, can do it (by torchering themselves
through the TIFF 6.0 spec document and hexdumps etc. :)
Sound ok?
Dennis's last few emails have been very handy for me in getting
familiarity with this stuff. Here below (I hope this email reproduces
it
ok) is how I am proceeding, using Dennis's constructed 1-pixel tif
file:
-0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -9 -A -B -C -D -E -F
00000000- 49 49 2A 00 0A 00 00 00 FF 00 0F 00 00 01 03 00
[II*.............]
00000001- 01 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 01 01 03 00 01 00 00 00
[................]
00000002- 01 00 00 00 02 01 03 00 01 00 00 00 01 00 00 00
[................]
00000003- 03 01 03 00 01 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 06 01 03 00
[................]
00000004- 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 11 01 04 00 01 00 00 00
[................]
00000005- 08 00 00 00 12 01 03 00 01 00 00 00 01 00 00 00
[................]
00000006- 15 01 03 00 01 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 16 01 03 00
[................]
00000007- 01 00 00 00 00 20 00 00 17 01 04 00 01 00 00 00 [.....
..........]
00000008- 01 00 00 00 1A 01 05 00 01 00 00 00 C4 00 00 00
[................]
00000009- 1B 01 05 00 01 00 00 00 CC 00 00 00 1C 01 03 00
[................]
0000000A- 01 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 28 01 03 00 01 00 00 00
[........(.......]
0000000B- 02 00 00 00 31 01 02 00 0A 00 00 00 D4 00 00 00
[....1...........]
0000000C- 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
[................]
0000000D- 01 00 00 00 49 72 66 61 6E 56 69 65 77 00 [....IrfanView. ]
Header (says: little-endian, and 1st (& here the only) IFD starts
at offset h0000000A):
00000000- 49 49 2A 00 0A 00 00 00
Unused bytes?:
00000000- xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx FF 00
Start of IFD (2 bytes telling number of 12-bytes IFD entries, here =
h000F = d15 entries):
00000000- xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx 0F 00
First IFD entry:
00000000- xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx 00 01 03 00
[II*.............]
00000001- 01 00 00 00 01 00 00 00
Tag-number = h0100 = 256 = "ImageWidth", i.e. number of columns in the
image, i.e. number of pixels per scan-line. Because tif-tags
are listed in the IFD's in ascending order, we know that the next
tag-field must have a tag-number > 256.
This tag-type, ImageWidth, can specify values of either short (16-bit
unsigned) or long (32-bit unsigned) data. In our case here we
know it is short, because we see the code for short (3) indicated in
the 3rd and 4th bytes of this IFD entry: h0003
Therefore we now expect a short-expressed value for ImageWidth.
However, we are next first given the Count, meaning the total of number
of short-expressed values that this tag-field provides:
h00000001 in other words just one value.
Finally, we are given either the value, or an offset to where the value
is stored. Because this is a short, it fits into the provided last 4
bytes of the 12-bytes field, and the value is given directly: h00000001
= d1 i.e. altogether ImageWidth = 1 pixel / scanline
And so on and so forth - I hope I'm sorting all this complicated
business out correctly.
Dennis says:
I found, already compiled, the Windows version of tiffinfo.exe. I
started downloading the references, but these are already compiled
and ready to run, without a lot of undo time and effort on my part.
Anyhow attached is both utilities compiled for windows, acquired
from the below link:
http://www.3dnworld.com/links.php?type=Utility&bypass=true
Berj says:
Jan - tnx for cygwin dll url - no longer needed as Dennis sent me the
whole necessary shebang as TIFFUtils.zip which unzips to:
tiffdump.exe and tiffinfo.exe, both now working fine.
One area I think we need some more data on is artefacts arising from
SID-to-TIFF inversion, especially with respect to which program
is doing the inversion. Greg is the most knowledgable about all this
and hopefully he can get to some checks.
Here is what I mean, as I currently conceive the situation:
1.) The photographic equipment produces TIFF original image files.
2.) Lizardtech's proprietary SID compression technique transforms the
TIFF's to SID's. Typically a 77 Mb TIFF is shrunk to ~ 4 Mb
(wow!).
3.) A SID viewer, be it MrSIDViewer.exe or Irfanview or whatever, must
be able to invert the SID compression transform to produce
a displayed image on the screen.
4.) Somewhere along the way in steps 2.) to 3.) artefacts arise that
distort some pixles here and there across the displayed image -
compared with the original "clean" TIFF's from step 1.).
The question I ask is: Do all viewers, (and I suppose all screen
displays) show exactly the same artefacts? I hope this is not a dumb
question. Presumably, if every viewer, like IrfanView, used the same
inversion transform (say provided by Lizardtech as a block of
code) then the inverted images would all show the same exact artefacts?
Robert says:
Well, the only way I can think of to test that is to find an artifact,
and look to see if it appears the same in all available viewers.
Berj says:
Yes, in at least a couple of popular viewers. I think Greg, whose
professional job routinely involves gauging pixel integrity, is the
ideal
man to let us know the story in this particular vein.
Jan says:
Any compression usually creates problems and the only reason I see
Beinecke scans were converted from TIFF to SID was the saving
of downloading space and time for themselves as well as for users. On
top of that conversion, SID readers may screw it up even more.
So you may never know what you see.
Neiher it may help to convert SIDs back to TIFFs, the spots will
reconvert back so we never get "clean" originals. I guess asking
Beinecke for original TIFF's is out of question so we would have to
compromise.
Greg says:
Beinecke may have outsourced the imaging to an external company. In
which case they may have paid only for the end product, the
SIDs, and they may not have the intermediate images from the camera (be
they TIFFs or whatever); indeed these may not exist. Still, it
doesn't hurt to ask.
Jan says:
That is, if the area you study shows some artefacts, you may ether
ignore them or find the program that would clean them out - but
again, it may clean too much and all that work to write such program
would be rather cumbersome. On the other hand, the scans give
so great details that, comparing with original size of vellum and the
size of the quill tip, the artefacts are quite small and should have
negligible effect, except in critical areas.
Berj says:
r Jan. I've too have been wondering if it is possible to obtain the
original TIFF's from the Beinecke. Ideally, the book would be
re-photographed, with color reference cards, and all pages perfectly
flat and in perfect focus uniformly across the page. With the
images as they are available now, I could see possibly some
interpretation problems with real hair-splitting cases - say when
debating
about the pressure of the quill onto the parchment.
Greg says:
From the available LizardTech docs the SID technology for version 2 of
the SIDs (which these are) it is impossible to achieve the level
of compression which they have done without using lossy compression.
Hence the artifacts, which would occur at stage 2.) in Berj's
list. As Jan put it, for the most part they are so small compared to
the bulk of the features that they can be mostly ignored, except in
critical cases. Still, any kind of colour analysis or edge enhancement
has to be aware of their existence. (By the way, assuming the
image viewers are reading the file correctly, the artifacts should
always be the same.)
Dennis says:
Where did SID images come into this?
Greg says:
Hypothesising, I suspect that the reason SIDs were chosen is because
they (combined with the original viewer from Lizard) enable
only sending as much information as is needed at the requested
resolution or image size, thus improving online performance. Noble in
intent, but between the compression artefacts and the proprietary
nature of the SID software, a little flawed in implementation.
Dennis says:
Artifacts on a color screen, with its various pixel sizes vs the
compression algorythm itself is an interesting point. ( or why X-Ray
images are still photographed in B&W ). I'm thinking that the only
true representative display device, is the RGB 3 projector system,
where each CRT ( R,G,B ) is ONLY for 1 color, and therefore there is NO
pixel size, and pixel spacing issue.
Greg says:
There is still a question of the colour space, which is usually not
fully able to represent all possible visible colours. Also, the pixel
size
and resolution problem is more critical in the camera, rather than in
the display device, since the former is fixed while the latter can be
used to zoom in.
The highest resolution cameras are still those for chemical film. The
other thing is that to achieve really high digital resolution, one
uses B&W imaging chips with gel or glass single colour filters (say
RGB), rather than a colour imaging chip which trades resolution
for single-shot colour (the pixels have tiny colour filters built in).
Dennis says:
It would be interesting to compare B&W aliasing images ( striped )
on multiple CRT/LCD/projection devices to actually see the
interference.
Greg says:
Hmm. Interesting. Could you expand?
Jan says:
I just finished the new article for J.VS: THE RESEARCH OF THE VOYNICH
MANUSCRIPT: The Strategies and the Results.
Berj says:
I just read it Jan. My thoughts go to the idea that arose with f76r:
the possibility that the text is either totally just graphic mosaic
elements, or variously a combination of mosaic tiles and cipher. Now,
that idea is certainly a counter to the notion that the text is
cipher in the traditional sense. If the readers of your paper embraced
your suggestions enthusiastically, then one would think that the
proposition that f76r holds a text-mosaic portrait would be welcomed as
an alternative to cipher attacks.
Robert says:
I've made some more progress in translating labels, and adding to my
collection of letter values. The files are attached [f68r3 Star
Label Letter Values.doc; Letter Values Table.doc; Voynich Manuscript
Aldebaran Variations.doc ]. It seems labels are produced by
either leaving out letters, anagramming the word, or both.
Greg, would you mind looking at the PM-Curve word a little closer?
Since we know what the curve means, can you think of a word
using those letters that would fit? Or any word at all, for that
matter.
I found a program called WordFind v3.3 that has been very helpful. In
the words below the moons on f67r2 I've found "England" and
"Holland" using it. It didn't help with the PM-Curve word, though.
You can also create additional lexicon files for it, and I've done so
for the astrological fixed stars and signs.
Berj says:
In other words [as I interpret Robert's letters tables], "ALGOL" can
also be found written "LGL". Well, maybe. It would need some
convincing though, like the contexts of ALGOL and LGL pointing to it
being the same word. And it is a long-running controversy in
Voynichville whether or not the text, assumed as plain text in some
language but a strange alphabet, is ok to translate as vowel-less -
one of the most famous/controversial vowel-less translations of the VMS
is the vowel-less Ukrainian of John Stojko from the 1970's.
He concludes the VMS is a series of letters written to the eye of "Baby
God", or something like that - I forget now. His work is
imaginative and interesting, but doesn't have many followers.
Dennis [commenting to Robert and Jan about the Sukhotin
vowels-detecting algorithm] says: I have found, many references to
using
the algorhythm but I have NOT found the procedure itself. Here are some
interesting links you may already have ( sent in plain text ).
Voynich MS - References and Web Sites, Sukhotin algorithm is NOT yet
included in the Voynich Analysis methods at the URL
below: http://www.voynich.nu/a_char.html
NOTE from above URL: "Vowel/consonant detection, Included here will be
at least:
Application of Sukhotin algorithm by Jacques Guy, One or two
pronouncible examples by Jacques, On-line example of Mike Roe "
Current published analysis methods at URL:
http://www.voynich.nu/a_intro.html
Other published, (membership required) texts at URL:
" The application of Sukhotin's algorithm to certain non-English
languages " by: George T. Sassoon
Published by: United States Military Academy, West Point, New York USA
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=140321
Archive references at URLs:
http://www.voynich.net/Arch/2001/01/msg00077.html
http://www.voynich.net/Arch/2001/01/msg00081.html
Jan says:
Well, I was looking for the algorithm Jacques [Guy] used in his article
which I do not have. I have this from VML:
1) reduce all double, triple, etc. letters to single letters.
2) assume the most frequent letter is a vowel.
3) assume the letter which occurs most often in positions NOT adjacent
to a vowel is also a vowel.
4) repeat step 3 until every letter which has not been identified as a
vowel always occurs next to a vowel.
As Robert Firth pointed out, even the word "algorithm" defies Suckhotin
rules. Of course angrams do, too. Besides, Sukhotin is
nothing but geometrical statistics, it's a long way to real grammar.
Greg [on the Sukhotin algorithm] says:
I just found the origin of this by accident; it's Gabriel's [Landini].
See:
http://www.voynich.net/Arch/2001/01/msg00086.html
The original site no longer exists, though.
Robert says:
The label was "LGLO", de-anagrammed to "LGOL". The Author would think
"L" was close enough to "AL", so phonetically it would
be "aLGOL". Since the inital A was left off "Algeneb", it has the same
effect. That label comes out "LGBON", converted to "LGNOB"
(phonetically "aLGeNOB") I found variant spellings using E and I in
Allen's. (In any case, it was pretty obvious "Mirfak" wouldn't
work.)
This might be where only certain letters are permitted to end words
comes in, and EVA , "E", isn't one of them, so he used "O" instead.
Or he misspelled. Or grabbed the wrong letter from the chart.
Over on f67r2 I might have found "Poland" to go along with "England"
and "Holland", but if so, it's spelled "Pollan".
Greg [answering Robert's request to look at the PM-curve word a little
closer] says:
Do we indeed _know_ what it means? We guess, but do we know?
Robert says:
It was YOUR picture (Pleiades.pdf) showing it to be the Moon's apparent
path, that proved it to me.
Greg says:
Anyway, nothing springs to mind at first glance, but I shall stare at
it for a bit.
Robert says:
Thanks. I thought you might know more terms for what it shows than I
do. Just in case it might make it easier: The top line is the value
most used with the letter. The bottom line is the alternate value.
o a l ch c o l
L B D E R L D
B L O B O
Greg says:
Since I posted that I've had a thought about what this could, but I
won't reveal it yet until I check a few things. Thanks for the other
mail about the letters. Are there any other possible alternatives?
Particularly the two "?" you marked?
Berj [commenting on the PM-curve word / label] says:
Well then Robert, how about the obvious question: which letters do you
have available as possible matches for the Voynich letters in
the PM-curve word? We can play with those letters and maybe come up
with an idea, like: BORELLO
I just plugged into google: borello astro
There was a Borelli / Borellius (1608-1679 ?) involved with the
invention of the telescope. I gotta look into this Petrus Borellius.
Robert [answering Greg] says:
Not yet. I've been looking hard for other letter values, but nothing's
come to me yet. I've been working with the three columns of letters
(files attached). [F76r Letter Table.doc; F49v Letter Table.doc; F66r
Letter Table.doc]
Jan says:
Now about something completely different, to quote Monty Python. One
thing bothers me: the story about Mnishowsky as it was put
in the Wikipedia does not have author or any quotations and it is not a
common knowledge. On the other hand, it does not seem like a
drug induced speculation: after all, we now know that Mnishowsky was a
skilled cryptographer and his book is no textbook of Czech
language (I have more info from leading cryptographer from Slovakia),
apparently I have to write another article about that. And
what's more, Horczicky's name really looks like it was written by
Mnishowsky (it only looks, but it's close enough). If he ever owned
the VM, he was not telling Marci the whole truth. I do not see him as
an author, however the script of the VM is disconnected like his
( no other handwriting of all I checked is that much disconnected,
practically every character).
Too bad we know so little about that fellow. No wonder he wrote his own
epitaph, nobody knew him so well :-).
[end of J.VS comm. #120]
*******************************
121
From: Berj Ensanian
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 00:33:32 -0500 (EST)
Subject: J.VS: Fr. Theodorus Moretus
Dear All
Standard Voynich manuscript history relies heavily on a letter, APUG
557 353r&v [1], dated 27 April 1639, Prague, written to
Athanasius Kircher by one Georgius Baresch, a friend of
doctor-scientist and Kircher-friend Joannes Marcus Marci. In his letter
Baresch names Fr. Moretus as knowing of the mysterious script that
Baresch is trying to interest Kircher in, and as acting as a courier
for Baresch in the matter. [2]
It is assumed that Fr. Moretus is the famous Jesuit mathematician /
astronomer Theodorus Moretus / Moreti, 1602-1667. There is a
body of Fr. Moretus' papers, and literature about him, but as far as I
know nothing has yet been discovered in them that sheds any light
on his being mentioned in Baresch's letter. [3]
I have located six letters from Fr. Moretus to Kircher in the APUG
archive [4]. There are image quality, transcription, and translation
issues, but from initial glances I don't see any smoking guns vis-a-vis
Baresch etc. Careful reading may however enable us to deduce
something useful from them.
I think of Moretus as one of the "M-guys" in the Voynich Manuscript
Mystery, along with Marci and Mnischowsky. The mystery
seems to like M's, from merlins to Mondragone. Lately I've been
wondering more and more about some of Jan's on and off-J
conjectures along the lines that maybe Kircher himself, for good
reasons, faked the last letter of Marci found with the VMS, and even
that Marci was heavily involved in creating the VMS. In addition to the
obvious medical aspects, Marci was for a while the world's
expert in certain areas of color optics, and I've often mentioned my
belief that the lower left diagram portion of f67v2 is a RGB color
theory diagram. I do also still entertain very much that the VMS may
have been a cooperative project, perhaps involving all the
M-guys and Kircher in some way or other.
I add initial comments from Jan Hurych below [5]. I am wondering Jan,
if, as you have hinted a number of times in the past, "Baresch"
was a means to Marci to get Kircher's attention. Maybe once Marci got
Kircher's attention, they started cooperating on a project,
possibly leading to the VMS, during some tumultuous times. Moretus
could have supplied the astronomy, Mnishowsky the script,
Marci the physiology and optics (I keep thinking of the arm-star
diagram now and again), and so on.
I's like to see some portraits of Marci in his younger days - compare
them to the f76r hand-script text-art portrait that I clearly see.
Jan, have a look at Baresch's sine (manu-propria) and let me know off-J
what you think about what is going on with it at its lower
right.
Well, it keeps on getting more interesting, doesn't it?
Berj / KI3U
[1] http://archimede.imss.fi.it/kircher/557/large/353r.jpg
http://archimede.imss.fi.it/kircher/557/large/353v.jpg
[2] see J.VS comm. #10, Letters to Kircher by Baresch and Marci, 1 MAR
2007
[3] see Jan Hurych's vms-list post: Re: Re: Re: VMs: Moretus, Fri, 11
Jun 2004 19:55:59 -0500
[4: 1 to 6] Letters to Kircher from Theodorus Moretus in the online
APUG Kircher archive, with a few notes:
[4-1] 25 DEC 1638 ltr fm Theodorus Moretus; Magnetismos; Archimede;
Praga; verso address to AK:
http://archimede.imss.fi.it/kircher/567/large/007r.jpg
[4-2] 8 JAN 1639 ltr fm Theodorus Moretus; Praga; verso adr to AK in
Rome:
http://archimede.imss.fi.it/kircher/567/large/023r.jpg
[4-3] 22 FEB 1642 ltr fm Theodorus Moretus; Arabica; Persica;
Mathematicis; D. Doctor Marcus; Mercury; verso adr to AK mailed
fm Boemia:
http://archimede.imss.fi.it/kircher/567/large/055r.jpg
[4-4] 30 JUL 1642 ltr fm Theodorus Moretus; eclipsi Praga; P. Conradus;
R.P. Guilielmo duCoroy; verso adr to AK and an apparent
post-script:
http://archimede.imss.fi.it/kircher/567/large/080r.jpg
[4-6] 9 OCT 1642 ltr fm Theodorus Moretus; eclipsis; Praga; Doctor
Marcus; verso adr mailed by P. Moretus fm Praga:
http://archimede.imss.fi.it/kircher/567/large/056r.jpg
[4-5] 10 or 16 MAY 1642 Moretus letter pages: 126-127rv url's are out
of sequence:
127v = start of ltr; D. Joannes Marcus Marci MD.; D. Nicclaus
Tranchimontanus; instrumentum; Tycho; Rudolpho Imperatore; points
to Primum next:
http://archimede.imss.fi.it/kircher/567/large/127v.jpg
126r = start of Primum; astronomical observations ~ Luna, Spica
Virginis etc.:
http://archimede.imss.fi.it/kircher/567/large/126r.jpg
126v = continuation, has a sun-moon eclipse diagram:
http://archimede.imss.fi.it/kircher/567/large/126v.jpg
127r = continuation fm 126rv & ending of ltr; D. Doctor Marcus; 10
or 16 MAY 1642 fm Theodorus Moretus in Praga:
http://archimede.imss.fi.it/kircher/567/large/127r.jpg
[5] 3 DEC 2007 off-J initial comments on the above by Jan Hurych:
In Czech page:
http://www.nkp.cz/vystavy/utilitas/utilitas.htm
about Jesuit mathematics in Prague, is this paqragraph:
" a v letech 1630-1667 významný matematik
belgického puvodu Theodorus Moretus (1602-1667), který je
autorem prvních
matematických disertací obhajovaných v Praze a
jeho? príchod do Prahy znamenal zvý?ení
úrovne matematických studií v
Klementinu. Moretovy vedecké deníky
obsahující odborné poznámky a koncepty i
jeho korespondenci s predními evropskými ucenci
té doby (Kircher. Conrad, Riccioli aj.... "
loosely translated as:
" ..in years 1630-1667 the famous mathematician of Belgian descent
Theodorus Moretus (1602-1667) was the author of first
mathematical dissertations attested in Prague and whose arrival in
Prague meant the increase of quality of mathematical studies in
Clementinum. His scientific diaries containing his expert notes,
concepts and his correspondence with top European scientists of his
time ( Kircher, Conrad, Rissio;li etc.)... "
-------------
According to other source, he was born in Antwerp , entered SJ in 1608,
in 1620 - 1627 he studied at Louvain University (which is
connected to Dee, too) , in 1621 was a teacher of mathematics in
Munster. When his teacher Gregorius left for Prague and fell sick,
Moretus left for Prague too and was helping him there in 1630-1631. He
than stayed in Bohemia till his death, In Prague in years
(1634-1639, 1641, 1649-1652) in Olomouc 1632-1634 and in Vratislav
(1659-1662, 1633-1667 where he died).
His field was physics, astronomy, mathematics and geometry. One Moon
crater is named after him (so is one after Marci), He wrote
about 10 works, some are in manuscript form.
----------
My (Jan) comment: Taking in account that Marci was also a physicist and
wrote a book about the quadrature of the circle, they must
have known each other very well and surely discussed mathematical
problems. Baresch, on the other side, was alchemist and esoterical
scientist.
It is quite possible that Moretus brought the letter of Baresch and
samples of the VM to Kircher on the direct advice by Marci. But it
was surely in sealed envelope, so he might not know the details of its
content. This is of course only a speculation: Baresch might have
approached Moretus already before to help him crack the VM, who knows?
And what about Kinner who asked Kircher about he VM on marci's behalf (
I vaguely remeber it was 3 months before Marci's death)?
Well, apaprently not only Marci, but Moretus was curious too. Moretus's
letter is full of mathematical subjects and references. In that
case, Prague Jesuits might have known about the VM, too, some
mathematicians might even take a shot at cracking it :-).
[end of J.VS comm. #121]
************************************
122
From: Berj Ensanian
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 00:12:31 -0500 (EST)
Subject: J.VS: Fr. Moretus's 22 FEB 1642 letter to Kircher,
and more
Dear All
Below [1] is the redaction of our off-J discussions 27 NOV - 4 DEC
2007. To Greg and Dennis: have a safe trip back home, from
vastly different and great distances.
Berj / KI3U
[1] Redaction of off-J discussions 27 NOV - 4 DEC 2007. Participants in
order of first appearance are J.VS members Berj N.
Ensanian, Dennis M. Fedak, Greg Stachowski, Jan Hurych.
Berj says:
I got from Tim Raymond a 67-pages paper: The Invention of the
Telescope, by Albert Van Helden, American Philosophical Society,
1977. This paper may well come in very handy with VMS work in general.
Roger Bacon is referred to again and again, and we also get
plenty of Della Porta, Dee, and Harriot. I want at least Greg's opinion
on this paper.
Van Helden is a good theorist - does some calculations to make his
arguements about when two lenses could have become real
telescopes. But he dismisses the idea that a real telescope could have
been discovered accidentally because the required 24 inches
separation between known available lenses in ~1600 exceeded arms
length. In other words, an experimenter would not think of putting
one of the lenses on the end of a stick, say. Well I don't buy that.
What it appears to me happened is that the principle of the real
telescope was known for a long time before Van Helden et al believe,
kept more or less secret or discussed in the open only in terms of
obfuscating "magic". But then around 1600 high quality lenses
became commonly available in some European trade fair, and the time for
the thing to take off had suddenly arrived. And you have the
controversy over who "invented" it: Metius vs Lipperhey vs Jannsen etc.
Van Helden casually mentions that among the earliest astronomical
observations with telescopes was the noticing of more stars in
constellations, like the Pleiades. Of course. Well, we've got f68r3
focused on the Pleiades. And as I made a big deal about back during
the PM-curve work, I believe the two circular panels to the left of
f68r3 represent the view through a telescope. So, altogether this
reinforces my belief that the VMS is a post-astronomical-telescope
document.
There is still Robert's question: what could the PM-curve word/label
be. Robert and Greg lean toward the meaning of the curve
describing the moon's sky-path, but they have not provided an equation
that matches the curve to such, their idea is still qualitative. I
have provided a precise equation demonstrating the curve likely encodes
an elliptic orbit, possibly even of two interacting objects -
comets? Suppose, that the PM-curve label, being seven letters long,
simply says: 360
In other words: one cycle.
In Van Helden's paper he mentions the Comet controversy of 1618 - that
seems to have escaped my studies of the comets situation
back then. I must look into that.
Dennis [answering Greg's request to elaborate on testing for artifacts
via aliasing, see comm. #120] says:
Note: the below, test application, requires java.
http://ptolemy.eecs.berkeley.edu/eecs20/week13/moire.html
My idea, was to use something similiar to the test program, but have an
uncompressed version on the left and a compression of choice
version of it on the right, in order to determine losses, and Moire
banding, courtesy of compression/decompression and LCD vs 3CRT
displays.
The Moire occurs between the:
a) dot printing of the original image and the striped sampling of the
scanner
b) between the sampled image of the scanner and the striping of the LCD
screen
c) compression algorythms may add to the striping problem, depending on
the nature of compression sampling and the accuracy of the
decompression.
I am not familiar enough with the schemes of compression and their
anticipated error rates, to know if there they can contribute to
apparent banding in the image, this would require much more research,
but a relatively simple test could be performed. ( Sure wish I
had time to set it up). What appears to the eye as darkened bands in an
image and potential hidden intelligence may not be seen by
your TIF analyzer program.
Greg says:
Berj, if you can get the [Van Helden] paper I'll certainly have a look
at it.
Jan says:
The "layer depth analysis" of the VM could be very informative: while
the coloring was certainly done after the text was written and
pictures drawn, it may confirm the idea that coloring surely served the
masking purpose. After all, those colors are only few like those
from one dollar kit, sold in children store, and mostly do not follow
the real colors of the plants or objects anyway .
And if there was something to mask, it was certainly important enough
to be masked and could be actually the real secret of the VM.
Now we cannot do layer depth analysis on existing scans only or can we?
Color deconvolution does only the surface trick, I am afraid,
and it cannot separate two layers of colors that partially dissolved
one into another and might even have reacted chemically. Provided
the upper layer was painted by some watercolor, we cannot now properly
separate them electronically, based on color tint only.
The layer analysis on the other hand may (for instance) also reveal the
extent odd damage Voynich caused to the folio bearing the
erased "signature". It may even reveal the traces of the original
erasure underneath. Right now, I could not distinguish what is a former
erasure (if any) and what is the damage.
Imagine this scenario: there was a need for some identification of the
VM for provenance purposes but Voynich foolishly promised not
to reveal the seller. Marci's letter does not give any details to prove
it talks about the attached VM either.
So what about writing Horczicky's name there, that would identify it
enough. But Marci nor Baresch saw any name there, so we better
erase it and "rediscover" it a later day? And so the mystery of the
"erased signature" was born, after all one has to explain nobody saw
it before. Fine, but the signature and its "old erasure" should be
tracable. Not too much, since neither Baresch nor Marci and not even
Voynich spotted the erasure either. Also, in old times, they had only
limited means for erasure - mind you, there was no Javex or
Clorox Bleach Pen :-). They only had water, some strong chemicals and
pen knife. Certainly there would be too many problems and
experts might find out the truth. So somebody got an idea: why don't we
do the accidental spill that covers the whole area and nobody
could trace anything any more except the crudely visible "signature"?
The chemical or spectroscopical analysis can put these doubts about the
veracity of the erasure in rest: no visible scratches are seen
now and all that remains for us is to find the traces of ink dissolved
in water or some other chemical, which was different from the
"modern" one used by Voynich. If they are found, fine, if not, then the
"erasure" is just another mystification like the the Austrian
castle told originally by Voynich to Newbold two years before his
death. After all, while everybody talked by the accidental spill,
Voynich revealed that "accidental" was just the original underexposure
and he provided no explanation how he made Horczicky's
name permanently visible - as it is now - and created at the same time
the mess around it. That mess is definitely NOT there after
original erasure: even half blind Marci could have spotted it and refer
about it to Kircher :-).
Funny, now when I mentioned that: did Voynich ever specify what
chemical stuff he used? We may find that via chemical analysis too
- after all, there are not too many chemicals that we know can reveal
the erased writing . . . :-)
Berj says:
Well Jan there is no doubt that if we had the opportunity to apply
hi-tech imaging to the VMS we'd have plenty of ideas! I've been
wondering this: Dennis suggested Moire patterns as a means for
investigating artifacts in the available images. I was unable to use
that
url he gave on account of not having the applet or whatever; however, I
think it is an intriguing idea and would like to see him and
Greg discuss it some more. Which brings me to: could a Moire analysis
attack tell us something new about the f1r "signature"?
Elsewise, I'm thinking we might plug a few more items into the
Timeline. In particular I'd like you (Jan) to suggest something for
Mnishowsky. Also we need I think some more astronomical events, like
the Great Comet of 1618, the year the Thirty Years War
began - King James wrote a poem about this comet:
http://www.earlystuartlibels.net/htdocs/spanish_match_section/Ni1.html
which includes these lines:
" And misinterpret not, with vaine Conceit
The Caracter you see on Heaven gate.
Which though it bring the world some news from fate
The letters such as no man can translate "
Robert Hooke had identified it with the Comet of 1664, but I think it
is now accepted as Halley's Comet. Question: did anything
significant involving the Pleiades occur in 1519 ?
Jan [commenting on the Timeline-entry being composed for Mnishowsky]
says:
Bohemian is more related to country, (we have 2 Bohemia and Moravia,
joined under one name, Czachs, related more to tribe and
language. Czechs also live in Moravia, having the same nationality and
language.
Berj says:
Ok Jan, very good - the ball is then in Greg's court to install the
Mnishowsky entry into the Timeline:
1628 - Dr. Raphael Sobiehrd-Mnishowsky (1580-1644) completes writing
his "Construction sive strues Trithemiana", the first Czech
(Bohemian) book about cryptography. Mnishowsky is mentioned in Marci's
last letter to Kircher in connection with the mysterious ms
that Marci is sending to Kircher.
I've been reviewing some of your Prague manuscript material, and
wondering about something:
Why does Marci, in "his last letter to Kircher" mention Dr. Raphael
(with a reference that identifies him as Dr. Mnishowsky), but does
not do the obvious of identifying who he (Marci) got the book from?
The whole point seems to be to let the reader of the letter know that
Mnishowsky was familiar with the book. The bulky details of it
even Marci: "suspend judgment". The most important meta-message is:
Mnishowsky is familiar with this book.
Perhaps you are right Jan - perhaps there is too much concentration on
Horzcicky and Baresch, and not enough on the mysterious
Mnishowsky.
Hmm.....:
" A book bound in the skin of an executed Jesuit priest was to be
auctioned in England. The macabre, 17th-century book tells the story
of the 1605 Gunpowder Plot and is covered in the hide of Father Henry
Garnet. "
Full article here:
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0706792.htm
I wonder if this is in any way relevant to the (presumably) re-bound
Voynich manuscript. Catholic Encyclopedia article on Father
Garnet is here:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06386b.htm
Jan says:
Berj, imagine the VM cover is made of Baresch's skin - a we were
looking all around for him :-)
Berj says:
Well believe it or not Jan, that was the first macabre thought I had
too :)
Nothing would surprise me anymore with the VMS. But the VMS-author I
believe was cosmological-philosophy oriented, with a
strong mathematical perspective. True, that wouldn't necessarily rule
out some sort of magical procedure along the lines of body parts
or fluids, say mixing blood in the paints and / or inks, but I just
don't get much of such an impression from the manuscript overall.
Perhaps the ms does contain somewhere on one of its folios a brief
experiment - I can remember in my youth after accidentally cutting
one of my fingers and having a little blood available before bandaging,
getting a toothpick or something and writing some words on
paper - just out of curiosity to see what would happen. Probably this
was shortly after having read some pirates novel where something
is sealed in blood ;) Interestingly, there was that Japanese? writer
who wrote a lengthy work in prison entirely with his own blood, if I
am remembering that story correctly.
Incidentally, there are some pictures available at Wilkinsons
Auctioneers website of the Garnet book, which is Lot 181 for the Dec. 2
auction:
http://www.wilkinsons-auctioneers.co.uk/htdocs/cat2_search.php
I think this Garnet thing is quite interesting, but probably not
directly VMS-relevant, except that it did provoke the idea of a
possible
"blood experiment" in the VMS.
Jan says:
Baresch wrote to Kircher twice and K. certainly did not answer the
first letter (Baresch makes hint in his second letter that the first
one
DID NOT get lost, so apparently K. was afraid somebody is playing him
for fool again. Then in one letter, I believe it was after the
second letter, Marci is in his letter to K. vouching for Baresch,
apparently either Kircher asked him or impatient Baresch was pushing
Marci to convince K. I wonder also as you do why Marci did not mention
Baresch, apparently Kircher knew who he was talking about
(well he should if he read his 2 letters :-). There is a gap in their
correspondence: either some Marci letters are still missing and no K's
letters to Marci were found in Prague. In his book, Marci names Baresch
as his friend, now why he did not mention that to K.? Hint:
he did not want to convince K. in any way. Another hint is his
statement that previous owner spent (futile? j.h.) years trying to
solve
the VM. The strongest hint is that K. should make his opinion himself,
so Marci is 3 times distancing himself from the fable.
Same way, Marci only says "Dr. Raphael", not bothering with
"Mnishowsky", but he adds "the tutor of Emperors children" but would
that be helpful identification for somebody who lives in Italy? No, he
was hinting that Raphael knew court well. Conclusion: Kircher
knew abour Raphael, but how? Apparently Marci mentioned him before,
even may have asked him for advice at the time when K. and
Marci were saving the secret letter of Swedish general Banner. Why? he
knew Raphael was good in cryptography? But nowhere is the
assurance that Marci trusted Raphael ....
One thing is now for sure: Mnishowsky knew a lot about the VM - but did
he tell it all to Marci? Hardly, he would put it also in his
letter to Kircher. And did Raphael know Baresch had the VM (he
certainly had it before Raphael died. And how come Marci gives K.
20 years old information?
Berj says:
Well, here then is a question: did Kircher and Mnischowsky correspond?
I have not been able to find anything along those lines. Mnishowsky
(1580-1644) lived about the same time as the Parisian
mathematician Fr. Marin Mersenne (1588-1648), and Mersenne and Kircher
apparently did correspond.
Another of the mysterious M-guys is: Fr. Moretus/um. Baresch in his
letter to Kircher mentions Moretus as a bearer of the mysterious
script and so we know that Moretus is one of the people who,
theoretically, knew about it (J.VS comms. #10-13).
So then, is it not reasonable to assume that somewhere along the way
Kircher and Moretus corresponded? A quick check: I just saw
that the old handwritten Kircher-correspondence catalogs list about a
half a dozen letters involving a Fr. Theodori Moretis / Moreti
written over the period 1638-1642. I'll see if I can locate these
letters................
I now have found six letters from Fr. Theodorus Moretus to Kircher,
written between 25 DEC 1638 and 9 OCT 1642. From initial
examination I have not found any indication that Fr. Moretus ever heard
of Baresch and his strange script. But there is a lot to go
through, and the script and imaging are far from easy to deal with.
On the immediate good side, the letters are well placed in time, since
Baresch supposedly was trying to tell Kircher about the
mysterious script from 1637 on. It is quite clear from the letters that
Fr. Moretus knows "D. Doctor Joannes Marcus Marci MD.", and
Moretus mailed some of his letters from Prague.
Here then is the data: [see J.VS comm. #121, 3 DEC 2007]. ANY new scrap
of information will be worthwhile, even if we deduce that
Baresch is fiction.
Jan says:
Berj, congratulations, I guess Moretus knew something about the VM and
surely about Baresch, since B mentioned him in his letter.
Berj says:
Thanks Jan. I hope we can get some translations and deduce something
from these six letters. In the meantime take a look at
Barschius's sine / manu-propria: what is that at its lower right? I am
curious about Baresch's strange sine - it appears as if at the
bottom-right of it he has actually written some symbols.
Jan says:
Baresch's signature: the transcript says "M. Georgius Baresch" but
Marci always calls him Barschius and the end of the signature is
unclear. We had discussion about that in the VML once, but no
conclusion. AS FOR the "something" underneath, I can't figure what is
there without guessing and my guess is we need good filter :-)
Berj says:
Can you point me to some portraits of Marci? I've seen the medal, and a
picture of the stone sculpture.
Jan says:
Marci's portraits are here:
http://mesic.hvezdarna.cz/2004_10_01_archiv.html older picture, collage
http://www.hamelika.cz/analy/Markus.htm new, artistic, on stamp,
http://www.asu.cas.cz/~had/pap14.html
2 pictures, the first original plaque on his house, done from some
unknown picture, maybe too stylistic, second is from his book De
proportione motibus, but I got the book and got you the better cutout
of his face - it looks good, is attached, probably the closest to his
real appearance.
Berj says:
Thanks Jan - very interesting! What is striking is that in the picture
you sent, Marci's lips, especially the upper, are VERY similar to
the lips of the face I see in f76r. Also the hair bulbs out on both
sides, but that would have been common. The face in f76r is of a
younger man - I'd estimate in his 30's, and is clean shaven.
I hope that if there is any clue in those letters, however slight a
clue, that we find it. Robert might have a close look at Moretus's
eclipse diagram with the face-bearing sun in APUG 567 126v and maybe
see something of interest. The slightest offhand remark by
Moretus could open up something new. My Latin is simply inadequate, but
Dennis and Greg are great at it, but both are currently far
away from home on business. I am getting the gnawing feeling that there
may be something important in two of the Moretus letters:
[4-2] 8 JAN 1639, and the [4-3] 22 FEB 1642.
"manuscriptum libellum" which I take to mean "a little book" appears on
lines 7-8 of the 22 FEB 1642 letter. Near left bottom are
"obscure...Elixir". This letter seems to have lots of words having to
do with languages and libraries, and there are a number of people
mentioned including of course Marci, and Padre Santinus. I think we
should concentrate on this letter - what is Moretus saying ???
Dennis [from on the road] says:
libellus : little book
manus : hand, band, handwriting
scriptor : writer, author, scribe
English speakers might translate "pamphlet of (my) notes" as libellus
manuscriptarum. "us" being the Nominative subject, arum being
the genetive case, of or pertaining to. However the "um" suffix, makes
both the object of a verb possibly, an implied verb, or the
de-facto "to be", "I am", "you are", "it is" .
I would go with: (It is) (a) hand written pamphlet.
My Casales is at home, so I'm using Wikipedia and trying to remember.
Berj says:
What is the handwritten pamphlet about ? Do you get the sense that
Moretus is talking about an ESOTERIC or mysterious or unusual
pamphlet?
Jan says:
All I could gather is this:
023r.jpg:
He mentions several places in Rome, would he be describing his stay
there?
055r.jpg:
He talks about Arabic and Persian Language in the Bible, which
apparently is not in Rome but Venice. He also mentions his professor
Gregorius (de?) Vincentio whom he consulted (? ] He also mentions Marci
in last sentence above his signature (Resalutat - meaning
"also greetings from Marci" (?)) He mentions Santinus and in last
paragraph, the planet Mercury. Correction, it looks like the Mercury
was a chemical term, not the planet, and "obscure explicuent Elixir en
the(sis)" means something like "obscure display of Elixir in
the(sis)"?
Unfortunately, the spot is too large to cover some of it...
It does not seem to be answering some questions from Kircher, it is
more like a chat, but I will look deeper. First I have to do
transcript, fortunately his handwriting is better then that of Baresch.
Berj says:
Jan, I think the following may help with the seal spots: Take the verso
page, horizontal flip it. Then do some processing like convert to
gray-scale, negative, push the brightness, contrast, gamma etc.
Yes I do think Moretus may be discussing something unusual, that is
something not normally in his profession of mathematics and
astronomy in the 22 FEB 1642 letter.
[end of J.VS comm. #122, redaction of off-J discussions 27 NOV - 4 DEC
2007]
******************************
123
From: Berj Ensanian
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 20:15:30 -0500 (EST)
Subject: J.VS: Toward a Version 1 transcription of Fr.
Moretus's 22 FEB 1642 letter to Kircher
Dear All
Below [1] is the current state of the work-in-progress [ref. J.VS
comms. #122, #123] transcribing the 22 FEB 1642 letter of Theodorus
Moretus to Athanasius Kircher, the image of which, APUG 567 055r, is
online at:
http://archimede.imss.fi.it/kircher/567/large/055r.jpg
Our strategy has been to do transcribing and translating
simultaneously, so as to improve the chances of getting both as correct
as
possible. It is quite exciting as Fr. Moretus's communication to
Kircher "develops" in a manner reminiscent of a photographic print in
a developing tray in a darkroom.
The below is an interesting snapshot of the off-J work-in-progress
because it shows approximately the first 40 percent, that is the first
fourteen lines, of the total original raw transcript, having received a
first going-over with the simultaneous process just mentioned, and
resulting in some corrections. The remaining lines are virgin raw, no
more. Once all the lines have had a first going-over, we will call
the result the Version 1 transcription.
It is already apparent that this letter is well worth reading.
Berj / KI3U
[1] Preliminary version 1 transcription of 22 FEB 1642 letter of
Moretus to Kircher, produced by Berj / KI3U and Jan Hurych. Note
that despite some physical co-linearity with the main text, the block
of lines that appear to be a post-script to the main body text,
beginning at lower left with "P. Santinus", have been numbered
separately - they begin with "P. Santinus" assigned to line 27, and end
with line 34 at the bottom of the letter.
1: R. in Chro Pater
2: pax eiusdem
3: Accepi R.V. litteras Conye gratissimas, libertissime ys legi
4: qua de Sollicitudine circa Apollonium annotabat. Scio tamen Roma
5: fuisse integrum Apollonium lingus Arabica aut Persica in Bibli-
6: otheca non Vaticatia, sed Florentina. et istud mihi peculi-
7: are narratum fuisse memini, Bibliothecarium illius
8: thesauri promisisse aliquando cui dam Patri nostro Romano
9: illius libri desum sed[...spot...]idem ille Pater nescio quem ma-
10: nuScriptum libellum [...spot...]eadem Bibliotheca acceptum
11: enalgasset, Bibliothecarium indignatum recusasse punigere
12: id quid promiSerat[...spot...]antum memini, Professor meus
13: in Mathematicis P. [...spot...]sius a J. Vincentio, quem
14: hodie Super eadem re consiliuum par litteras.
15: De Bettinio mayni facio indicium R.V.a sed rendivus licuit
16: nec ipso nec R.V.a opero fuci. Si R.V.a Secundad impressione
17: cural sui maynchy, qua so elians currs Secundus ad dat et
assetarium.
18: Moleitus pane mitui et Supremus regni Burgranius [VI ?] inter
19: duos magnetes ferrum [medium ?] Suspendam sine filo Ictinente.
20: Ego Vero illud indinifibile VL a me athnyatur desperare
21: me palain dixi, putaremys citius quadraturam circuli me [attingere
?]
22: pusse, quam aut illud in eodem [madio ?], aut [motum ?] perpetuum.
23: Salutem pro opportunitate P. Gulielmo du [leRoy ?]. Resulutat
24: D. Doctor Marcus. Pragai 22. Febr. 1642.
25: R.V. Servus [in Christo ?]
26: Theodorus Moretus.
27: P. Santinus peramanter Salutat R.V.a
28: sed irate tamen, Vt aiti es quod R.V. nimis
29: obscure [explicuetit ?] Elixir ex Thena[...spot...]?Soribit enim
30: quid de dualus illis aquis faviendum?[...spot...]iaca extractisy
31: deinde quod vacent modum Argent9?[...spot...]lluin conficiendi ope
Mercuryj
32: Sum qued colci modum [enclius ?] Hindi [...spot...]tsis ex qualitet
re.
33: [Derciyis optarit ?] iam nunc [vivere ?] pro [...spot...]eruyli? n
mia. [hbrid ?] r nim R.V. ipre penuliut ^ D. Masconci9?-
34: tum. spero mi tue dei nDc Christi ei as[...spot...]am [4itch ?]
jnon. adeu ani de omnibus Kriker.
********************************
124
From: Berj Ensanian
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:15:00 -0500 (EST)
Subject: J.VS: Theodorus Moretus's 22 FEB 1642 letter to
Athanasius Kircher: Version 1 Transcription
Dear All,
Below [1] is the Version-1 transcript of Moretus's 22 FEB 1642 letter.
It is presently the best reference, although of course before all is
said and done, the transcription of this very interesting letter can
evolve to Version-n where n is any higher number. See also J.VS
communications #10, 13, 121, 122, and 123.
Version-1 exhibits also our evolving transcription format. The
transcript is referenced to line 0: at the top of the document,
reserved
for a top-of-document glyph or symbol, for example "+". In this
particular letter it appears that Moretus placed at mid-line 0: a sine
or
manu propria that is obscured by a large red seal spot there.
Square brackets [ ] enclose general document-specific descriptors, in
the present case notably the seal spots that obscure several
portions of the text. Curved brackets ( ) enclose transcribed glyphs
with notes or comments, which can be as brief as a question mark
to indicate uncertainty on the transcription there. Comparing, for
example, the transcription of line 29 with the image of Moretus's
letter, shows the transcription format in some generality.
We continue to work on this, and also Moretus's 8 JAN 1639 letter. To
this point almost all of the translating work in the simultaneous
transcription-translation-transliteration efforts (T&T&T) has
been done by Jan Hurych.
Berj / KI3U
[1] Complete (Lines 0: to 34:) Version-1 transcript of 22 FEB 1642
letter of Theodorus Moretus to Athanasius Kircher, from online
image APUG 567 055r, last accessed 11 DEC 2007 at url:
http://archimede.imss.fi.it/kircher/567/large/055r.jpg
0: [(sine?) ...spot... ]
1: R.de in Chro Pater
2: pax eiusdem.
3: Accepi R.V. litteras Conye gratissimas, libertissime ys legi
4: qua de Sollicitudine circa Apollonium annotabat. Scio tamen Roma
5: fuisse integrum Apollonium lingua Arabica aut Persica in Bibli-
6: otheca non Vaticata, sed Florentina . et istud mihi peculi-
7: are narratum fuisse memini, Bibliothecarium illius
8: thesauri promisisse aliquando cui dam Patri (notro ?) Romano
9: illius libri (?)sum sed[...spot...]idem ille Pater nescio quem ma-
10: nuScriptum libellum [...spot...(at ?)]eadem Bibliotheca acceptum
11:(eu alias/ilias set or: eu ili asset ?), Bibliothecarium indignatum
recusasse (pounigere ?)
12: id quid promiSerat[...spot...]antum memini, Professor maior
13: in Mathematicis P. [...spot...]rius a J. Vincentio, quem
14: hodie Super eadem re censulam per litteras.
15: De Bettinio magni facio indicium R.V.a sed nondum licuit
16: nec ipso nec R.V.a opero fuci. Si R.V.a Secundad impressione
17: curat sui magnetis, qua so etiam currs Secundus addat et auctarium.
18: Molestus pa' ne mi tui (est ?) Supremus regni Burgravius [VL ?]
inter
19: duos magnetes ferrum [mediun ?] Suspendam sine filo detinente.
20: Ego Vero illud indinifibile VL a me attingatur desperare
21: me palam dixi, (putiremys ?) citius quadraturam circuli me
attingere
22: (posse ?), quam aut illud in eodem (madi'o ?), aut motum perpetuum.
23: Salutem pro opportunitate P. Guilielmo du (CoRoy ?) . Resulutat
24: D. Doctor Marcus. Praga 22. Febr. 1642.
25: R.V. Servus in (X ?)
26: Theodorus Moretus.
27: P. Santinus peramanter Salutat R.V.a
28: sed irate tamen, (VL aiti ?) eo quid R.V. nimis
29: obscure (explicaetit ?) Elixir ex Then[(a ?) ...spot... (S
?)]cribit enim
30: quid de (dualus ?) illis aquis faviend[(um ?) ...spot...]iaca
extractisi
31: deinde quod (tacent ?) modum Argen[(t ?) ...spot...]lluin
(conficitudi ?) (opc ?) Mercuryj
32: Sum qud (colct ?) modum (extra ?) hindi [...spot...]tras ex
qualitet re.
33: (Derciyis optarae ?) iam nunc (vivere ?) pro [...spot...](eruyli ?)
n mia. (hbrw ?) enim R.V. ipse (persuluit ?) ^ D. Marco (?)-
34: tum. s pero mi tue dei nDc Christi ei as[...spot... (cd ?)]am (4tct
?) jnon. adeo ani de omnibus (Xriker ?).
*****************************************
125
From: Berj Ensanian
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:09:04 -0500 (EST)
Subject: J.VS: Moretus Letters off-J discussions 5 DEC - 10
DEC 2007
Moretus-to-Kircher Letters off-J discussions 5 DEC - 10 DEC 2007:
Berj Ensanian says:
Here are some useful web-links (note: apparently back in Kircher's day
there were Plantin-Moretus and Balthasar Moretus Publishing
Houses in Antwerp, so we should not confuse them with Fr. Moretus):
Jesuit Math in the Clementium, this is great:
http://www.nkp.cz/vystavy/utilitas/e_utilitas.htm
Illustrated Chronology (see "Johannes Moretus" in 1602 entries; also
gives nice-to-know name of General of Jesuit Order: "1645, Feb.
9: The Jesuit general Mutius Vitelleschi dies at Rome."):
http://users.telenet.be/fvde/index.htm?1600s
Info on Jesuit geometers (Moretus etc.):
http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/jmac/sj/jg/jgintro.htm
Kircher & astronomy (Moretus is in this paper), gives names of APUG
archivists in 1970, might have to get this paper sometime:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-1753(197021)61%3A1%3C52%3AAITLAC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-9
Book on scientific revolution: Newbold, Marci, Moretus, Kircher,
Copernicus etc:
http://books.google.com/books?id=l61fl6Z1sxQC&pg=PA239&lpg=PA239&dq=kircher+moretus&source
=web&ots=i8CxMqIOHm&sig=f48EtukMOofAVJNy17nBiTdY3kU
Jan Hurych says:
We cannot eliminate the other possiblities, that is the missionaries.
One of them, famous mathematician: Stansel. Two interesting links
to Stansel are here:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14247c.htm
http://books.google.com/books?id=Tv1r-Q2gpbYC&pg=PA250&lpg=PA250&dq=stansel+prague&source=
web&ots=J-DJbzP4nN&sig=UgKlE4iFtGAb6DMse2govHF3TVE#PPA232,M1
According to second one (the book on line), Stansel wrote very often to
Kircher, too. He is also mentions on the page you quoted:
Jesuit Math in the Clementium, this is great:
http://www.nkp.cz/vystavy/utilitas/e_utilitas.htm
Berj says:
It looks like Stansel entered S.J. in 1637 - the same year Baresch
first tried contacting Kircher.
Jan says:
Moretus must have known Stansel since he was born in Bohemia and
studied in Clementinum. Stansel wrote to Kircher over two years
between 1656 and 1676. Stansel observed supernova in 1659, he departed
for Brasil 1663 and what's more, he was an astronomer.
If the VM is not the Prague manuscript, then he could have written
later - since there is no date nowhere, send it to Kircher and it was
discovered as the VM. Again, one strong point against this theory: the
manuscript in Baresch's letter is too close to the VM and that
would mean Stansel's manuscript came too late to be the VM. Besides, I
do not think the VM was written by mathematician, it just
looks too disorganized.
Berj says:
One thing very intriguing I just came across: Brumbaugh had a paper in
the Warburg Journal saying the VMS is clearly concerned
with the Elixir of Life!
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0075-4390(1976)39%3C139%3ATV'BCM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-A
And Moretus's letter has that "elixir" in it. I think we will find
something out from Moretus, even if it is circumstantial as I said.
Jan says:
Right, Baresch of course could have thought there was a recipe for
making gold or Aqua Sinapia (which is even better, since it made
Horczicky rich while Kelley's gold got him at the end only to prison
:-).
Berj says:
Question: Does the "La Sapienza" university (I know nothing about it)
have records that a Georg Baresch was a student there, as
Baresch claims in his letter?
Jan says:
I do not know but it is a very important question. Not that we doubt
his words, but he studied in Italy in about the same time as
Mnishowsky ( no place mentioned) and could have met him there. Also,
there is a note somewhere that Baresch met Kircher later in
Italy ( who has that, Rene? I forgot). If it is true, it seems it was
rather later, more likely - after those 2 letters with no answer
Baresch
might have got impatient :-).
Berj says:
I have most of Capelli downloaded by the way. If we proceed like this -
a simultaneous combination of transcription and translation,
then I think we have a better chance of getting both correct. I hope to
have a complete transcription by tonight, and will immediately
email it.
Jan says:
"Arabic and Persian" sounds like Baresch was talking about the VM. My
observation: M. might be talking about Baresch in first part
of the letter, apparently answering some K's query. Also "Hindu, Arabic
and Persian" sounds like Baresch's idea. Apparently when
Moretus was in Rome, Kircher already queried him about Baresch when he
brougth the letter and samples and maybe about the VM as
well - in that case Moretus apparently saw it. So Baresch knew Kircher
did not answer deliberately, but in his second letter tried to
excuse Kircher and tried to gain his favour.
Who was M. making ridicule of (see the text) I do not know, apparently
it was one of those other names.
Berj says:
I found a document (attached):
" Correspondence and Manuscripts of Athanasius Kircher not included in
APUG 555-568 A preliminary checklist Compiled by
Michael John Gorman and Nick Wilding Updated: August 25 2000 "
at this url:
http://shl.stanford.edu:16080/Eyes/kircher/gorman/checklist.doc
It provides useful info on three letters of Kircher to Moretus:
Prague, National Library at the Clementinum
1. Kircher, Athanasius. Letter to Moretus, Theodorus, 12 March 1634,
Prague, National Library at the Clementinum. Call Number: VI
B 12b f. 73rv
2. ------. Letter to Moretus, Theodorus, 1 February 1642, Prague,
National Library at the Clementinum. Call Number: VI B 12b f.
144rv
3. ------. Letter to Moretus, Theodorus, 19 February 1642, Prague,
National Library at the Clementinum. Call Number: VI B 12b f.
219rv
Have these letters been looked at in previous Voynich research? Is it
conceivable that Kircher's 19 FEB 1642 letter reached Moretus in
three days, and Moretus's 22 FEB 1642 letter to Kircher is an answer?
We need a detailed timeline around the available evidence, with
citations. Below is a rough start (needs to be double-checked) - the
reference numbers [no.] can be anything convenient as we add to the
timeline, and then later all rectified to sequence, if desired.
Immediately needed entries: date & place Marci & Kircher first
met; date & place Baresch met Kircher (assuming he did).
Evidence Timeline:
* 27 APR 1605: date Baresch says (in his 1639 letter to AK) that he
started studying at La Sapienza in Rome. [2]
* 12 MAR 1634: AK writes to Moretus [1]
* late in year 1637: Baresch writes his first letter (courier =
Moretus) to Kircher [2]
* 25 DEC 1638: Moretus (Prague) writes to AK (Rome) [3]
* 8 JAN 1639: Moretus (Prague) writes to AK (Rome) [3]
* 27 APR 1639: Baresch writes his 2nd letter (courier = Moretus) to
Kircher [4]
* 3 AUG 1640: First known letter from Marci to AK [5]
* 12 SEP 1640: Marci writes to AK [5]
* 12 JAN 1641: Marci writes to AK [5]
* 2 MAR 1641: Marci writes to AK [5]
* 5 OCT 1641: Marci writes to AK [5]
* 25 JAN 1642: Marci writes to AK [5]
* 1 FEB 1642: AK writes to Moretus [6]
* 19 FEB 1642: AK writes to Moretus [7]
* 22 FEB 1642: Moretus writes to AK [3]
* 15 MAR 1642: Marci writes to AK [5]
* 10 MAY 1642: Marci writes to AK [5]
* 10 or 16 MAY 1642: Moretus writes to AK [3]
* 30 JUL 1642: Moretus writes to AK [3]
* 9 OCT 1642: Moretus writes to AK [3]
* 6 DEC 1642: Marci writes to AK [5]
* .... Marci's last letter .... Kinner letter ....
Notes:
[1] Kircher, Athanasius. Letter to Moretus, Theodorus, 12 March 1634,
Prague, National Library at the Clementinum. Call Number:
VI B 12b f. 73rv
[2] Zandbergen translation; see also [4] below
[3] see [4] in J.VS comm. #121
[4] see J.VS comm. #10
[5] see J.VS comm. #4
[6] Kircher, Athanasius. Letter to Moretus, Theodorus, 1 February 1642,
Prague, National Library at the Clementinum. Call Number:
VI B 12b f. 144rv
[7] Kircher, Athanasius. Letter to Moretus, Theodorus, 19 February
1642, Prague, National Library at the Clementinum. Call Number:
VI B 12b f. 219rv
Is it remotely possible that the punished librarian Moretus was talking
about could be Baresch? If Baresch was a librarian somewhere
in the 1630's then that might be a clue to how he got the Prague ms.
Jan says:
Very interesting idea: according to Rene, Baresch "received his
bachelor's degree on 9 May 1602 and his doctorate on 14 May 1603,
both in "liberal arts and philosophy. On 27 April 1605 he started
studies in Rome, at the Sapienza". Sapienza being the lay university,
it is rather strange - what title he got there? He probably did not
finish it, returned and worked in Clementinum. It was my impression
Marci met him during his studies and I originally thought he was a
chemist training medical students in medication and ointment
making ( just a hunch, no proof) or was somehow connected with
university Carolinum. It did not occur to me he could have been
with University of Clementinum, maybe as a druggist or apothecary.
He signed himself with title M, meaning apparently Master or Magister,
most likely the other title. Come to think of it, when I was
young, they still called the chemists in drugstore "magisters" that not
being the title but more like a profession. He of course might
have been the librarian, too.
It could be his experiments were laughed at - but Marci was impressed
by them, as he claims in his book. And I remember now, Marci
claims Baresch did metal transmutations.
Berj says:
I've tried a transliteration of Jan's translation: ...... I get the
impression that it is indeed quite possible that something in this
letter
relates to Baresch and / or the Prague ms. But we must check our
wishful thinking. Nevertheless, to speculate without restraint: could
there be a secret Apollonium society and language (is VMS f67v1 a
symbol of it?), the secrets of which were promised to a Pope, but
now are missing from some library because of a bungling librarian? Is
that librarian Baresch? That there exists a handwritten little
book related to this Apollonium - this seems to be the most dramatic
thing in the letter from the VMS point of view, not so? That
mathematicians who were Moretus's teachers had a go at the Apollonium
language. That there is some kind of ethic of Burgranius that
ties together magnetism and grinding bread? That Fr. Santinus is
involved with some alchemical elixir.
It seems pretty obvious that Moretus and Kircher discussed alchemy,
which was of course was on Baresch's mind.
Does anyone know if the three Clementinum letters from AK to Moretus
have been discussed, say on vms-list. Are these letters
online? If not, can Jan's friends in Prague get us copies?
I guess we might ask ourselves: what is the single most critical thing
in Moretus's letter? Is it perhaps the question of: whether or not
the little handwritten book is a sensitive library item? This paper may
have some relevance:
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:1LTD-XNcwHwJ:www.stanford.edu/~mgorman/thesis/chapter6.pdf+Clementinum+VI+B+moretus&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us
Jan says:
As for most important part, I would say it is the unnamed (or is it
somebody named?) person, which takes the critical hit by Moreus.
As I say, is it the reference he was giving Kircher about somebody? It
looks like it was Kircher who asked for it and the dating close
after the second letter suggests the person is Baresch and his letter.
And yes, it seems he was well known to M, and most likley was in
employ of jesiuts and was considered by them (especially by
mathematicians) as being slightly cookoo. This way M. might have killed
Kircher's interest in the VM completely.
Can we find anything in Florence that is similar to the VM (see hint in
the letter).
Berj says:
The problem I see here is that this 1642 letter is almost three years
after Baresch's 2nd letter - it would seem that if Baresch was still a
fresh topic of discussion, then the letter would offer more obvious
clues. From that paper on the vacuum controversy from the late
1630's on between Aristotle-defending Jesuits and experimental
scientists I earlier emailed the link to, it appears that the Jesuits,
Kircher et al, were very busy with that controversy, and Rome and
Prague were hotspots. It seems possible that the identity of the
mystery person in the Moretus letter is in the vacuum controversy
paper, and is not Baresch. On the other hand, if it this mystery
person cannot be a vaccum controversy person, then the case for him
being Baresch is strengthened.
I mentioned that the Moretus letter might, if nothing else, provide
some circumstantial clue. In that vein perhaps Moretus killed
Kircher's interest in Baresch as you suggest, so to prevent Kircher
from being distracted and not concentrating on defending Jesuit
control of Catholic education during the protracted vacuum controversy
(which was Aristotelean at the time).
Marci remains the wild card I think: he was a scientist, but also a
friend of major players, both vaccum controversy and VMS, and a
kind of semi-Jesuit. By the way, it appears that the three Clementinum
letters of AK to Moretus are NOT online.
Jan says:
Apparently there were always fights between Jesuits of Clementinum
University and professors of Charles' University like Marci,
Jesuits being always Aristotelians. However, the situation changed and
by the end of 17th century, even Jesuits revolted and
proclaimed Galilean system. In Bohemia, there was always fertile field
for new ideas, for instance ... "During the negotiations to
publish the (Galileo's) Discorsi outside Italy, an attempt had been
made in 1636 to have the work published in Moravia (part of
Bohemia, j.h.), under the patronage of Cardinal Dietrichstein, who died
before this could be carried out. . (perhaps the manuscript that
Pieroni had brought to Bohemia).
In the 1659 edition, Jesuit Arriaga (the enemy of Marci) included a
preface which suggested a reason for his deviance, claiming that he
(Galileo?) had been permitted to publish his anti-Aristotelian opinions
"in part because they are completely accepted here at the
university of Prague".
Interesting point: Ferdinand III had himself been taught by Arriaga as
a child (as he was by Mnishowsky), but after the death of
Ferdinand II (who was virtually blackmailed by Jesuits) they lost their
hold on Emperor. There was also the controversy between
Prague archbishop and Jesuits, but that was mainly political.
On the other hand, Moretus is unknowingly (or knowingly?) mocking Marci
(he laughs at quadrature of the circle, while Marci may
have been already working on that problem, see his book "Labyrinthus,
in quo via ad circuli quadraturam pluribus modis exhibetur"
(Prague, 1654). As for his laugh at perpetuum mobile, Moretus
eventually designed a perpetual fountain synchronized with the
"motion of the sun " :-). Prague Jesuits, being mainly mathematicians,
probably laughed at Baresch and hoped that Kircher, also
mathematician, would join them.
The article you mention says: Jakob Dobrzensky de Nigro Ponte (student
of Marci and his succesor as a rector of Charles University)
in 1657 included various refutations of the possibility of the vacuum
by Jesuits and close supporters of the intellectual programme of
the order, including Joannes Marcus Marci and Godefridius Aloysius
Kinner. Well, if Marci supported it (and I don't know he did), it
was certainly not because he liked Jesuits :-).
Dobrzensky's work however also contained numerous hydraulic machines
and clocks designed by Prague-based Jesuits including
Theodore Moretus and Valentin Stansel and other Jesuit exponents of the
hydraulic arts (like machines of Kircher).
R.V. is definitely "Reverentia Vestra" (Your Reverence, apparently the
inside title of SJ members)
I found: Goteboldus"[24]. Burggraf von Würzburg as in Thuringia
nobility. Goteboldus is a Christian name and about burggraf Wiki
says: A burgrave is a count of a castle or fortified town. The English
form is derived through the French from the German Burggraf
and Dutch (including Flemish dialects) burg- or burch-graeve (Mediaeval
Latin language burcgravius or burgicomes).
All in all, it could be some inside joke.
Berj says:
Jan I just looked at 55r and agree that line 18 must be "Burgravius"
and not "Burgranius". Well done - you've chipped away a little
more at the wall between us and Moretus's thoughts in his letter.
Greg Stachowski says:
At first glance that translation needs some polishing, interesting
stuff though. I'm at Bangkok Airport right now, transferring flights,
so
no Latin books until I get back. I should go away more often, you guys
really get cracking when I'm not around ;)
Berj says:
Greg have a SAFE trip home!
Jan says:
As for letters located in Prague - no, they do not have all documents
scanned. Clementinum library used to be part of state owned
National Library under communists, now some documents were probably
returned back to Jesuits and still some documents may be
part of National Library. Some statments by them could not be checked
or verified [by Jan and a fellow researcher].
You want to tackle the other letter? I would appreciate if you do the
same as with the last one, I can then translate it.
VL might be a highly situated official of that time, say Lobkovitz -
not Caramuel, who was a monk and missionary in America, he was
of Spanish-Czech descent, but Vilhelm of Lobkovitz (in the statute of
burgrave, I presume) one of the members of rebelling
Directorium, he was not executed but sentenced to life, partly he was
considered a halfwit idiot, but mainly because his nephew
Zdenek Lobkowitz was the top chancellor of Bohemia, advisor to Emperor
Ferdiannd II. Vilhelm died in 1626 on old age. Apparently
his idiocy was pretended and he was a big joke of his time.
Interestingly enough, Marci had important protectors such as the family
of Zdenek Lobkovic,as per Rene.
Berj says:
Too bad we don't have a way to get a look at those AK-to-Moretus
letters in the Clementinum archive! There must be a way. Caramuel
Lobkovitz as VL? There are many Lobkovitz letters in the APUG - I'll
look at some of them to see if any particularly interesting words
stand out.
Yes I will begin transcription of the other Moretus letter later this
evening. ................ This one was harder than I thought it would
be -
seems like Moretus was in a hurry writing. Seems to me the letter opens
with Moretus telling AK that 4 days? ago he did some
correcting on a paper of AK concerning palms and architecture
measurements in Rome ???
I'm interested in the message around line 18: .... hallucinationes ....
23rAPUG567: 8 JAN 1639 letter of Moretus to Kircher
http://archimede.imss.fi.it/kircher/567/large/023r.jpg
Initial raw transcription:
0: sine
1: R. de in Chro Pater
2: pax eiusdem
3: Quatord ecim dies sunt, quando R.V. scribebim, rogabamyz
4: Veram mensurum palmi et pedis Veteris Romani. iam autem
5: ab octiduo M. Etliny C cum quo mi tui de eo meo desiderio ali=
6: quindo fermo inciderat J mi tui exhibuit Vtramque manu
7: R.V. positer meam fsem et exspectationem citius descrip-
8: tam. Palmi^ achitecturici mensura a R.V. annotata omnino ea en
9: quam antea accepionm. Sed pedis Romani mensura cum nulla
10: meanim conue nit, Vide magit maneo perplexus; si tamen R.V.
11: eam accepit au fide digno monumento, Vtar ea Quamguam Veriore.
12: In murmore illo Capitolina expressam legi mensuram canna'
13: decem palmaris, et pcois Gra'ci. de pede Romino ist hic expresso
14: nihil Inguam legi, nec Villalpandus id memorat. quod Sinthic
15: fide publica pes Romanus exstat, quid Ultra dubitamus ?
16: certe R.V.a beneficium mitui et multis magnam fecit ri id
17: eruderavit. parcet Spero R.V. si confidentias quam Vere-
18: cundius mea s propono hallucinationes in re tenui, magni
19: tamen Sequelia . Vicissim mea religrosa obsequin R...X...
20: lubcri impendam.
21: Brisacuin nondam Se dedit. Lamboius eit in Swartswalte
22: aliquem etiam commeatum hosti abegit, sed nondum tamen
23: isrbi prvuisum. fama fart Ser.ind Leopoldum exiturum ad
24: Castra, aliy etiam Cavarem, quando duplex en hortis. Pannicuis
25: certe Galussium tenet, et recentissime itemm alipu De afflinit,
26: Vt Vie hyberna timeantur in Bohemia, nam et hyeme pugnatur.
27: Commendo mc R.V. SS. Sacrificys. Salutem optimur a M. Etliny.
28: Praga 8. Jan. 1639. RV. Servus in X.
29: Theodorus Moretus.
Jan says:
Oh no, I meant Vilem Lobkowitz, his initials are VL. Of course 1640 is
too late after his death 1626 for him to be still remembered.
He actually was no such idiot, he held some important posts in
Direktorium and he must have put some show to pretend being
imbecile. As for Caramuel, he is probably the one who wrote those
letters. He was a very interesting person indeed.
Berj says:
I went through several Caramuel letters. One of them, 26 JUL 1644, in
an easy-to-read hand, seems to mention Marci:
http://archimede.imss.fi.it/kircher/557/large/021v.jpg
http://archimede.imss.fi.it/kircher/557/large/022r.jpg
I assume you received the raw transcript of Moretus's 8 JAN 1639 letter
that I emailed earlier. Now to something new and possibly
interesting. In APUG I found a 2-page list: "Catalogus Linguas .... " :
http://archimede.imss.fi.it/kircher/563/large/142r.jpg
http://archimede.imss.fi.it/kircher/563/large/142v.jpg
It lists an enormous number of languages and dialects, and perhaps
scripts, including "Paracelsi mystica normbula?", and several
"Incognitas". I thought possibly there is in this list some indication
of the Voynich script. We'd have to comb through it carefully.
The list has this on APUG 563 142r at left about 60% down just under
"Incognita alia.":
vocabula nova et fictitia
google comes up empty on it.
Please take a look and tell me what you think this means - unrefined
pottery symbols?, or new and fictitious vocabulary? The last one
would be exciting.
Dennis Fedak [on 8JAN 1639 Moretus letter] says:
This is a very rough start ( and his occasional flourishes, on some of
the letters doesn't make it any easier:
It has been forty days since RV wrote asking if(that)(re) the bronze
medal and damascan crook is already in Rome, but, exclusively
taken ( from ) M Etling. ( with (some) small assistance from him to go,
I mocked the other incident connected with this )(to be )
shown.
I'll work on this a little more, after my eyes rest. Nice work by
everyone.
Berj says:
Good start Dennis. Everything so far reinforces my belief that after we
have these two Moretus letters translated, and are nicely
warmed up in this business, that we ought to do the last letter of
Marci, and the Baresch letter: so as to obtain an independent
evaluation of what they really say.
Jan says:
Berj, I agree, the thought occured to me too. And the Kinners letter as
well, we may be in for some surprise.
[end J.VS comm. #125]
********************************
126
From: Berj Ensanian
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:58:03 -0500 (EST)
Subject: J.VS: Moretus to Kircher Letters of 8 JAN 1639 and 22
FEB 1642, T&T&T Library files
Dear All
I have sent to our Librarian Greg two text-files, MtoK8JAN1639.txt and
MtoK22FEB1642.txt, along with a meta-data text-file, for
deposit into the J.VS Library. These two files hold the transcriptions
and translations for letters of Moretus to Kircher, as I currently
have them. I have not included yet any transLITERATIONs even though we
have had some.
My thought is that these Library deposits can be updated directly with
new versions, and transliterations, as they become ready.
Greg, I suggest a 0- deposit identification for this, and once you have
it installed you can inform us with a reply communication to this
one.
Here are the INDEX listings from the two files:
MtoK8JAN1639.txt :
INDEX to ITEMS:
[1] Berj / KI3U 9 DEC 2007 Version-1 Transcript (referred to as
"Initial raw transcription" in J.VS communication #125) of Moretus
8 JAN 1639 letter to Kircher.
[2] Jan Hurych's 12 DEC 2007 TransLATION-Version-1 of Moretus's 8 JAN
1639 letter to Kircher.
MtoK22FEB1642.txt :
INDEX to ITEMS:
[1] Complete (Lines 0: to 34:) Version-1 Transcript of 22 FEB 1642
letter of Theodorus Moretus to Athanasius Kircher (ref. J.VS
communication #124), from online image APUG 567 055r, last accessed 11
DEC 2007 at url:
http://archimede.imss.fi.it/kircher/567/large/055r.jpg
[2] Version-2 Transcript of 22 FEB 1642 letter of Theodorus Moretus to
Athanasius Kircher, APUG 567 055r. Changes from
Version-1 in lines 8, 12, and 23, are per suggestion of Jan Hurych and
seconded by Greg Stachowski (off-J DEC 2007).
[3] Version-3 Transcript of 22 FEB 1642 letter of Theodorus Moretus to
Athanasius Kircher, APUG 567 055r. Changes from
Version-2 in lines 6, 17, 18, 20, 34, , are per suggestion of Greg
Stachowski (off-J 14 DEC 2007).
[4] Jan Hurych's TransLATION-Version-1 of Moretus's 22 FEB 1642 letter
to Kircher from Jan's off-J email: Re: off-J: Last Call for
Version-1 transcript for 22FEB1642, Sent Date 12-11-2007 9:45:28 AM
Pertinent background information is in J.VS communications #10, 13,
121, 122, 123, 124, and 125.
Berj / KI3U
***************************
127
From: Greg Stachowski
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:37:37 +0100
Subject: J.VS: Re: Moretus to Kircher Letters of 8 JAN 1639
and 22 FEB 1642, T&T&T Library files
Referring to JVS communication #126, the transcriptions and
translations of the letters by Moretus are now in the Library, as
deposit #
0-5-2007-12-18. The address is:
http://www.as.up.krakow.pl/jvs/library/0-5-2007-12-18/
This will be updated with any changes and improvements as they become
available. They will be documented in the metafile as usual.
Greg
****************************
128
From: Berj Ensanian
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 23:31:02 -0500 (EST)
Subject: J.VS: Moretus-to-Kircher Letters off-J discussions 11
DEC - 20 DEC 2007
Moretus-to-Kircher Letters off-J discussions 11 DEC - 20 DEC 2007:
Berj Ensanian says:
Is it possible that the mysterious "VL" in Moretus's 22 FEB 1642 letter
is the "Villalpandus" mentioned in the 8 JAN 1639 letter? I
looked into Villalpandus (1552-1608):
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15429a.htm
and also his associates, but he seems too early to be "VL" in the 22
FEB 1642 letter, and was not a Burgravius. It is possible though to
see some similarities between the nine rosettes foldout and
Villalpandus's famous map of Jerusalem, like the pentagon in the
northeast
rosette, and the crossed-plot in the southeast:
http://rougeknights.blogspot.com/2007/01/rose-of-england-kings-window-at.html
http://jnul.huji.ac.il/dl/maps/jer/html/jer391.htm
That is to say, one could conjecture that the 9RMS foldout artist had
seen Villalpandus's illustration.
Jan Hurych says:
I think he IS our Villapandus (it is not common name and he WAS a
Jesuit!). Your link says about Villapandus:
Born at Cordova, Spain, in 1552; entered the Society of Jesus in 1575;
died on 22 May, 1608
So he died very close and before the letter, but what M's letter is
actually referring to? While:
http://www.jarndyce.co.uk/18thc.html
says:
TEMPLE OF SOLOMON
(LEE, Samuel) Orbis Miraculum, or The Temple of Solomon, pourtrayed by
Scripture-Light: wherein all its famous buildings, the
pompous worship of the Jewes
....................
ESTC identifies 11 variant imprints in 1659, of this one ESTC R223256,
5 copies in the UK & 2 in North America. During the 17th
century the Temple of Solomon captivated the imagination of writers
both in England and abroad, who all theorised on the possible
design of the edifice. On the continent, a Spanish Jesuit, Villapandus,
was pre-eminent, and his visionary design was later incorporated
by Bishop Walton in his polyglot Bible published in 1657. It was partly
in opposition to this description that the puritan divine Samuel
Lee published his Orbis Miraculum, in 1659. In contrast to
Villapandus's extremely elaborate design, Lee proposed a very English
interpretation of the problem, setting out his own practicable plan
based on rational lines and based on the model of an English church.
Elsewhere:
CELEBRATED PROBLEMS OF GEOMETRY. Sur les Problemes célebres de
la ...folium in the method of Villapandus, and the
conchoid of. Nicomedes?quartics; the hyperbola mesolabica of Viviani,.
the circular unicursals in the solutions ...
so he was an architect! Amazing!
Elsewhere:
Editions Jacques Gabay - TEIXEIRA : Traité des courbes
spéciales ...- [ Translate this page ]Méthode de
Villapandus et
Gruenbergerius. - Méthodes de Descartes et de Fermat. Could be
Moretus meant Gruenbergerius?
... the capital of which took its origin, says Villapandus, from an
order in Solomon's Temple, the leaves whereof were those ...
Was V. member of ST order within SJ? Apparently there are references to
him in Masonic books, after all, they were supposed to
build Solomon's temple, right?
Still, they K&M apparently spoke about architecture in that letter.
or: could it be they spoke about THE VM? IS THERE ANY
PICTURE IN THE VM REPRESENTING SOLOMON'S TEMPLE?
Berj says:
Moretus's 8 JAN 1639 letter does seem to discuss architecture. I have
not concentrated on that letter yet, so if it has anything
VMS-significant, other than perhaps the Jerusalem and Solomon's Temple
angle by way of Villalpandus (there have been suggestions
posted to the vms-list from time to time, including by me, that the
central rosette represents Solomon's Temple) I don't know.
I'm now going to work on sorting out the transcriptions and
translations.
Greg Stachowski says:
Having finally had a few minutes to look at this [22 FEB 1642 Moretus
letter]: I agree with some of Jan's changes to the posted
transcription:
line 8: nostro
line 12: meus
line 23: LeRoy
and possibly some others -- I haven't checked the two versions against
each other thoroughly enough. I believe that it is clearly "mihi"
not "mi tui" in lines 18 and 34, "cum" not "currs" in 17. "Vaticana" in
6 (with a little flourish before the 'n') and probably "indivisbile"
in 20 (that certainly looks like a long 'S' rather than 'f' to me,
compare "Super" in line 14). There are also some other readings which I
think I have better, but I shall hold back with those until I have had
a look at the translation (I don't fully agree with Jan's in a number
of places).
Good work guys. I may have quibbles but they are only possible because
you've done the bulk of the work for me :)
Berj says:
Greg, one of the first things I'd like you to do is open a Library
deposit for Moretus T&T&T - I'll send material as soon as I get
a
chance. [J.VS Library deposit # 0-5-2007-12-18; see J.VS comm. #127]
I had mentioned to Robert that scattered among Kircher's papers there
are some which exhibit cipher and related material that possibly
might be of interest, if for no other reason than perhaps to spark an
idea on Voynich text attacks. I've put together a list of references to
the Kircher papers I was able to find in my files - see below. Likely
there is more similar material in Kircher's papers to find. We ought
sometime to put together a list of Kircher sources - APUG may have the
lion's share, but there are others out there. The Herzog August
letters / materials from which some of the below refs. come, has much
interesting material I have not had much of a chance to comb
through, but I suspect Jan might well be interested in some items
there, and the letters have already been transcribed and translated, at
least into German.
Jan says:
Interesting point from recent VML [vms-list]: Kinner was involved in
steganography! Seems to me that almost anybody in Prague SJ
was somehow acquainted with VM :-).
Berj says:
Yes, good to know from Rafal's digging that Kinner was involved in
steganography. But hardly surprising - steganography comes up
all over the place in Kircher's life and correspondence, which included
Kinner. Just about every thinker back then seems to have paid
some attention to steganography after Trithemius's notes were openly
published.
I'm still wondering if there was an "Archimedes / Apollonium society"
and that Moretus was directly involved with it, and that in his
22 FEB 1642 letter to Kircher it is talked about.
[J.VS comm. #126, 17 DEC 2007, concerning current Moretus letters
T&T&T is posted]
Greg says:
Hi Berj. I take it we will be updating the transcriptions and
translations as we go. I'm not convinced that we're at the best version
yet.
By the way, I think I have missed something - where does
transliteration differ from transcription?
Berj says:
Well I don't know either :) but the words are different, so there must
be some difference between transcription and transliteration. I
would think we may encounter the realties of the difference sometime in
a Kircher letter when a sudden change of alphabet occurs -
Kircher correspondence shows remarkably fluid use of of languages and
alphabets, even within a word. The stuff in APUG, I know
that you can come across instances of even a single word where the
alphabet it is written in changes, say from Latin to Greek letters.
The Kircher correspondence overall is quite inspiring to comb through -
those were interesting thinkers talking about interesting
subjects, inbetween all the customary praisings.
Greg says:
'Apollonius': I think they are talking about Apollonius of Perga and
his treatise on Conics. I think the word we have been transcribing
thus far as 'Conye" is actually 'Conica' or thereabouts. Books V to VII
of the original are known only from an Arabic translation ( c.f.
'Arabica aut Persica' ; btw. 'aut' is 'or', not 'and'), and the first
translation of these into Latin -- in 1661 -- was based on a Florentine
manuscript (!! -- c.f. 'bibliotheca ... Florentina'). This also accords
with the later references to Mathematics professors.
Berj says:
I can accept "Conije" and therefore "Coniie" as a transcription, if
that helps this Apollonius of Perga interpretation.
Greg says:
Referring to this,
#13: in Mathematicis P. [...spot...]sius a J. Vincentio, quem
[13] of mathematics pater Jxxsius (but his techer was p. Georgius,
j.h.) and J. Vincetius, Moretus' professor was Gregory St. Vincent:
http://www.math.muni.cz/math/biografie/theodorus_moretus.html
(in Czech ;)
http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/jmac/sj/scientists/vincent.htm
who was into ... conics :) It's all falling into place.
I suspect the '[r|s]ius a J.' is a Jesuit appellation ('...something of
Jesus' -- Gregory St. V. was a Jesuit, of course), but I haven't
identified it yet.
Berj says:
But every mathematician is into conics at some point in their career.
You saying he specialized in conics?
Greg says:
Conics were a relatively new field, then, as was analytical geometry in
general. G. St. V. developed some new methods for handling
them, according to his bio.
Berj says:
I would think you mean conics were a re-newed field, considering
Apollonius's classical treatment. Anyway, I think that until we
master this letter, as best as it can be considering its condition
etc., that we cannot really tell if there is or is not some
circumstantial
evidence in it that bears upon the VMS.
Greg says:
Anyway, at the time (that is, mid-17th C) analytical geometry in the
modern sense was just being rediscovered & developed further by
the likes of G. St. V, Descartes etc., and Apollonius' previous work in
the field was very much of interest to them. As noted in G. St.
V's bio, conics were of particular interest to him.
I agree we should polish the translation of Moretus' letters. There is
obviously a wealth of detail about the interests and interpersonal
connections of the time there, and those may lead us to something even
if there is no direct reference to the VMS.
Berj says:
Yes this is the circumstantial evidence I am thinking of. In
particular, I think I recall Jan mentioning, that in his book Marci
always
uses the name "Barschius". Now, Barschi -> Barschius seems ok to me,
but Baresch -> Barschius seems problematic. We ought to be
on the look-out for names like Barzy, Barschi, even Bare', etc.
Greg says:
I have polished the sentence running across lines 4-6 [of the 22 FEB
1642 Moretus letter]:
4: ... Scio tamen Roma
5: fuisse integrum Apollonium lingua Arabica aut Persica in Bibli-
6: otheca non Vaticata, sed Florentina . ...
Footnotes in braces { }.
[4] ... However, from Rome{1} I know
[5] there to have been{2} a complete Apollonius{3} in the Arabic or
Persian language in
[6] the Florentine, not{4} Vatican, Library. ...
{1} ablative of Roma; so, TM has information from a prior visit to Rome
or contacts in Rome.
{2} fuisse = perfect infinitive of esse, to be.
{3} i.e., a complete edition of, copy of.
{4{ or perhaps "rather than the"
It sounds like he's saying that the copy they have been studying so far
is flawed -- I have glimpses of this meaning from the previous
sentence, but I haven't polished that one yet.
Berj says:
r. Have a look at line 3, which starts something like:
Received your Conye letter gratefully, ....
or:
Received your favor of the Conye letter, ....
The "Conye" remains uncertain, does it not?
Greg says:
Unfortunately , yes.
Berj says:
Attached is a jpg [Line5ofPg2of353vAPUG557.jpg] of line 5 on page 2 of
Baresch's letter. The third word in, is simliar to the Moretus
"Conye". Zandbergen's translation of the Baresch letter has this word
as "conjecture":
Greg says:
Or rather, as "I conjecture". He seems to be reading it as "conicio",
which is indeed "I conjecture", although I am puzzled by the
spelling in the letter -- it seems to me to be deliberately written
"conijcio", which is odd, the 'i' being short. Still it makes sense in
context and there is no obvious alternative. I would perhaps take minor
issue with "other things which appear like chemical secrets",
but overall this translation looks reasonable.
The noun for "conjecture" would be "coniectura" or perhaps "coniectio"
(my dictionary is ambiguous, but seems to prefer the former).
Perhaps Moretus is abbreviating, but at the moment I wouldn't put my
money on it. This may be an example of one of the differences
between classical Latin and Neo-Latin (which Moretus is using).
.......... Ok, solved. According to Lewis & Short "coniicio" is a
known
variant spelling:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aentry%3D%233179
Doesn't help us much, though.
Berj says:
Any possibility that no matter the translation, the Baresch "conijcio"
and the Moretus "Conye" are related?
Greg says:
Possibly, but I think it unlikely. Moretus is consistent about
differentiating his 'c' and 'C'. The only other place he uses an
uppercase/large 'C' is in 'Chr[ist]o', elsewhere the lowercase 'c' is
clear. So that suggests that 'Conye' is a name or title. Also at the
moment I can't find any variant of conicio & related words which
could fit. By the way, the 'o' in 'Conye' is suspect, it may be an 'e'.
Berj says:
Yes it could be Cenye, but I lean more toward Conye.
Greg says:
I do to, just noting the possibility, since the word is still
unidentified.
Berj says:
Are we agreed that "Conye" is a term that is descriptive of "litteras",
which I take to mean a letter to Moretus from Kircher. In other
words Moretus received from Kircher a "Conye letter".
Greg says:
Yes, that's what it looks like to me. Letters, 'litteras' is accusative
plural.
Berj says:
I suppose Kircher might have been in some town named Conye and mailed
the letter from there?
Greg says:
I thought this too, but I haven't yet been able to find any town which
might fit.
Berj says:
This needs to be resolved because it could change the significance of
the letter greatly. Likely it is nothing special, but suppose for
example that Conye means "crypto".
Greg says:
Quite.
Berj says:
Another item on line 3: suppose it is libentissime instead of
libertissime ? Any progress then?
Greg says:
That would be something like 'very willingly' or 'very
pleasingly/pleasurably'; which perhaps makes a bit more sense in
context but
doesn't change the fundamental meaning, which hinges on 'litteras
Conye' and 'Sollicitudine' &c.
But those K-to-M letters from Feb 1642 should give a hint of the
situation, 'Conye', Apollonius et al. If only we could get at them. If
'Conye' was a place Kircher would have signed it with the date, just as
Moretus signs 'Praga'. Similarly if it refers to the subject-matter.
Berj says:
It is hard to imagine "pleasingly" and "anxiety" in the same sentence a
couple of words apart!
Greg says:
Trying to see whether the 22 Feb letter could be a reply to Kircher's
19 Feb letter, I did some back-of-an-envelope numbers. Rome is
1300 km from Prague by modern roads, I suspect that these more or less
follow the roads of Kircher's time -- many of the roads in
Europe still follow Roman roads. The average speed of express
horse-based postal systems has been found to be remarkably consistent
over a couple of thousand years, about 15 km/h, with the horse being
run for some 20-25 km before changing at a relay station.
So, in a maximum of 3 days, our letter could travel 1000-1100 km. If we
allow for 3.5 days (Kircher posts a.m. on 19 Feb, Moretus
receives late p.m. on 22 Feb) and up the speed to 16 km/h, we can just
get away with 1300 km. So it is just about doable. However,
this is top-speed expensive relay post riding 24 hrs a day - pony
express or government courier stuff. I didn't check if such a network
existed between Rome and Prague, or if Kircher could or would have used
it. It also leaves Moretus very little time to reply. Even
though Kircher was formally in Rome from 1638, I think it would be
prudent to look for a place which might be 'Conye' closer to
Prague, which he might have visited and written from. I tried looking
for Latin names but came up empty, perhaps someone will have
better luck.
Berj says:
Fascinating! Great work Greg. I'd say that makes it very unlikely the
two letters were chained, if the ends of the chain were Prague and
Rome.
[end of J.VS comm. #128]
**********************************
129
From: Greg Stachowski
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 23:55:19 +0100
Subject: J.VS: New article by Jan Hurych: More about Dr.
Raphael Mnishowsky
Jan has favoured us with another article, now in the Library as #
10-4-2007-12-20. From Jan's abstract:
MORE ABOUT DR. RAPHAEL MNISHOWSKY
The article brings in two recent discoveries:
1) the book by Mnishowsky, "Construction sive strues Trithemiana", is
not a Czech textbook but a book on cryptography and
2) the handwriting of the "signature" in the VM is very close to the
handwriting of Mnishowsky in his manuscript. There is a possiblity
that Mnishowsky once owned the VM but never told about it Marci.
The URL is:
http://www.as.up.krakow.pl/jvs/library/10-4-2007-12-20
Greg
****************************
130
From: Berj Ensanian
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 22:51:11 -0500 (EST)
Subject: J.VS: Analysis of Baresch's manu propria
Dear All
The 27 APR 1639 letter of Georgius Baresch to Athanasius Kircher [1]
offers possibilities for analysis besides its translation. For
example, it seems that some attention ought to be paid to the many
diacritical marks in the letter - some of them quite well match
Voynich alphabet letters, such as MD-I and MD-F.
In J.VS communication #121 I urged some attention to Baresch's sine
(manu propria) in his letter. I have sent to our Librarian Greg for
deposit # 15-1-2007-12-24 two images:
1BareschSine.jpg being a crop of Baresch's signature and sine from the
online APUG image.
The other image, AnalysisBareschSine.jpg, is a digital photo of four
cropped and pasted gray-scale print-outs of 1BareschSine.jpg
where I have, with a black-ink felt-tip pen, over-drawn the traces of
Baresch's sine in an attempt to analyze how he actually rendered it.
The source APUG image is a jpg and inadequate for reaching firm
conclusions. However, it appears to me that Baresch's sine was
rendered as a composition of three major graphical components, and so I
have numbered them in AnalysisBareschSine.jpg. The sine
begins at top-left with an "M" starting the component #1, and ends at
bottom-right with component #3, which seems to spell a word
that ends with the letter "8".
I believe that components #1 and #2 were written in one continuous
trace. Component #3 I am not sure about: the pen may have been
lifted off the paper at the end of #2 before resuming with #3.
Deciphering the (presumed) word of component #3 is of interest of
course.
The most interesting item is that the beginning part of #3, where it
overlaps the later parts of #1, results in the appearance of a
symmetric double-looped gallows letter, MD-A, "hidden" in the main body
of the sine, shown as #4. The peculiarity of this effect is
further amplified because the APUG jpg hints, ever so slightly, that
the upper-right bend of the left loop of the gallows, was possibly
reinforced by Baresch with a separate tracing - the critical bend is
marked in #4 with a Greek letter beta (veta).
Needless to say, given the current knowledge of Baresch and his Prague
manuscript (hypothetically the same as Beinecke MS 408), it
is entirely possible that this MD-A gallows glyph is a mere accident
that Baresch was not even aware of when he scripted his sine. But,
I would like to suggest to any Voynich student reading this: if by
chance you have the opportunity to personally examine the actual
Baresch letter, with at least a good magnifying glass, then the most
important question which begs for an answer is:
Did Baresch reinforce the beta bend?
Merry Christmas
Berj / KI3U
[1] APUG 557, 353r&v
http://archimede.imss.fi.it/kircher/557/large/353r.jpg
http://archimede.imss.fi.it/kircher/557/large/353v.jpg
******************************
131
From: Greg Stachowski
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 02:00:46 +0100
Subject: J.VS: Re: Analysis of Baresch's manu propria
The images which accompany J.VS. communication #130, illustrating
Berj's analysis of Baresch's manu propria, are now in the library
as deposit # 15-1-2007-12-24. The address is:
http://www.as.up.krakow.pl/jvs/library/15-1-2007-12-24/
Greg
****************************
132
From: Berj Ensanian
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 23:48:48 -0500 (EST)
Subject: J.VS: The Nine Schnazbrothers of Voynich f24v
Dear All
I have sent to our Librarian Greg an addendum to J.VS Library deposit #
12-1-2007-10-12, the image file:
rg1xcVMSf24v.jpg
This image was made from an image, 1xcVMSf24v.tif, already in #
12-1-2007-10-12, by converting to gray-scale, printing a paper
copy of it, re-inforcing by hand with a black-ink pen some lines and
paint brushings, and then photographing the paper with a digital
camera, resulting finally in rg1xcVMSf24v.jpg.
I invite all who are interested in the proposition that some Voynich
manuscript illustrations carry hidden / steganographic images, in
this case intentional faces, to compare this rg1xcVMSf24v.jpg image
with the original high-resolution SID image of f24v available
from the Yale Beinecke Library. [1,2]
As before (J.VS comm. # 107) I suggest that the nine leaves of the f24v
plant illustration present faces: nine different ones projecting a
catalog of human expressions / personalities, including depression, and
mean-spiritedness.
Now, briefly, the background to this is that in early October Jan
Hurych published his latest investigations into hidden numbers in the
VMS - announced in J.VS comm. #99. This led to the discovery of what
Robert Teague in comm. #101 dubbed "a whole new layer of
the VMs", meaning the hypothesis or observation that the long familiar
general visual layer of the Voynich ms steganographically
conceals at least one other layer of rich material. The need for
precision standard image processing protocols, an ongoing J.VS project
that presently focuses on Dennis Fedak's idea of using Moire patterns
for noise / artifacts analysis, was recognized as a by-product of
this development. In J.VS comm. #103 the Library deposit #
12-1-2007-10-12 was first announced, containing initially six hidden
faces of the VMS's steganographic layer, including one of the most
remarkable so far discovered: The King of f37v.
In comm. #107 was first introduced the proposition that the all-text
page f76r, already a unique VMS page by one earlier analysis [3],
is actually a steganographic hand-script text-art (akin to today's
ASCII art) portrait of a man, a three-dimensional portrait, possibly
even showing the prime author (Marci?) of the Voynich manuscript. If
true, and in any case, the possibility that the long inscrutable
Voynich text is a graphical device, rather than, or at least in
addition to, being a text, or numerical, or musical, notation vehicle,
then
profoundly affects general analytic considerations of the world's most
mysterious manuscript. Considerations of the inescapable
problem of the power of suggestion entering analytics of this nature,
was also introduced in #107, by Greg Stachowski.
In communication #108 I amplified the proposition that: A major theme
in the Voynich manuscript is the realistic, as well as the
caricatured presentation of the spectrum of faces, primarily human, but
also including animal, and chimerical. I discussed other
personal hypothetical notions, some radical, including that some sort
of photographic process may have been involved in the
steganographic face in the illustration of f3v. I continued
hypothetical color theory optics considerations of f76r in comm. #109,
in
tune with one of my older general hypotheses that the Voynich
manuscript may be a cryptic scientific revolution record. (Note: it
continues to be implicit in my Voynich considerations that the
authorship involved advanced mathematical abilities with a high degree
of focus on prime numbers relations.)
Communication #111 records, among other J.VS work, extensive off-J
discussion among us of the reality of the steganographic faces
and the problem of objective consensus on same. Accordingly, during
that time (late October, 2007) an attempt was made to expose
this controversial material to a wider audience. That resulted in a
reaction that I detailed in J.VS communication #112. [4]
The Voynich manuscript is a problem that, in my view, on account of its
immense complexity and difficulty, can use some humor now
and then on the part of serious researchers - this I've expressed a
number of times before. And so yes there is some humor intended in
the naming of these proposed-as-real-and-intentional faces in f24v: the
9 Schnazbrothers, a naming, the humor of which will be
obvious to the observer who sees these faces. More seriously, in
resonance with my belief that the VMS author was an expert on the
psychology of intellectuals, I think it possible that the nine
Schnazbrothers are a little message from the VMS author and / or
illustrator: the nine faces symbolize nine types of personalities and
reactions to the confrontation with the nine rosettes manuscript.
And perhaps the Schnazbrother at the middle-bottom indicates the one,
the only, type that eventually penetrates, in suspicious
amazement, the full genius of the author(s) of the 9RMS.
And the Schnazbrother at the top reminds me of the would-be Voynich
student who fails, to first before everything, THOROUGHLY
study D'Imperio. [5]
Berj / KI3U
[1] The online access to the Library of The Journal of Voynich Studies
is here:
http://www.as.up.krakow.pl/jvs/library/
[2] Recently Beinecke has adopted for MS 408 (Voynich ms) the policy:
"This manuscript is not available for consultation without
advance permission from the curator." Beinecke's images of MS 408 are
online here:
http://webtext.library.yale.edu/beinflat/pre1600.ms408.htm
[3] see J.VS comm. #51
[4] An essentially identical copy of J.VS communication #112 was posted
to the new vms-list.
[5] The Voynich Manuscript - An Elegant Enigma, by M.E. D'Imperio,
Aegean Park Press, c. 1976-80, ISBN 0-89412-038-7
***********************************
133
From: Berj Ensanian
To: journalvs@basicisp.net
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 20:40:50 -0500 (EST)
Subject: J.VS: Moretus-Kircher letters, Baresch, Wilfrid, Miss
Nill, Horczicky's title & signature, f24v, & more off-J
discussions
Redaction of off-J discussions 20-30 DEC 2007:
Greg Stachowski [on M22FEB1642] says:
On a whim, I fired up Luna Insight and found the verso of the Moretus
letter (JPG attached). It is addressed to Kircher in Rome and
has what looks to me like a postmaster's franking note from Mantua. I
think it is therefore increasingly unlikely that Moretus was
answering Kircher's 19th Feb letter, but that the two letters passed
each other. To put a final nail into this idea, APUG 561 f087 is a
draft of a letter from Kircher to Jacques Viva (or Fiva) dated 18 Feb
1642 at Rome. So we have confirmation of AK's whereabouts.
Berj Ensanian says:
r Greg, your pony-post calculations [J.VS comm. #128] had me already
convinced. In the meantime, while trying to determine if
"Conye" is just a form of cone, as in ice cream cone, perhaps some name
for some conics notes of Kircher's, I found plenty of
"Apollonius" in an APUG document by P. Dehny / Dehnig, that appears to
be a commentary on ancient Greek scriptures. It has plenty
of mixed Latin and Greek letters. No date, but another Dehnig document
in APUG is 1662. Not sure if this doc will help us with the
Moretus letter:
APUG 563, 168r-169v
http://193.206.220.68/kircher/aspimage.asp?ID=4523
or:
http://archimede.imss.fi.it/kircher/563/large/168r.jpg
Greg says:
Plenty of Greek text, in fact -- presumably quoted. According to Luna
Insight, this is Reinhold Dehnig (a.k.a. Dehn) S.J. (of course).
No date. Anyway, at least on 168v from line 7 on he is referring to
Apollonius of Rhodes and his 'Argonautica':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonius_of_Rhodes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argonautica
Interestingly enough, he mentions a translation into Latin. For
completeness, he mentions that this is by [Valentin] Rotmar in Latin
verse, which would make it the 1570 translation, perhaps as published
in the Basle 1572 edition:
http://www.chlt.org/sandbox/perseus/mooney/page.3440.a.php
He [Dehnig] refers to at least Plutarch, Pliny and I think Aristotle on
168r, and on 168v also I think to the god Apollo: 'Apollinis', with
mention of the Oracle. Aristophanes on 169v. Probably others, I didn't
look too closely.
Berj says:
It would seem that unless there is something specifically of interest
to mathematicians in the Argonautica, that the Moretus letter
"Apollonium" is more likely referring to Apollonius of Perga.
Greg says:
Indeed.
Berj says:
The Oxford English Dictionary under "cone" has an entry with "coni
umbrae":
2. Optics. a. .......
b. Cone of shade (in Astr.): the conical shadow projected into space by
a planet on the side turned from the sun. [cf. L. coni umbrae
(Lucr.)]. .......
If "Lucr." is Lucretius, then apparently Lucretius used "coni umbrae",
and presumably the term appears in the only known Lucretius
work, De Rerum Natura. There is perhaps some general illumination
available in the book "Bilingualism and the Latin Language" By
James Noel Adams:
http://books.google.com/books?id=AMc1WQAnRTkC&pg=PA331&lpg=PA331&dq=lucr+greek+latin&source=web&ots=z8HOs5nHAS&sig=33-41fPBJ4PNr9lijerBtUQJeh8
Now, if "coni" is affiliated with the "Conye" in line 3 of M22FEB1642,
then I am puzzled as to why Moretus, a Jesuit, writing to
fellow Jesuit Kircher, would use a grecism originating with an
Epicurean (Lucretius). Scanadalous! No? I suppose it need not
necessarily be astronomically shady :) since possibly Moretus or
Kircher could have invented their own wording to suit their purpose.
Hmm. I just realized something obvious: Epicurus is an ancient
prototype for Roger Bacon and later the scientific revolution.
Greg says:
Of course! [cones] Well done. Anyway, the OED only quotes Lucretius as
an example. It is in De Rerum Natura, I checked -- actually
he mentions cones a number of times, once with shadows. Likely he
borrowed from Ptolemy or one of the other Greek astronomers.
Lewis & Short has 'conus' as derived from the Greek 'konos'. In any
case it was Latinised for long enough to be a normal 2nd decl.
noun
After much work I have lines 1-6 in a form I am happy with. (Actually I
am now down to line 8, but I'll hold those back until I have
that whole sentence complete.I've changed the footnote numbering format
slightly, to make it easier to find footnotes and insert new
ones. (I add the footnotes both to make my logic clear and as notes to
myself, translations like this being very open to particular
interpretation.)
1. Reverend Father in Christ
2. His peace also [with you]{2.1}
3. I have received{3.1} Your Reverence's very pleasing{3.2} letter on
Cones, very readily{3.3} I read [in] it
4. your remarks about the uneasiness{ 4.1,4.2} with regard to
Apollonius. However, from Rome{4.3} I know
5. there to have been{5.1} a complete Apollonius{5.2} in the Arabic or
Persian language in
6. the Florentine, rather than the{6.1} Vatican, Library.
{2.1} "euisdem" genitive of idem; I render this as "His" i.e. Christ's,
God's.
{3.1} "Accepi": perfect tense of accipio.
{3.2} "gratissimas": superlative fem. acc. plural of "gratus"; thus
here clearly an adj. of "litteras". Could also translate as "very
dear".
{3.3} "libentissime": adverbial superlative of "libet" or "libens". In
addition to the usual meaning ("it is pleasing", as in "quod libet
mihi"), Lewis & Short give the less common "willingly, with
readiness" for libens, which I think makes more sense here. TM read
AK's comments readily, that is, with great interest.
{4.1} ablative singular of solicitudo.
{4.2} lit. "what was noted concerning the uneasiness"; annoto in later
usage also means remark, comment on.
{4.3} ablative of Roma; so, TM has information from a prior visit to
Rome or contacts in Rome. (Note: for "in Rome" one would use
the locative, "Romae".)
{5.1} "fuisse" perfect infinitive of esse, to be.
{5.2} i.e., a complete edition of, copy of.
{6.1} lit. "not".
It sounds like AK made some comments (possibly repeating someone else's
rather than giving his own) regarding a poor copy of
Apollonius, and TM is saying that he knows of a better one.
Moretus, Kircher et al. did not reject earlier knowledge just because
it was written down by pagans. They are always referring to Greek
and Roman authors -- look at that letter by Dehnig. Jan has
demonstrated that it was known usage.
So we have 'coni'. So far that is our best bet, I think, even if TM
adds an extra 'e' or so. By the way, I was wrong when I said 'letters';
'litterae' (plural of 'littera') is used for 'letter' (also 'paper', in
the scientific sense). So it would be one letter.
Jan Hurych says:
Look at this:
JSTOR: De Atmosphaera Lunari, Dissertatio Astronomica. Auctore Dno ...-
[ Translate this page ] Unde instituto cal- culo eruitur axis
coni umbrae lunaris uno saltem terrae diametro major distantia lunae a
terra, quae tunc mi- nima erat, ...
links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0260-7085(1739%2F1741)41%3C261%3ADALDAA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-4
- Similar pages
1] Gerick. lib. 6. cap. 6. Solis celerrima gyratio [ 2] etiam ... Jam
quaeritur axis coni umbrae seu linea bd. ubi dices: uti sinus. [63].
ang. d. 13', 42'' ad sinum complementi id est ang. 90 grad. minus 13',
42'' ...
leibnizviii.bbaw.de/.../Aus+Otto+von+Guericke%252C+Experimenta+nova/LH035%252C14%252C02_092r/index.html
- 64k -
Cached - Similar pages
They both talk astronomy, of course "coni" could also mean sundial.
Berj says:
What about Jan's finding sundial for "coni"?
Greg says:
According to Lewis & Short this is a very rare usage, from
Vitruvius, where he is describing a particular type of sundial. The
usual
word for sundial is 'solarium'.
Berj says:
What I am most concerned with is this: is Moretus using an unusual form
for cone or sundial? I mean, in their Latin, how would they
write a straightforward expression to say: I gratefully received your
letter on cones.
Greg says:
Accepi vestras litteras conorum grate, or thereabouts with regard to
word order. 'coni' if one cone, which is what we seem to have here
(although I rendered it as 'Cones' in my translation).
Berj says:
What I am getting at is this: the possibility that there was some
secret society at the dawn of the scientific revolution that employed
unusual forms or variants for certain words in their normal Latin, for
the purpose of communicating a second message in letters, more
or less secretly. If this is a possibility, we ought to look out for
it. Jan is already wondering about an ST society within S.J. back then.
Greg says:
Unless we find a consistent misuse or misspelling used by more than one
person it will be difficult to see, and even then could be
natural (like Shakespeare spelling his name three different ways). I'm
sceptical of all this.
Berj says:
They (the intelligentsia back then) of course had all sorts of devices,
and some not all that hidden, for communicating; I just looked at
a portrait engraving of Robert Fludd / Fluctibus (1574-1637) and he is
quite plainly giving a sign with his right hand. Incidentally, his
coat of arms seems to have at its top a cigar-smoking dog, unless my
eyes deceive me.
Greg says:
That's its tongue.
Berj says:
But anyway, my central question here remains: are the unusual spelling
variants we are encountering, a suggestion of secret or
semi-secret messages riding atop normal Latin?
Greg says:
Personally I doubt it. We're not really seeing that many spelling
variations. Look how variable English spelling was at the time. (Not to
mention the sometimes atrocious spelling and grammar used by some
supposedly native speakers today.) Compared to that the Latin is
pretty consistent. The only real variation we have encountered so far
(apart from the mysterious 'Conye') is a doubling of i and
replacing j for i in some cases, particularly where doubled. Which is a
common enough variation from the dark and middle ages (when
Latin was bastardised wholesale) and persisted later. Even today with
the easy spread of textbooks there is still some variation in the
way Latin spelling and pronounciation is taught across Europe, and the
Latin usually taught in school is that of a very short period in
history, around the time of Ceasar, Cicero and Augustus. In short, I
think we're just seeing minor differences in the way these people
were taught. Besides, we have too few potentia! l variants so far to
convey any meaningful information. So if they are sending secret
messages they are a lot better hidden.
I'm not 100 % sold on Conye being coni or similar, but it's by far the
best fit we have and I'm going to move on with it. If we ever get
Kircher's letters we will be able to confirm it.
Berj says:
Anyway, if Apollonius's conics is being discussed, is it unusual that
Moretus writes "Conye" ?
Greg says:
I would have expected something along the lines of 'conica', but it
depends on what Kircher wrote, since that is what Moretus is
referring to. Kircher might have written about cones, and mentioned
Apollonius in passing. Or he might have written about something
else and we are misreading 'Conye', although I think the identification
of Apollonius is firm.
Berj says:
What about an Epicurean connection? Apparently the Franciscan
astronomer Gassendi (1592-1655), connected with Fr. Mersenne and
Descartes, and maybe also directly with Fludd, was reviving Epicurean
thought in the 1640's. He also wrote biographies of Copernicus
and Brahe, and so on.
Greg says:
What about it? Lots of things were being revived or reexamined. I don't
think that there was necessarily anything subversive going on.
These were not the dangerous times of a hundred years earlier, the
likes of Kircher, Mersenne, Gassendi, Descartes etc had many
interests, and were not above revisiting the works of ancient
philosophers.
Berj says:
Alright then, no cigar on Epicurean connections, nor on secret meanings
via forms and variations. But we are still uncertain about
Conye, it continues coining conjectures, and its meaning still
possesses the power to greatly affect the significance of M22FEB1642 -
that about right?
Dennis Fedak says:
From the "Cassell's New Latin Dictionary"conus -i, m. a cone Cic.,
Lucr. Transf., the apex of a helmet: Verg. -- perhaps pertaining to
one's pointed head? :)
Berj says:
Wait a minute: suppose Dennis has stumbled onto something: what if
Moretus and Kircher are referring to Baresch as a "cone-head" :)
Greg says [23 DEC 2007]:
We are still uncertain about Conye, but at this point I don't think we
can be certain about it without additional data, specifically,
Kircher's original letter. In the meantime, the power of Conye to
affect the significance of the letter diminishes as we pin down the
rest
of the translation in detail. For example, the identification of
Apollonius of Perga is based not just on that word, but on the
references
to Arabic, Florence, and Gregory St. Vincent. Of course that particular
detail may change as we finalise the translation, but you see my
point. If Conye were to be something else then that something would
also have to fit the other data, particularly have some relation to
an Arabic manuscript by an Apollonius (not necessarily the one from
Perga) in a Florentine library.
What may happen is that it turns out that Conye is of sufficient
interest to warrant hunting down the Kircher letter to confirm it. In
the
meantime, I shall leave it as 'Cone' unless I hit a conflict later in
the translation.
Berj says:
Yes that sounds good. Of course we'd like to see Kircher's Conye letter
no matter what. By the way, if Fludd -> Fluctibus is par for the
course, then I suppose Baresch -> Barschius is almost a yawner.
Thinking forward to circumstantial evidence from this M22FEB1642
letter, if in the final analysis it exhibits not the slightest hint of
Baresch and his ms, then those seem a totally dead topic between
Moretus and Kircher just thirteen months after Marci mentions
Baresch to Kircher in the Marci-to-Kircher letter of 12 JAN 1641. In
the meantime, Mnishowsky still has a couple of years or so to
live. Then there is the question: why don't we know of Moretus-Kircher
correspondence beyond the 1640's when Moretus died much
later in 1667? I'm getting altogether an impression that the 1640's,
when Mnischowsky dies, and the 1660's when, apparently,
Marci-Kircher correspondence vanishes, are pivotal VMS decades.
Jan says:
Berj and Greg, I am afraid that your word "Conye" is actually the word
"longe" meaning simply a long letter. As for "g" there, it is
similar to one two lines lower, in the word "integrum" - except the
upper arch is not finished properly. Same applies for letter "l", see
in the same line "littera..."
Berj says:
That certainly looks very good Jan, a "far" letter. The other
open-looped "L" is with the last word of line 15, which we have been
taking as "licuit". If it became "cicuit" then it is similar to
"cicuta" (hemlock).
Greg says:
It would have to be "longas" to match the case of "litteras". I
considered an 'l' but rejected it as Moretus always closes his loops in
'l's.
Except for that in "licuit". Still it's indeed a better fit.
Berj says:
It doesn't fit well, but for what it's worth, in 1613 died one Robertus
Conye, a Rector, at Eastwrotham / Norfolk. There were other
Conyes in 17th c. England.
Attached as a preview are the two pics [1BareschSine.jpg and
AnalysisBareschSine.jpg] from Lib. deposit # 15-1-2007-12-24
Btw, in the wild ideas department: I wonder about variations of
"Mnischowsky". Baresch's sine almost gives me the impression that he
may be acknowledging Mnischowsky. Might Baresch have studied with
Mnishowsky - didn't you [Jan] hint at something like that?
Jan says:
They might have been in Italy at the same time, Baresch at Sapienza,
but I do not know where was Mnishowsky, only that he studied
in Italy and France as well, I will try to find out. If they knew each
other as classmates, then it would explain the theoretical hypothesis
M. gave him the VM. But as a hoax he could choose better expert -
Baresch was not aparently such a great cipher-solver or manuscript
expert and it would be too much for Mnischowsky to fabricate such time
consuming and complicated hoax. On the other hand, if it
was the original and Mnishowsky did not solve it, he surely would not
part with it. So again, dead end.
In which way confirms Baresch's letter Mnishowsky?
Berj says:
Well I think not necessarily a dead end because I hold open the
possibility that the VMS was a work in progress that was not
completed until later in the 17th c. In other words, Baresch and / or
Mnishowsky might have had the seed for it, and the document
evolved, including with input from others.
Well it would be very, very interesting to find definite connections
between Baresch and Mnischowsky. What I was wondering was if
from my analysis of Baresch's sine, AnalysisBareschSine.jpg, you can
see even the slightest possible influence, either Baresch ->
Mnischowsky or Mnischowsky -> Baresch.
I continue to ponder this question: if Baresch indeed possessed the
Voynich manuscript for all those years, as standard Voynich ms
history alleges, then should we not expect to find at least some
scribbles of annotation in his hand, a mere word or two if nothing
else,
in the VMS somewhere? It just seems to me that if you own a highly
interesting book that you are actively working on / with, then
even inadvertently some marks from your own hand will get into the
book. I suppose the strange writing on f116v is a logical thing to
look at for this. Does it resemble anything that might have come from
either Baresch's or Mnischowsky's hand?
Jan says:
You are right, we should investigate all scribbles in the VM and
compare them with other handwritings. So far nothing reminds me of
Mnishowsky but he has to be checked more thoroughly (of course if he
created the fraud, he would not add his handrwiting as a dead
giveway :-). Still, if we find there the handwriting of somebody else,
it may clear that person from being the author (unless he was
devilishly clever).
I was wondering about those zigzags in Barschius's signature.
Apparently it was a common habit, see also enclosed [baresch.jpg;
horcz.jpg; wallenstein.jpg] signature of Horczicky a nd general
Wallenstein ( the caption says they are from years 1628, 1629, and last
two 1634, shortly before he was murdered and they show he was already
ill). What bothers me is that some part of Baresch's signature
is crossed-out.
Berj says:
Well those zig-zags (sine components #1 and #2 in my nomenclature) are
just how the sine was scripted. So the question is: is Baresch
intentionally hiding something in his sine's zig-zags? Is he hiding not
just part of a word that ends with the letter "8", but also hiding a
gallows letter? If we had the actual Baresch letter, I'll bet with a
good magnifying glass we could tell something about the beta bend. If
indeed Baresch traced it in reinforcement, then one can start to
believe that he was intentionally signalling a gallows glyph to
Kircher.
Jan says:
Something bothers me: how much of the signature there is sine and what
are those scratch lines hiding the part of sine? Baresch was
asking for favour and knowing the letter might impress Kircher why
would he create such a mess (it does seem to be in the same ink
and pen)? Kircher was by all measures very organized and careful
person, his writing being almost like printed one.
By the way, the letter shows carelessness and quite a disarray -
somebody should do the graphological analysis (i.e. character study) of
it. Certain psychological symptoms are visible, certainly not related
to high age or mental problems. It is apparently just the way he
was, all the time.
Now there is one more important point in Marci's letter: he said he was
sending Baresch's attempts with the manuscript and the letter
(see Rene's English translation of the letter, as I mentioned in my
last article). Voynich certainly does not mention having them, neither
they are stored in the box at Beinecke. They would provide quite a rich
source of information. Or did Voynich know about them, took
them and never revealed the fact, hoping it would help him to solve the
riddle? Of course, the most probable case is that Kircher
destroyed them as well as those in the first letter, but would he
really? After all, he finally knew the VM is the real thing and
besides,
he collected all letters and even more . . . Come to think of it, what
if the first letter was sold to Voynich as well, again with all the
samples, but since the sale was secret, we may never know.
Another point: I do not believe Marci sent such valuable manuscript by
post, but most likely was using the opportunity of the trip by
one of Prague Jesuits to Rome ( he was apparently afraid that mail
might lose it and was rather waiting four years or so (as per Rene)
for opportunity - and it would explain his contradictory claim in his
letter that he "sent the book soon after he inherited it). The
candidfate for the messenger is of course again Moretus or rather
Kinner and we should find something in their letters about it -
hopefully . . .
Berj says:
I think the "scratch lines" are just Baresch's way of scripting the #2
component of his sine. In fact Marci himself in his 10 or 16 MAY
1642 letter, where he has added his sine, has scripted his sine in a
messy way, I'd say.
But I agree with you that Barech's sine is odd for such a begging
letter: it is egotistically big and complicated. Why? Well, suppose
Baresch at the time that he wrote the letter, knew that Kircher had in
fact seen the mysterious script already from Baresch's previous
attempts, using also Moretus, to get Kircher interested in it. Baresch
may have needed, in his letter, a way to discreetly signal the
strange script alphabet. And so he used some of the diacritical marks,
and then hid a clear MD-A gallows in his sine - his sine would
then need to be big enough, and complex enough to serve as an effective
hiding place for the gallows. That's a possible explanation it
seems to me.
Oh yes definitely, the graphology should be done on Baresch's letter -
that letter has many more secrets that are still fresh for analysis.
Jan I'd be willing to bet that Voynich had VMS papers that we don't
know about. After all, we do know that he knew about Baresch
but said nothing. Question is: where could those papers be? I think
maybe we are right back to Miss Nill, and we don't even know
where she is buried! [J.VS comm #33, #36, #38]
Jan says:
Either way, it [sine / manu propria] cannot be seriously taken as a
proof the letter was written by the author, both sine as well as
signature can be easily forged, that much they must have known at that
time already. Maybe there was some hidden sign only author
and the recipient knew about? And yes, Miss Nill is probably the answer
to several mysteries. As an assistent to Voynich, she must
have been aware of most of his secrets - she might have waited for
Ethel's permission but hardly for the revelation, she knew it all and
more.
I am suprised that nobody asked about Baresch's scribblings even after
Voynich released Marci's letter with that info. Did he release it
together with manuscript or later? He certainly overlooked it himself,
which may prove he did not make a fraudulent manuscript after
all ( still, he might have kept something away and yes, he might have
forged in desperation the "hidden" name in the manuscript). Of
course, I might look contradictory, now when I feel the handwriting of
the "signature" could have beeen that of Mnishowsky. But I
was just commenting on it, not that I am really convinced. Beside, the
letters in the signature are so simple that almost anybody could
have written it. So we are moving on some spiral, but hopefuly in the
direction that goes toward the center, not the other way around,
haha.
Berj says:
I have thought that also - that some sines had hidden signs in them
that only the sender and recipient know. The presence or absence of
the sine following the signature could itself be a sign - basically
that was the reason for J.VS comm. #4 with Marci's letters. Well yes,
there must be some very good reason why Voynich remained silent
concerning Baresch.
Jan says:
There could be of course plenty of explanation of the dilemma (like the
VM could have been made "according" to Baresch letter and
that the VM is in reality NOT the original Prague manuscript which was
lost, and so on). The hoax theory is only avoiding the
problem, never solving it. There are still many unexplainable points in
Kelley's life: he was spreading plenty gold as gifts, but where
could he get all that gold? He must have had a source, maybe even
secret gold mine somewhere in Bohemia.
Interesting point is that the Brittish Royal society actually sent
their delegation to Prague to see Marci since he was reported to them
to
be skilled in metallurgy processes (which he claims he learned from
Baresch). Could they have been prompted by the rumour about
Kelly's gifts? And what about his transmutations, seen by many and
doubted by so few? He seemed to be also truly believing in his red
powder. Why?
Horczicky was arrested in 1618 and sent to exile in 1620. As for the
letter from Baresch, I do not think Voynich ever saw it - else he
would have used it in his provenance as the proof that the VM is indeed
Prague manuscript (thus building the strong link for the
missing link in the chain Rudolph - Horczicky - Baresch - Marci. For
that reason, he always claimed the name was written in the VM
by Rudolph himself, another make-belief :-).
Berj says:
Here are some handy references to Baresch etc. from the old vms-list;
on the whole they show a rapid exploitation of a lead developed
by Rafal T. Prinke:
15 APR 2002: Rafal T. Prinke discovers Servit's 1989 book on Marci
which gives info on Baresch plus a lead to more Baresch-Marci
info in a 1662 book by Marci titled "Philosophia vetus restituta" (thus
dating Baresch's death before 1662). Rafal quotes from Servit's
book: "It is only known that a year before his death he sent to
Athanasius Kircher one of the most valuable manuscripts from this
collection, the so called _Cabalistic manuscript of Roger Bacon_. As it
appears from the letter by G. A. Kinner to Athanasius Kircher
of 5 January 1667 (Carteggio Kircher,Roma, VIII, fol. 150), it was
probably in 1666." :
http://www.voynich.net/Arch/2002/04/msg00053.html
16 APR 2002: Rene Zandbergen comments on Rafal's comments, says that
Kinner's 5 JAN 1667 letter to Kircher has a real gem, and
concludes that Marci's last letter should be dated 1666 and not 1665,
and that the possibility of fraud is now more remote:
http://www.voynich.net/Arch/2002/04/msg00056.html
16 APR 2002: Rafal T. Prinke quotes Rene Zandbergen saying the 1667
Kinner letter (link to it gotten from Gabriel Landini) has a real
gem (P. Prouincialem etc.), and Rafal comments it should be easy to
discover who P. Prouincialem is:
http://www.voynich.net/Arch/2002/04/msg00057.html
17 APR 2002: Rene Zandbergen locates a copy of "Philosophia vetus
restituta" and will check it. Rene tells info from Fletcher's 1972
paper (~ Marci writes to Kircher):
http://www.voynich.net/Arch/2002/04/msg00081.html
18 APR 2002: Rene Zandbergen gives the Latin text about Baresch from
Marci's Philosophia Vetus Restituta and summarizes it in
English: Marci knew Baresch already 40 yrs and Baresh died at age ~ 70
etc.:
http://www.voynich.net/Arch/2002/04/msg00075.html
19 APR 2002: Rafal T. Prinke gives further details about Marci from
Servit's book including that Dionisio Misseroni was Marci's
brother-in-law :
http://www.voynich.net/Arch/2002/04/msg00080.html
20 APR 2002: Rene Zandbergen comments on developments flowing from
Rafal's find (Servit's book) and concludes: "Voynich had
seen (or been told about) the passage in Marci's "Philosphia Vetus
Restituta" which Rafael found in Servit and I transcribed a few days
ago, and that Voynich had probably _not_ seen the Kircher Carteggio,
contrary to what I had been assuming for a while now. "
http://www.voynich.net/Arch/2002/04/msg00078.html
20 APR 2002: Rene Zandbergen recounts passages in Brumbaugh's book
where Brumbaugh tells of finding at Beinecke,
correspondence between Wilfrid & Prague about Baresch. Zandbergen
recounts how VML member Claudio Antonini located the
notes at Beinecke:
http://www.voynich.net/Arch/2002/04/msg00077.html
21-23 APR 2002: Rafal T. Prinke & Rene Zandbergen posts: commenting
on "Barachias", on Zandbergen assuming a mistake by
Fletcher (that Baresch visited Rome). On a sword. On Zandbergen info
about Fletcher from an "M.J. Gorman", and Zandbergen's limit
date of 1571 for Baresch's birth:
http://www.voynich.net/Arch/2002/04/msg00064.html
http://www.voynich.net/Arch/2002/04/msg00059.html
http://www.voynich.net/Arch/2002/04/msg00087.html
22 APR 2002: Gabriel Landini asks if Raphael could be the connection
between Baresch and Jacobus:
http://www.voynich.net/Arch/2002/04/msg00063.html
7 MAY 2002: Rene Zandbergen quoting Jorge Stolfi and Luis Velez about
Caramuel Lobkowitz, says: " The main source is the article
by Cenyal which is quoted above, but didn't the people in Madrid, who
had us confused about Barchius / Bachusen, also study
Caramuel? What little I know about him comes form several articles of
John Fletcher. ...... " :
http://www.voynich.net/Arch/2002/05/msg00031.html
29 DEC 2002: Gabriel Landini comments on info in Fletcher's 1972 paper
saying he thinks Fletcher has a minor dating error, saying he
is puzzled why Fletcher did not connect Baresch and the VMS, and that
Fletcher wrote that Baresch "had already visited Kircher in
Rome..." :
http://www.voynich.net/Arch/2002/12/msg00154.html
May as well concentrate some info here on John Edward Fletcher
(1940-1992, d. of cancer) who authored, among other important
Kircher material, the paper: Johann Marcus Marci writes to Athanasius
Kircher. Janus. 1972; 59: 95-118.:
John Edward Fletcher pictures, and eulogies with biographical data:
http://www.thomasjfletcher.com/JohnFletcher.html
A short John Fletcher Bibliography:
http://www.thomasjfletcher.com/JohnFletcherbiblio.html
Kircher correspondence project referring to Fletcher's works:
http://archimede.imss.fi.it/kircher/
Jan says:
Short summation: the first signature of Horczizky was found in the
archive of Melnik castle by Karel Slajsna [a colleague of Jan
Hurych] on 9th February, 2004 - our letter was from 12th November, 2003
but we received the authenticated copy in February next
year, so you may find either date in the literature). The signature was
based on my suggestion to above Mr. Slajsna and my prompting
him to look there. The signature was certified by the official archiver
(Horczicky was the heytman of the castle and the county, at that
time ( 1617). I presented the signature on my [web] page and informed
the VML.
Then Rene went to Prague and found the second signature in one of the
books owned by Horczicky (the details are on his page). It was
once the property of Clementinum, see:
http://www.voynich.nu/extra/img/sinapius1602a.jpg
It does not however contain the word "Tepenec" as does the one in the
VM, as well as the other two signatures. Instead, it quotes the
old name "Sinapi". Also it is in quite different handwriting and the
claim it is in his handwriting is not certified, only the copy is
provided. Zandbergen also claimed that it is the same handwriting as
the "signature" in the VM.
Signature No.3.: Quite recently, in January 2007, Petr Kazil copied
another signature in the book in National Library of Prague, on
recommendation by Rafal Prinke (it was known in 2000 by Rafal that the
book was there, but it was somehow overlooked until 2007
and was not searched for signature. The photographs by Mr. Kazil are
at:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~kazil/testfiles/vu/
This signature is a true exlibris, and is by all means in the very same
handwriting as the first one, as I proved in my article in J.VS
"The new signature by Horczicky" (which is of course a reprint of older
article from my site). Based on this, I also proved the
"signature" in the VM is not in Horczicky's hand, and I am quoted by
Wikipedia.
Berj says:
R Jan, excellent short summary! Below are some additional VML
references from 2004:
18 FEB 2004: Manfred Staudinger, saying he is a specialist for natural
history drawings and pictures in early modern times and also
about the court of Rudolph II, questions some of Rene Zandbergen's
profile material on Horczicky:
http://www.voynich.net/Arch/2004/02/msg00290.html
19 FEB 2004: Staudinger answers Dana Scott's question on Horczicky
receiving the title 'de Tepenec':
http://www.voynich.net/Arch/2004/02/msg00294.html
19 FEB 2004: Rene Zandbergen comments on the information ~ the title
'de Tepenec' tracing to a 1921 letter to Wilfrid Voynich from
D. Lad. Klicman in Prague [Beinecke papers]; says that Rafal T. Prinke
has a lead on another document with Tepenec signature:
http://www.voynich.net/Arch/2004/02/msg00295.html
19 FEB 2004: Staudinger comments on reliability of documentation
concerning the de Tepenec title, and also the possible styles in
signing the VMS:
http://www.voynich.net/Arch/2004/02/msg00297.html
20 FEB 2004: Rafal T. Prinke provides data on the signature "Jakuba z
Tepence" in a Czech ms:
http://www.voynich.net/Arch/2004/02/msg00298.html
21 FEB 2004: Rene Zandbergen replies in detail ~ Horczicky, but first
acknowledges corresponding with Jan Hurych and having
learned about Jan's discovery of the Horczicky signature. Zandbergen
mentions being in Prague with Jorge Stolfi and browsing
Schmidl at the Clementinum, and learning from Hurych ~ reference to a
'trade of prisoners', where Jacobus was 'swapped' for Jan
Jessenius (the physician). Sources "Otto" and "Evans" and "Bauer" and
"Haupt" mentioned. Staudinger queried on possibility of
Rudolph II spending hundreds of ducats for a book:
http://www.voynich.net/Arch/2004/02/msg00345.html
22 FEB 2004: Staudinger replies to Zandbergen in detail with Rudolph II
financial data and concludes that Jacoben Horschizki /
Horzizkhi / "Horczicky was certainly not in favour of the emperor."
About Rudolph, Staudinger says: "If he ever had bought the VMs
the cover would show his coat of arms normaly together with a new
binding. " :
http://www.voynich.net/Arch/2004/02/msg00383.html
Jan says:
As for Manfred, he was well informed and located in Vienna archives!
We were told by Prague Jesuits their records are apparently there
(Vienna), too, moved there by Joseph II.
I share his [Manfred Staudinger] doubt about Horczicky's nobilitatio
document. In Czech documentation, it is said he got it for lending
money to Rudolph. Rudolph needed money and frequently sold titles for
them (he justified it of course other way :-). It is also possible
for Horczicky to buy his job as a chemist as well (my guess, since he
did not need it for making the living - his monthly salary was
peanuts comparing to his riches). He was filthy rich thanks to sales of
his Aqua Sinapia, most likely made by the recipe of Schaffner,
his teacher in Krumlov ( started to sell it as soon as he came to
Prague, having his stall behind the doors of the Clementinum). He was
then taking care of Jesuit gardens. Apparently soon he also quit his
studies, taking care of their properties and finances, apparently very
skillfully. Then he left for female Cloister of St. Anna situated close
to Royal castle and from there to Rudolph service. Nothing is
known about his alchemical work t! here or other medical skills. He
than moved to Melnik castle and got involved in politics. He was
not sent to jail by Mathias but after his death, by the new Directorium
that opposed Ferdinand II ( Horczicky was jailing Protestants in
Melnik).
Berj says:
Hmm. We could use a clarification of Jacobus's names - something like
this, but with all spelling variations:
1. Born as Jacobus Horczicky
2. Believed (or definitely known) to sign / print his name as "Synapy"
from year-X on
3. Began using nobility title "de Tepenece" from year-X on
Anybody want to take a shot at what that word in Baresch's sine, i.e.
sine component #3 might be?
[J.VS comm. #132, The Nine Schnazbrothers of Voynich f24v, is posted]
Jan says:
Interesting irony: back to the original folio [f24v], one can see, that
the shape of leaves is unnatural, disfunctional. As with the text, it
was INTENTIONALLY made not to be recognized. But why? We do not know
yet.
One thing can be however deduced: the VM is not the record of some
ancient wisdom as Baresch believed - or rather what he
WANTED KIRCHER TO BELIEVE. From his letter and his sending the samples
only it seems obvious that Baresch did not want
Kircher to find the real secret. Baresch suspected another secret (
like making of gold or Aqua Sinapia). Of course, for Kircher he had
to have more noble purpose :-). Therefore I do not believe that the VM
was written in any natural language, i.e. nonencoded.
I do not think there was ever doubt about Horczicky's nobility, just
about the reason why he got it. As for Manfred, he is right,
Horczicky's was the lowest level, was applicable only in Bohemia
(according to Manfred, and H. would be pleased we call him now
Tepenec all over the world and - I believe - it was not transferable to
his children.
Berj says:
Jan, taking the available evidence at face value, that seems a
reasonable interpretation to me: Baresch was interested in a
money-making magic potion and he hoped that the mysterious manuscript's
strange script would sufficiently motivate Kircher to help
him (Baresch) get the magic formula. But it is not entirely
satisfactory - for one thing, would Moretus really get involved, twice,
in
such an affair? Of course you've conjectured that Moretus motivated
Kircher to ignore Baresch. But then we still have Marci in his
book and letters defending Baresch as a good guy. Either way, the older
thought that Baresch was a tool to make contact with Kircher
still seems very attractive. Possibly Kircher et al were introduced to
the Prague ms via Baresch, and then quickly dismissed Baresch as
just an economics-driven conehead :), while nevertheless taking his ms
seriously.
[end of redaction of off-J discussions 20-30 DEC 2007]
******************************
134
J.VS Archive continued in
Vol. II, 2008
