Chesire hypothesis

The Chesire hypothesis comes within the orbit of the studies offered in these pages because Dr Chesire's chief proposal is that the Voynich language is some form of Vulgar Latin. He identifies it as a "Proto-Romance" language from southern Italy, but nevertheless a Vulgar Latin not written down previously. Chesire's on-going project is the exposition of this lost language.

The Ladin tongue from the eastern Italian Alps, of course, is also a Vulgar Latin and so in that sense prior-to the Romance languages, proto-. In the case of Ladin - which Chesire does not include in his considerations at all - it has blended with pre-Roman Rhaetic (and possibly Celtic?) elements when Roman soldiers and their families settled the cisalpine region, after subduing the indigenous Rhaeteans. I am of the view that Dr Chesire has the wrong context and so the wrong branch of proto-Romance, but his study explores useful terrain all the same and it may be possible to extrapolate from his studies to a Ladin context.

Here is his glyph key, the foundation of his transliteration method:

* * *

No effort was invested in researching previous attempts by other scholars, working on the simple logic that they must already have covered all possible combinations of potential letter symbols and languages, given that so many had tried over so many years. It was therefore possible to reason that the solution required an intuitive approach. So, the starting point was to consider the manuscript afresh, with an open mind, unpolluted by the ideas of others or any prior linguistic rules. The metaphorical canvas was left entirely blank to allow complete freedom and flux in ideas and thought experimentation.

- Gerard Chesire

The case of the Chesire hypothesis is a classic episode in modern Voynich Studies. It really deserves a study in itself, as symptomatic of the malady that infects the Voynich space. The episode, in brief, went as follows:

*Chesire announced, with supreme confidence, that he had translated the manuscript and published so. He boldly claimed it took him two weeks.

*The media (via media units at the University of Bristol) sensationalized the claim. "The Voynich has been solved, and this time it's academic!"  Widespread media twaddle.

*The Voynich community responded with characteristic vitriol, abuse, belittlement and sundry forms of small-minded pedantry.

*The media, and the University of Bristol, pulled its head in.

As I see it, all protagonists were at fault. Dr Chesire, for his incautious big-noting of himself, the media for peddling sensationalism, the university for whoring after publicity, and the Voynich community for its chronic pettiness.

Of the protagonists, though, I am somewhat sympathetic to Dr Chesire. While I disagree with his account of the manuscript, I can only applaud his intellectual derring-do. He, at least, offers a comprehensive solution. And I endorse his independent approach, and his insistence that the nature of the problem demands a reflective methodology. This in itself amounts to a considerable contribution. It is crucial that the study of the work moves beyond the stultifying and largely bankrupt and exhausted paradigms of computational analysis and Chesire is bold enough to strike out in a new direction. There are many parts of his study that can be taken as a useful model for how to tackle the manuscript. I appreciate Dr Chesire pushing beyond the nerdscape. He, at least, has a creative and not merely a technical mind. More of those are needed.

R. B.