The Secret of Palindromes

There is no secret of palindromes. It is perfectly straightforward as to what they signify, or symbolize, and why they have been regarded as magical or sacred.

Let us ask: what is the primal palindrome? What is the first palindrome? There is a simple answer. It is like the riddle of the sphinx.

The answer is: the YEAR.

The year is palindromic, and provides the model for linguistic palindromes.

If we stand at the equinox and look back we find the day and night lengths changing by daily increments. If we then look forward from the equinox we see them changing by the same increments in reverse. 

The year is the primal palindrome.

It is remarkable what nonsense is written on this straightforward matter. The famous SATOR-ROTAS square has been subject to voluminous speculation and theories.

It is simply a charm, or talisman, representing the wheel of the year and the cardinal cross of solstices and equinoxes. 

* * *

In previous studies of the Voynich text, we settled upon the conclusion that the text, the language, Voynichese, is essentially and profoundly palindromic. 

The paradigms upon which it is based are palindromic, and the more primitive paradigms upon which they are based are more palindromic still. 

We might suppose the text is “magical” and exploiting the mystique of palindromes. 

Perhaps. 

But more likely, and more importantly, the model, the primal palindrome, is the YEAR and so our text is essentially, fundamentally, in its very nature, calendrical. 

In this we don’t just mean it is about the year – rather, the very text, the language, and its system of glyphs, is an expression of the year. 

We might perhaps think of it as talismanic in a similar way to the SATOR square. 

There, the cycles and structures of the YEAR are turned into letters. It shows that the structures of the year are built into human language. 

Words have celestial correlates. Palindromes are like the cycles of the sun. We can convert celestial cycles into human language, using human writing systems. 

This is essentially what Voynichese is.  It is a language, a system of glyphs, that expresses the (palindromic) cycles of the year, or is based thereon. 

This was an early suspicion in the study of the text – that it might be about seasonal cycles and calendars and festivals. There is much to suggest it in the illustrations. 

But it goes further and deeper than that. The very language, the text, Voynichese, is itself a calendrical system, based upon, expressing, the cycles of the year. It is the cycles of the year made text. 

* * *

Assuredly, it is presented as a language, a written text. It consists of glyphs (letters) and words separated by word breaks arranged in lines and paragraphs. 

We are intended to see it as a written text. 

In reality, it is a symbolic system extrapolated from the cycles of the YEAR. 

It has every appearance that it has been created with a system of volvelles. Yes. But these volvelles are, in reality, the cycles (and sub-cycles) of the YEAR. 

The implications of this are far-reaching. For a start, it gives us a sure means of determining what phenomena are integral to the language and what are epi-phenomena.

For the most part, the language-like features of Voynichese must be counted as epi-phenomena. 

This might be the whole point of the demonstration, anyway. Just as the SATOR square shows that the annual cycles can be expressed in human words, by extension, the cycles of the YEAR are analogous to human language more generally. 

The underlying idea is that nature is a text. Its cycles can be converted into glyphs and expressed as a text. 

The key to this is the palindrome. It shows how human text is like celestial cycles, how text and cosmos are in parallel. 

This is a very medieval – or more accurately – premodern or ‘traditional’ view of the nature of language and writing. 

And this is what we must appreciate, and understand, if we are to grasp the nature of the Voynich text. 

Again: a “charm” like the SATOR square is “magical” and has “power” because it is (an adequate) representation of the YEAR in the symbols of human writing. 

It is “magical” or “sacred” because it is (an adequate) transcription of the text of nature into the conventions of human text. 

The Voynich text, I propose, is an extension of the same idea. It demonstrates that the text of nature can be transcribed not just as a few words, like in the SATOR square, but as an entire functional text, a whole language.

* * *

The roots of this premodern view of language are in the ancient world and especially in Platonic cosmology. 

There, the basic units of the cosmos are called, by analogy, “stoicheon” (letters of the alphabet.) 

Going deeper, and further back, the etymological idea refers to the sun dial. The shadow of the gnomon makes the letter A. 

Human writing, the Greeks concluded, is a transcription of cosmic cycles, and primarily the cycles of the sun, the cycles of the YEAR. 

Nature is a text. It can be transcribed into human text. And, finally, that is where human text comes from and what it is. 

I propose that this is the order of ideas behind the creation of the Voynich language. 

R.B. 

Evolution of Qokeedy - slides

The following slides set out, in the simplest manner possible, the transformations that create the verbum potentiae, QOKEEDY. 

The underlying pattern is a continuous cycle of [o] glyphs alternating with the gallows glyphs. 

This is transformed by the introduction of a system of word breaks that allows the creation of a running text. 

R.B.

Shared glyphs: The [o] and the [d]

The most direct and obvious points of contact – coincidence, coincidentia – between the two paradagmic forms being studied here, QOKEEDY and CHOLDAIIN, is that they share the glyphs [o] and [d]. 

So far we have concentrated upon the double glyph formation [ee] in QOKEEDY and its correspondences with [ch] and [aii] in CHOLDAIIN. 

The [o] and the [d] are more obvious overlaps since they require no adaptations or transformations – they are the two shared glyphs, the shared content of the two paradigms. 

These are therefore the points of strongest sympathy between the two verbum potentiae, the Ur-vords.

Here we will consider the relationships between the two paradigms on the basis of these two glyphs. 

For a start, we must assume that they are central, or pivotal, or of crucial importance, simply because this is the shared content of the two keywords. 

My hypothesis is that the Voynich text has been developed from two paradigmatic words (glyph patterns) and that their relationship is one of coinciding opposites: coincidentia oppositorum.

By this proposal, the glyphs [o] and [d] – the only glyphs shared by the two paradigms – must surely be of cardinal importance and are a proper focus for our inquiries. The central dynamics of their relationship must concern these two glyphs.

* * *

First an observation regarding glyph [d] that follows from our previous investigations. 

In QOKEEDY the double glyph configuration [ee] comes before the [d] glyph. 

In CHOLDAIIN the double glyph configuration [ii] – along with the ‘transition device’ of glyph [a] – is found after the glyph [d]. 

QOKEEDY goes: [eed] and CHOLDAIIN goes: [dii] – but in practice [daii] since the [a] is necessary – as explained in a previous post – for reasons of curve/line continuity. 

The curve/line contrast is revealed starkly here. The glyphs before [d] in QOKEEDY are c-curves. The glyphs after [d] in CHOLDAIIN are backslashes or lines. 

Technically speaking, this is a chiastic relationship. There are mirrored reversals. What is before in QOKEEDY is after in CHOLDAIIN. 

At the same time, the same process, what are c-curves in QOKEEDY become lines (backslashes) in CHOLDAIIN. 

* * *

Questions of before and after invite us to read the glyphs in sequence. 

Thus, the [e] glyphs move towards the [d] in QOKEEDY but the [i] glyphs – after the transition through [a] – move away from [d] in CHOLDAIIN. 

Or we could envisage it: the [e] glyphs gather or accumulate into the [d] glyph in QOKEEDY, while the [i] glyphs proceed out of the [d] glyph in CHOLDAIIN. 

Think of it as a procession. The [e] glyphs proceed into [d] and the [i] glyphs proceed out of [d]. 

We could run them together, showing them as a movement of c-curves changing into backslashes with [d] as the pivot:

Doing this actually evokes the paradigm CHOLDAIIN since [ch] is to be taken as [ee] (with a ligature):

Again: doing this makes the shared glyph [d] pivotal. 

However it is envisaged, there is this polarity whereby, in this aspect, the two paradigmatic words are mirrored. The same process or configuration goes one way in one case and the other way in the other case, with the glyph [d] the fulcrum.

It is my contention, of course, that this is by design and that it extends into the very nature of Voynichese.

* * *

Previously, reading the verbum potentiae as sequences, or processions, I sketched the “Journey of [o]”. In the same vein, I also presented the procession of glyphs – the “Journey of [o]” - as arithmetic. 

To continue with that, let us now consider the other shared glyph, [o]. 

In QOKEEDY we see the [o] glyph halved into two [e] glyphs, and then the [d] glyph is like an assembly of two [o] glyphs (equal to four [e] glyphs.) 

It can be read as a process of halving. The [o] is a whole unit (of some kind) and then it is halved into the [e] glyph, and then the glyph [d] shows quarters. 

In this sequence, it would seem, the gallows glyph constitutes some breach that causes the [o] glyph to halve and halve again. 

Turning to CHOLDAIIN, we see that the [o] is not halved into [ee]. Rather, the word begins with [ee] (with a ligature). 

Arithmetically, we are to understand that [e] + [e] = [ch] and, further, that [ch] = [o].

So, rather than being divided into halves as it is in QOKEEDY, the CHOLDAIIN sequence (procession) begins by adding two halves together. 

Then, instead of halving, the [o] immediately quarters into [d]. 

This seems to be the impact of the [l] glyph. Like the gallows glyph in QOKEEDY it appears to constitute a breach in the sequence. But whereas the gallows glyph in QOKEEDY causes the [o] glyph to halve (and halve again), in CHOLDAIIN the [l] glyph causes the [o] glyph to quarter. 

After all, look at the [l] glyph in sequence. It presents an abrupt and sudden interruption of curve-line continuity. It is a breach. And look at the shape of the glyph itself. It is a hard [i] backslash with a looped backward and downward turning tail. It suggests: STOP. CUT. BREACH. 

In this respect it bears comparison with the [y] glyph at the end of QOKEEDY. It is the backslash version of [y]. The backward and downward turning tails suggest the same gesture. 

In the case of [l] it represents such a breach that it actually bifurcates the paradigm entirely into CHOL and DAIIN. Thus is CHOLDAIIN bifurcated by nature. 

The gallows glyph does not bifurcate QOKEEDY. But the [l] in CHOLDAIIN chops the paradigm in half. It cuts like a blade.

In any case, to follow this arithmetic line of inquiry, we must now suppose that what happens in DAIIN, and the transition to backslash glyphs, is that the [o] is cut into smaller divisions: eighths. 

[o] = whole unit

[ee] = half units

[d] = quarter units

[ii] = eighths.

The [a] glyph illustrates the [o] being divided. It is a device of division. In sequence it says: cut the [d] in half again. 

* * *

Reflecting on this, my initial surmise that this might be a musical phenomenon is still a possibility but it seems too starkly arithmetic. It is just halving. 1:2:4:8… 

But what quantities or measures are being halved? Of what are these measures? Or to put it another way: what does the [o] glyph represent? What is a whole unit? A whole unit of what?

The nymphs in some illustrations, I have pointed out, are shown taking measures. 

But the context offers another possibility. Such a process of division could be calendrical. That is, the year can be divided in this way. 

We surely witness this in the illustrations too: various astronomical (and meteorological) diagrams dividing the circle into various divisions, these being (on any plausible reading) various systems of dividing the year. We see solar and lunar cycles and divisions of various sorts in particular.

Let us ask: what in this manuscript divides into halves, then quarters, then eighths? To what does this sequence of division correspond in the manuscript, as it presents itself to us?

The answer must be the circles and diagrams showing the divisions of cosmic and other natural cycles.

Never mind that these diagrams, like everything else, have proven to be cryptic and not easily understood, but they assuredly show systems of division of natural cycles. And the year is the primary natural cycle. 

A case can be made, therefore, that this phenomenon – by which the [o] glyph is divided in halves by sequence – is likely to be calendrical rather than musical. Unless it is both. 

If it is calendrical, I suspect the two paradigms, the verbum potentiae, must express some such coincidentia oppositorum as the equation: a day equals a year. 

In context, the celestial nymphs instruct the terrestrial nymphs on the cycles of the year. 

R.B. 

Sympathy: [ii] and [ee]

A previous post outlined the sympathy between the [ch] in the paradigm CHOLDAIIN and the [ee] in QOKEEDY. 

There is sympathy, I maintain, between these two configurations: “sympathy” being a relation of coinciding opposites, a coincidentia oppositorum.

But this system is incomplete. There is a further dynamic. Not only are [ch] and [ee] in sympathy in this way, but the [ee] is also in sympathy with the configuration [ii] in DAIIN. 

We can show it as a triangulation of relations, thus:

CHOLDAIIN contains not one double glyph configuration, (i.e. [ch] as [ee] with a ligature,) but two, because [ii] is a double letter as well. It matches, very directly, the double [ee] in QOKEEDY. 

The question, always, is: what are the samenesses and differences between the two keywords, QOKEEDY and CHOLDAIIN? What are the coinciding opposites? Where are the points of sympathy?

There is an obvious point of similarity and difference between the [ee] in QOKEEDY and the [ii] in CHOLDAIIN. 

These two configurations are, then, in sympathy. 

CHOLDAIIN coincides with the [ee] in QOKEEDY at two points: the [ch] and the [ii]. 

* * * 

Here we must keep this in mind:

One paradigm, QOKEEDY, adheres and is singular (and triune.) The other paradigm, CHOLDAIIN, happily bifurcates and tends to fragment into smaller units. 

The CHOLDAIIN paradigm is inherently given to bifurcation. So CHOL and DAIIN operate, for the most part, as separate units. 

In this, CHOL meets QOKEEDY through [ch], and DAIIN meets QOKEEDY through [ii]. In both cases, the [ee] in QOKEEDY is the point of sympathy.

Note, though, that while [ch] in CHOL ocassions prefix-suffix exchange – because [ch] is prefixing, and the [ee] in QOKEEDY is in the latter (suffixing) part of the word – DAIIN does not. 

That is a major difference. DAIIN and EEDY are both suffixes. 

Accordingly, we can find [cholkeedy] but we do not find [daiinkeedy] or any such combinations. DAIIN does not function as a prefix. It prefers to stand alone, as do such variants as [aiin], but it is not by nature a prefix.

There are rare exceptions such as:

aiiiky

daiiiolkaiin

aiikam

We can test this by looking at all words that contain a gallows glyph. How many of these begin with a prefix from DAIIN? 

How many begin with [a]? Or [i] or [ii]? Or [aii]? Or [da]? Or [dai]? Or [daii]? 

The answer in all such cases is: few or none. 

Whereas, words containing a gallows glyph that take a prefix from CHOL are far more common:

chokedy

cholkeedy

cholky

choty

* * * 

The important contrast is that [e] is a curve-based glyph while [i] is a line or backslash based glyph. 

So this point of contrast between our two verbum potentiae in this case is not prefix/suffix but curve/line.

This necessitates the [a] glyph. 

The [a] glyph – in its form – marks the transition from curves to backslashes. It is a modification of the [o] glyph to accommodate the transition to backslash based glyphs, the basic one being [i]. 

For this reason, the [a] will usually travel with the [ii]. The configuration [ii] will rarely act alone. 

The CHOLDAIIN paradigm, let us note well, contains a sequence of backslashes, whereas the QOKEEDY paradigm does not. This is a crucial difference between the two. 

Thus the interplay between the two paradigms will often take the form of interplay between curves and lines, c-curve based sequences and backslash based sequences. 

The backslash based glyphs and sequences always come from CHOLDAIIN, and more specifically from the bifurcated DAIIN. 

DAIIN, of course, is the most common word in the text, and so this phenomenon is extensive and pervasive.

* * *

By my account, it will be remembered, QOKEEDY is the celestial paradigm, and CHOLDAIIN the terrestrial – if we dare to attribute significances and associations to them. 

This is the same polarity as curve and line. What is circular is of the heavens. What is rectalinear is of the earth. 

This distinction, I have pointed out, has a history in early Renaissance philosophy that I think is highly relevant to the Voynich manuscript. 

Here we find it embedded in our two verbum potentiae, the words upon which the text is based. 

* * * 

In any case, the [ii] (or [aii]) in DAIIN meets with the [ee] in QOKEEDY and a large number of Voynich words – permutations and variants - result from this meeting. 

In the case of [ch] and [ee] we saw that this could be simple substitution, or it could be augmentation. 

That is, the [ch] can substitute for [ee] or one or more of the [e] glyphs can survive the intrusion. The substitution is not always complete and neat. 

But in the case of [ii] the augmentation is prevented by curve-line considerations. 

You can have [chee] but you cannot have [iiee] - or [aiiee] since the [a]  travels with the [ii]. It violates the curve-line requirements. 

[ch] can augment a series of c-curve glyphs, because it is two c-curve-shaped glyphs cojoined. But [ii] – or [aii] – cannot.

Thus we find substitution but not augmentation. There are no [i] glyphs in QOKEEDY to augment. 

The most straightforward example is a word (with over 250 occurences) like:

qokaiin

This is, quite plainly, from QOK + DAIIN. The prefix of one paradigm and the suffix of the other. The suffix of the CHOLDAIIN paradigm has become the suffix of the QOKEEDY paradigm. Substitution. No augmemtation. And many variants:

okaiin

otaiin

qotaiin

* * * 

Rather than augmentation, in fact, the tendency in this process is for one of the [i] glyphs to lapse. Thus the configuration [ai] with only one [i] is common in this position. 

The word [qokain] is more common than [qokaiin]. 

The reason for this, it seems, is because one of the glyphs [i] has already been supplied in the (necessary) [a]. 

That is, the configuration [aii] can be seen has containing three [i] glyphs. When it is being matched with the [ee] in QOKEEDY one of them is redundant and is dropped. 

Where there is augmentation – and one or more of the [e] glyphs survives the intrusion – the [e] will appear before the [a] and the transition to backslash glyphs. 

That is to say: the [ch] is typically inserted before the [ee] in QOKEEDY, but because of curve-line restrictions, the [aii] is typically inserted after the [ee]. 

This is what has happened in a words like:

qokeeaiin

qokeain

oteaiin

okeeaiin

keeaiin

Or consider this word which illustrates these processes:

qotcheaiin

Here we see the [ch] inserted before the [ee] of QOKEEDY. But one of the [e] glyphs is residual. Then [aiin] is inserted after the surviving [e]:

qot - che - aiin

* * * 

There is, all the same, the curious phenomenon of the proliferation of the [i] glyph. We find cases of three, or even four [i] glyphs in sequence. 

daiiin

taiiin

oiiiin

diiiin

daiiin

doiiin

aiiin

okaiiin

kaiiin

oraiiin

daiiidy

qokoiiin

qodaiiin

daiiiolkaiin

qokaiii

qoiiin

okchoiiin

chekaiiin

shedaiiin

chaiiin

otiiin

oqotoiiin

Some of these might be scribal error – [qokaiii] is probably an error, for instance, where the final glyph should have been an [n]. Similarly, [diiiin] and [aiiiin] – four [i] glyphs - are possibly errors. (It is an easy error to make.) 

But there are clearly many cases where multiple [i] glyphs are intended. Indeed, there are over 150 occurences, the great majority in the Currier B folios.

This has given rise to considerable discussion. Are they numbers? What? It seems non-linguistic. The multiple [i] words are some of the most peculiar words in the manuscript. 

What is happening in these cases?

Here, I suggest, rather than the [a] being an [i] that is already accounted for, the [i] that is implicit in [a] is separated out to ensure it is not overlooked. 

In many cases we can see this because [a] becomes [oi]. In [doiiin] the [a] has separated into an [o] and an [i] – the component parts of the [a] glyph. It is [daiin] but the [a] divides into an [o] and an [i]. This supplies the extra [i]. Thus cases such as:

soiiin

qooiiin

sotoiiin

[qokoiiin] is [qokaiin] but the [a] separates into an [o] and the extra [i]. 

This is what happens in [oiiin]. It is [aiin] with the [a] separating into [oi].

It is conspicuous because it breaks the curve-line system. Ordinarily, [o] and [i] ought not go together, one after the other, a curve glyph followed by a backslash glyph. 

This violation of curve/line is because curve and line are joined together in [a] and in these cases they have been separated. [a] has been deconstructed into [oi], even though it disrupts curve/line. 

In the majority of cases, though, the curve/line sequence is preserved and the [a] remains – even though the [i] implicit in the [a] has been isolated as an extra [i]. 

In such cases the [a] is functioning as an [oi] but to preserve the curve-line system it expands to [ai]. 

It is not clear why curve/line should be an priority in some cases but not others, but that seems to be what is going on. Sometimes the [a] will expand to [oi] but other times it will  expand to become an [ai]. The [a] remains but the implicit [i] is shown, becomes explicit. 

* * * 

Arguably, in all cases, the form [a] = [o] + [i] is to be understood. Even where the [a] remains, rather than becoming an [o], it is actually an [o] adapted to the curve-line system. It acts more as a device that facilitates curve/line transitions than as a semantic unit in itself. 

We can understand the pecularities of the [i] glyph if we expand all [a] glyphs to [oi]. Again: this is actually what the [a] glyph is. 

Thus the three [i] glyph word [daiiin] should be understood as [d – oi – iin] but the device of [a] remains in order to preserve the flow of curves and lines. 

In a case like [qokoiiin] this is explicit. It is [qokaiin] but the [a] has been expanded, unpacked, deconstructed, into the implied form [oi]. 

In contrast, in [chaiiin] – a straightforward truncation or rather a compaction of CHOLDAIIN – the [i] implicit in the [a] has been added even though the [a] remains. 

In this case, then, the [o] is implicit. The word is actually [choiiin]. That is: [ch – oi – iin]. But this violates the proper flow of curve and line glyphs and so the [a] – a ‘transition device’ - is retained. 

Again: it is not clear why this happens in some cases but not others but it explains the perplexing appearance of multiple [i] glyphs. 

* * * 

Note this: [ch] and [ii] are two different ways to modify [ee]. In the case of [ch] the [ee] consolidate into a single (consonant) glyph by means of a ligature. 

In the case of [ii] the [ee] is converted from c-curves into backslashes (remaining vowels) – but this necessitates the device of the [a] to accomplish the conversion. 

In terms of what I propose the two paradigms might represent, we see the celestial archtypes of [ee] condense or harden or materialize into [ch] on the one hand or [ii] – in practice [aii] – on the other. 

There are two ways, we might say, that the celestial [ee] hardens or manifests into terrestrial forms. 

At the same time – coincidentia oppositorum – there are two ways – ([ch] and [ii])- that the terrestrial order (this realm of duality) is in sympathy with the celestial Forms, (Forms with a capital, Platonic F.) 

* * *

We could go much deeper into this, and there are things that need clarifying. The CHOLDAIIN paradigm is more complicated than is QOKEEDY. For a start, as we noted, it tends to behave as two words, CHOL and DAIIN – duality, multiplicity. This is a complication, compared to QOKEEDY - unity. 

The above points, though, are enough to give a sketch of the implications of the state of sympathy – coincidentia oppositorum - between the [ee] in QOKEEDY and the [ii] in CHOLDAIIN. It is as important and as pervasive in its implications for the manifestations of Voynichese as the sympathy – coincidentia oppositorum - between [ch] and [ee]. 

R.B. 

 

qoeair