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.
No comments:
Post a Comment