Two Corpora

It is clear that the Voynich codex is both misbound and incomplete. In fact, it is best described as disfigured. There are pages, and sections, missing, and the original order of the pages has been obscured by unintelligent binding. The current sequence of pages is, in part, not the original sequence. It seems the work has been rebound at least three times in its history, and it would seem that parts were rearranged somewhat, or lost, at each rebinding. It is very difficult to establish the original sequences.

What we can establish, though, is that the manuscript consists of an assembly of distinct  materials, and they were originally arranged in some coherent order.

If we overlook the shuffling that has happened we can identify several bodies (corpora) of material that have been brought together into a single work. It is, that is to say, a composite composition. It is presented as a unified work, but in fact two bodies of distinct material have been wedded together - although, not unnaturally.

Of what is it composed?

Looking at the manuscript as a whole, its constituent parts can be described as this:

TWO CORPORA, plus an apparatus of circles, and a map.

This is the original, quite simple, schema.

As I see it, there are really only two bodies of material in the work, two corpora – plus circles, plus a map, which material is best understood as APPARATUS. This is the simplest way to characterize the document. Two bodies of material have been brought together and an apparatus of circles (and map) has been added.

The two corpora are the HERBS and the NYMPHA. Corpus A. Corpus B.

These were originally separate (but related) bodies of material and have been composed independently of one another.

The Voynich manuscript brings two these corpora together into a single work.

From its structure this, indeed, would seem to be the main literary purpose of the work. The primary literary purpose of the Voynich manuscript is to bring together these separate bodies of material, the Herb material and the Nymph material, Corpora A and B. The circles of astrological and meteorological systems are another separate body of material.

Each corpus had the same format:

A collection of illustrations with text followed by text only pages.

The main disfiguration of the text that has happened in its history is that the PHARMACOLOGICAL section has been displaced. It belongs with the herbal material at the front of the work but has been shifted to the rear half of the work. At the same time, the NYMPH section has been disconnected from the text only pages we find at the end of the work (Quire 20), the section erroneously described as the "Recipe" section.

The binding that has happened has been unintelligent and done by people only interested in the conservation of the work but without any insight into its proper internal organisation.

Indeed, the original work was not bound (stitched) at all. It was folded.  It was disfigured when it was brought into the form of a codex and stitched together. There was no need to stitch it in its original form: it was an ensemble of folded sheets. Its original form was lost when it was bound and turned into a collectable.

*Page one of the manuscript is an introduction added to the completed work and was not part of the Herbal corpus. (Note the absence of the glyph [q] on this page. It is a separate composition.)

*The Herbal text that has been lost was in the gap between page 58v and 65r. This was to the Herbal corpus what the star text (Quire 20) was to the Nympha corpus.

*The circles had an original, intelligent sequence - the circles were supposed to be consulted in a certain sequence - but this has been lost in the manuscript's current form.







R.B.

Deceptive EVA

The Voynich glyph set includes many glyphs that can be identified as lower case Latin letters. But this is not true of them all. In fact, the glyph set is eclectic and includes glyphs of several types. Some can be identified as glyphs from Latin abbreviations, while the so-called gallows glyphs are only known, by resemblance, to Latin script decorations. It is not clear, in any case, that all the glyphs come from models in which they are letters of an alphabet. At least some of the glyphs may be modeled on forms that usually had other functions. Certainly, some of them resemble Arabic numerals and some may be based on Roman numerals. These matters are debated and unresolved.

The actual state of affairs is obscured by the EVA transcription script, which presents all of the glyphs as letters. It might be a fair assumption, and it is a good strategy for the practical purposes of study, but it gives the impression that the Voynich text may be more language-like than it is. From time to time lone voices raise this issue - it is a matter of concern to J. K.Peterson, for instance -  but it is generally overlooked. EVA makes the text look language-like, but this may be deceptive. If we transcribe the Voynich glyphs differently, suddenly our perception of the text changes.

We really have no basis for knowing what any of the glyphs represent. Their resemblance to Latin precedents is a reasonable guess, but may be wrong to assume all the glyphs are letters.

Neither the Currier nor the Voynich 101 transcription systems make this assumption, and so they may be a more accurate representation of the real nature of the text. EVA is widely used, though, and people become familiar with a very language-like presentation.

Here below is the difference between the EVA and Voynich 101 transcriptions:

fachys ykal ar ataiin shol shory cthres y kor sholdy sory ckhar or y kair chtaiin shar are cthar cthar dan syaiir sheky or ykaiin shod cthoary cthes daraiin sa ooiin oteey oteos roloty cthar daiin otaiin or okan dair y chear cthaiin cphar cfhaiin ydaraishy

fa19s.9,hae.ay.Akam.2oe.!oy9.ýscs.9.hoy.2oe89- soy9.Hay.oy,9.hacy.1kam.2ay.Ais.Kay.Kay.8aN- s9aIy.2ch9.oy.9ham.+o8.Ko,ay9.Kcs.8ay,am.s9- 8om.okcc9.okcoy.y,oeok9.èAay.8am.oham.oy.ohaN- saz9.1cay.Kam.Jay.Fam.98ayai29=

* * *

What if the glyphs are being used for non-linguistic purposes and consist, say, of astrological symbols and numbers? Transcriptions then look a lot less like words and more like formulae. Here - purely for fun - is a possible transcription series for the main glyph set:

If we were working with a symbol set like this, our experience of the text would be entirely different. In EVA our vord  qokechy looks like this: qokechy. But in the above transcription system it looks like this: 40A369. Take any word:  opcholdy . In EVA = opcholdy. In my example transcription system: 0D60U89.

Again: we have no idea what the glyphs in the manuscript represent. There are strong arguments to say they are the letters of an alphabet, and therefore groups of them constitute words in a language. It certainly appears that way. (There are about the right number for an alphabet.) But the EVA transcription makes it appear even more so by treating every glyph as a letter, including glyphs that, in Latin, are usually abbreviations or decorations.

The ascription of the letters P F K and T to the elevated "gallows' letters is especially arbitrary and may be very misleading. As it is, EVA P hardly behaves like a letter at all. In most cases it seems to act like a pilcrow or paragraph marker. Yet the EVA system treats it, and the other gallows, the same as the other glyphs.

Questions of whether the text is linguistic or not can be influenced by these appearances. If we treat the glyph set as an alphabet - overlooking the fact that it consists of a mixture of types of glyphs - then we will be very much inclined to tackle it as a language and will examine it with such assumptions. But if we were to depict the text as variegated, a mixture of different sets, perhaps a mix of letters and numbers or symbols, then the text is more open to very different studies and interpretations, and not necessarily cryptological solutions.

EVA, of course, is just a tool of convenience, and it does remain impressive that its designations of vowels and consonants produces such a likeness of real text. But it may be misleading in exactly this respect. It is certainly worth considering the Voynich glyph set in different ways.

R.B.

Profile

Here is a brief profile of how I see the author of the Voynich manuscript in my working hypothesis. Such a profile is, of course, just a thought experiment, something to give it shape, but at this stage I can hazard a guess:

*The Voynich manuscript is by (a project of) an elder (male) figure of the Ladin tradition who was in direct contact with (liaison) and instructed by Nicholas of Cusa during the period when Nicholas was bishop.

*He was a representative of the Ladin people, of the Ladin nobility, who acted as go-betweens twixt the (illiterate and poor) Ladin and the church and secular authorities.

*This Ladin elder was (partially) literate (only some Latin) and as well as Ladin spoke German.

*His culture was aristocratic. He is associated with nobility and the secular authorities.

*He was a man of some means, or in the employ of someone of means. He was able to marshal the resources to have a manuscript produced.

*He was trained in the ancient Ladin herbal tradition and had an overview of its forms in the various Ladin alpine communities, along with its folklore. This knowledge was necessarily in the Ladin language.

*He was, however, also apprised of “modern science” – new learning – and actively attempted to keep his folk tradition up with the times. These are matters in which he was instructed by Nicholas.

*That is, he was a proto-Paracelsean figure: he grew up with a folk alpine herbal tradition and wanted to inform it and fortify it with the new learning.

*He was a lay Christian and acts as a religious guide or model to his people. He is aware that the rustic tradition of his people is pre-Christian. He is keen to understand his (pagan) tradition in Christian terms. These are matters in which he was instructed by Nicholas.

*He was likely a resident of Val Badia. Specifically, he was resident at Ćiastel de Tor, Badia castle, also known as San Martino del Tor, the likely place for the composition of the manuscript. 

* * *

Some of the holes in this profile are so glaring you could drive a truck through them, but as I explore the ramifications of my wider hypothesis this is the sort of profile that begins to emerge. Like everything, plausible but unproven. The question is: what sort of dramatis personae fits the scenario? 

R. B.

Weight scales

In my model of the Voynich language and text, I suggest that the plaintext was a set of tables with data set out in rows and columns. When this data was transferred to the Voynich manuscript, however, it has been presented as if it is prose. I try to explain many of the peculiarities of the text as we find it in this way.

I then add to this that – as a literary device – this has been dressed up as “the language of the nymphs.” The data that had been assembled in the plaintext tables is presented in the manuscript as if it was data collected by the nymphs.

But what sort of data? My answer to that is: data collected by means of water clock and weight scales.

We see the nymphs engaged in taking measures of water. They are assuredly water nymphs, but more specifically water nymphs of the mountains. We see them measuring and controlling the flows of water (both surface and underground, fresh and mineralized waters) in a mountain landscape. But this depiction of the nymphs at work and play is, I think, a mythpoeic depiction of the collection of data that had been done by means of water clock and weight scales.

By my hypothesis, the whole process is foreshadowed in a curious work by Nicholas of Cusa entitled: IDIOTA DE STATICIS EXPERIMENTIS (The Layman on Experiments Done with Weight-scales):

What I propose is that during his time as bishop in the Italian Tyrol Nicholas conducted, organized or inspired – amongst laymen - “experiments done with weight scales”, which is to say the application of his theories of natural science (and of measures) to the Ladin herbal tradition (in its landscape.)

He writes in some detail about the experiments he has in mind. He is interested in how water clocks and weight scales – simple devices known to the layman - can be used to investigate all aspects of nature.

In the book the Idiota – the rustic – discusses with an educated Orator how these implements can be used. In other words, we are to imagine a conversation between Nicholas and a layman. Nicholas sets out to the layman how the water clock and weight scales can be deployed for sundry purposes in what amounts to a complete survey of the layman’s landscape.

Their conversation on this begins with the thematic statement:

Layman: It seems to me that by reference to differences of weight we can more truly attain unto the hidden aspects of things and can know many things by means of more plausible surmises.

It then continues:

Orator: Your point is well-taken. For a certain prophet said that weight and weight-scales are the judgment of the Lord, who created all things in number, weight, and measure and who balanced the fountains of waters and weighed the foundation of the earth, as [Solomon]- the-wise writes.

Layman: So if the amount of water from one source is not of the same weight as is a similar amount [of water] from another source, then a judgment about the difference-of-nature between the one source and the other source is better arrived at by means of a weight-scale than by means of some other instrument.

Orator: Well said. Vitruvius, writing on architecture, cautions that we are to choose as a place of residence a location that has lighter and more sky-blue waters and we are to avoid a location that has heavy and earthened-colored waters.

The layman next adds:

Layman: I am acknowledging the fact that weights vary according to the circumstances, although at times [they do so] imperceptibly. For without doubt the weight of water is one thing at one time and another thing at another time. Likewise, the weight of water at its source is one thing, whereas its weight at a distance from its source is another thing. But oftentimes these scarcely perceptible differences are considered to be of no account.

We then have this significant exchange regarding herbalism:

Orator: Do you think that in all cases the situation is as you indicated it to be in the case of water?

Layman: Yes, I do. For identical sizes, of whatsoever different things, are not at all of the same weight. Accordingly, since the weight of blood or the weight of urine is different for a healthy man and for a sick man or for a youthful man and an elderly man or for a German and an African, wouldn’t it be especially useful to a physician to have all these differences recorded?

Orator: Most certainly. Indeed, through the recorded weights, the physician could render himself admirable.

Layman: I think that a physician can make a truer judgment from the weight of urine together with its color than from just its color, which is misleading.

Orator: Most certainly.

Layman: So too, since the roots of herbs and their stems, leaves, fruit, seeds, and sap have their own respective weight: if the weights of all herbs were recorded along with the variety of the herbs’ locations, then a physician would better attain unto the nature of all the herbs by means of both their weight and taste than by means [only] of their taste, which is misleading.

Allow me to emphasize the matter of herbs here:

"If the weights of all herbs were recorded along with the variety of the herbs’ locations, then a physician would better attain unto the nature of all the herbs."

I propose that the Voynich manuscript is the result of a project of this nature. In the scenario I envisage a herbalist of the Ladin tradition has taken up a project proposed by his bishop.

I then suggest that the measures collected in this project were assembled in tables, but that this data was then recast in the imagery appropriate to the Ladin tradition; i.e. the data is presented as knowledge collected by the mountain nymphs. This, in brief, is the process by which the Voynich manuscript came into being.

While it sounds complex, it is actually a very straightforward series of events:

1. There is a senior person of the Ladin tradition with a deep knowledge of herbs and medicine.

2. The great polymath Nicholas of Cusa becomes their bishop and instructs them in his new learning and sciences.

3. The Ladin person applies Cusanus’ ideas to his herbal tradition.

4. This involves collecting data and assembling it in tables.

5. This data is presented as knowledge gleaned from the mountain nymphs of the Ladin tradition.

Note that I do not propose that the involvement of Cusanus was necessarily direct or extensive. Indeed, he may not have known of the work at all – merely inspired it. It may, indeed, be an application of his ideas undertaken quite independent of him. It may in fact arise from a misconstruing of Cusanus – some local has half understood his bishop and produced an eccentric and misguided version of Cusanus’ ideas? We might think of it as a misadventure in Cusean science? Or else, it is a work Cusanus sponsored and inspired and encouraged as part of the pastoral intellectual and scientific nurture of his parishioners, those under his spiritual care.

Nevertheless, I am of the view that the germ of the Voynich manuscript is here.

R. B.

Star catalogue

In a recent post I offered a tentative model for approaching the Voynich language. The upshot of the model is that the language should be seen as LISTS of FORMULAE presented not in tabular form but in prose, this dressed up as “the language of the nymphs.” I rarely undertake detailed textual studies myself. There are any number of computational and statistical and other studies; the challenge is to find a conceptual framework in which what is observed makes sense. My model attempts to do so.

From the outset my conviction has been that our problem is not a lack of data but a lack of a proper conceptual frame in which to place the data. Accumulating more and more data is not going to move us beyond the impasse. Not enough effort is put into understanding what it might all mean. Indeed, for reasons I don’t understand – other than some sort of scientistic puritanism – there are those who positively frown on any speculation as to what the data means and actively refrain from making calls.

Some researchers – linguists in the main - seem intent on presenting their evidence in a form as incomprehensible as possible, just in case some layman might dare to wonder what it amounts to. A recent Voynich conference only accepted papers that contained no speculation about the nature of the data whatsoever! LOL. Logophobia – fear of ideas.

A worse problem is that much excellent work gets no attention at all. There are highly illuminating studies buried in the literature, ignored and overlooked. Few people are keen to trawl through it all looking for coherent conclusions. It is very likely, I suspect, that everything we need to find a solution to the text is already abroad, but too many researchers live in intellectual ghettos and never join the dots.

* * *

An excellent new study has been self-published by Daniel Emlyn-Jones. It is largely consonant with my own studies and covers matter that are also important to my proposed model. Dr Emlyn-Jones sees the work as an astrological catalogue. He arrives at this conclusion through a painstaking study (mapping) of labels. As he observes, labels (of plants, stars etc) reappear in lists of self-same or similar vords in various clusters throughout the text. When he asks how a text might behave in this way he concludes that it is a catalogue, or index of names, proper nouns.

He asks the question I asked. He notes:

“Such information may have been better presented in a table, but for some reason the authors chose to write it out in a prose-like form…”

And he makes the astute observation:

“If someone were left with a Debenham’s catalogue or a shipping forecast, it may be difficult to link it to English!”

By my account data that might have been better presented in a table has been laid out like running prose because it is being presented as the language of the nymphs. As my model has it:

The text has been shaped by the literary device of the “language of the nymphs”. The nymphs are shown doing the measuring, weighing and collecting the data that appears as the text.

It is the nymphs who measure and collect data on the elements of the cosmos in the celestial and terrestrial realms.

Tables of data have been presented as a running text as if the “figures” (vords) are spoken by the nymphs. We find lists of vords arranged to look like a written text because the content is being presented as knowledge gained from the nymphs.

The difference is that Dr Emlyn-Jones sees lists of names - especially star names. An objection to this is that Voynich vords tend towards a uniform length. There are conspicuously few short and long words. Models of procedural generation suggest a system of nine or ten volvelles, and thus vords are restrained from being longer than ten letters (with very few exceptions). Names - proper nouns - however would be expected to have a greater variation in length. Star names in any language - say Greek or Arabic - are not so well-behaved that they congregate around five letters long and don't contain names longer than ten letters.

Yet there is a possible explanation for this. By my model, as also Dr Emlyn-Jone's conjectures, the plaintext consisted of data set out in tables. I maintain that certain peculiar features of the text are the result of moving data from tables into a running prose-like text. But if the data was set out in tables then it is possible long words have been abbreviated in order to fit neatly into the cells of the tables. This would be a strong motive for a system of abbreviations.

importantly, in my model vords are formulae and essentially non-linguistic. In Dr Emlyn-Jone's account vords are real words - names - and presumably have phonic values. He sees it more as a natural language that we fail to recognize because of the way it is presented. I have been more persuaded by the highly artificial tripartite internal structure of vords which suggest to me formulae of some sort that we fail to recognize because of the script in which they're written.

Almost certainly, my model is wrong on many points. But Dr Emlyn-Jone's work persuades me that it is not radically wrong, and is in fact substantially correct on key matters. The text consists of lists, catalogues. It is presented not in tabular form but in running prose because it is being presented as data collected by the nymphs.

Much study seems stuck in a language versus encryption polarity. But the language proponents are misled by the appearance of prose. Rather than prose, the text consists of lists. Real words, very little grammar. It is surprising how rarely this has been considered as an explanation for what we see in the text - tight spelling, loose grammar. Few repeated phrases. Many repeated words and similar words in serial repetition. These most basic characteristics of the Voynich text can be explained if it is a catalogue or set of lists that would normally be in tabular form.

The word I want to use to describe the nature of the text as a whole is survey. Whether the vords are measures, coordinates, Llulian "figures" or whether they are star names and herb names - I would also insist on toponyms - what we see in the Voynich manuscript is a survey. It is probably not an expository text. It is a survey.

You can purchase a copy of Dr Emlyn-Jone's work at Amazon. It is highly recommended. Unlike many other language studies of the Voynich ms. it does not disrespect readers by being jargonized and impenetrable. It is clear, cogent, logical, well argued and, better still, light-hearted.  The kindle edition is only $2!

R. B.