The conclusion of all my recent investigations into the Voynich text is that the ‘language’ is an artificial connstruction based on the cycles of the year: the year made text.
The question, though, is why somebody would construct such a thing, and to what use it might be put?
The first thing to notice is that such a construction is consistent with the illustrations of the work.
We have no trouble matching such a language with the visual content.
Such a language – the year made text - is relevant to herbs because it concerns seasons and natural cycles.
It also matches the cosmological and astrological content. Such a constructed language befits a cosmological book.
The nymphs, too, are apportioned to zodiacal stations and stars.
It is perhaps harder to see how such a language might be put to pharmacological purposes but entirely conceivable within the context of astrological herbalism.
Thus, a constructed language such as I describe is in keeping with, and might be applied to, the apparent subject-matter of the work.
There are no grounds for thinking text and illustrations are ill-matched.
There are grounds for supposing the Voynich language system was specifically developed for this work.
It was designed, therefore, to solve a problem, to answer a need.
Again: why invent such a thing?
It is possible the language was its own problem.
Having designed it, the problem was to demonstrate it in action. The Voynich ms. would then be an exercise to show off a new linguistic invention, a demonstration of its uses.
Did someone invent the language and then find a use for it?
More likely, it served a practical purpose from the inception and was designed to overcome an impasse. For some reason, it was necessary. (Necessity being the mother of invention.)
This becomes the question of focus: to what use was this ‘year made text’ put? How was it supposed to be helpful to the task at hand? What was the task at hand?
To put it another way: if we designed such a thing, for what might it be useful? The year made text. What could we do with it?
* * *
I remain persuaded that the primary concern of the work is correspondences. Specifically, the correspondences between stars and herbs.
Less specifically, the essential astrological question of the correspondence between earth and sky.
This takes the form – is presented as – celestial and terrestrial nymphs.
There are nymphs that populate the heavens, and kindred nymphs who populate the mountains, pools and streams of the sub-lunary world.
The scenario is: the terrestrial nymphs (of nature) learn the cycles of the heavens and the powers of the stars from their celestial counterparts.
Through this knowledge the terrestrial nymphs tend the herbs of the mountains and impart to them their celestial virtues.
The herbal pharmacologist seeks to find ways to extract, preserve and concentrate the celestial virtues of the herbs.
It seems to me that a cosmological language, one based on the cycles of the year, would suit such a project.
Presumably, the text made by such a language concerns stellar influences upon nature.
It is clear that some such influences are meteorological and that the natural systems involved are hydrological. That is, in part the work concerns the effects of the stars upon weather and natural water systems.
As I present it, the “language” is the ‘Language of the Nymphs’ – the communication between the celestial and terrestrial nymphs.
The terrestrial/celestial distinction is evident in the two iterations of the ‘language’: Currier A and Currier B.
* * *
The year made text. What could we do with it?
One possible answer is: consult it as an oracle.
This, in fact, is how the Chinese oracle, the I Ching, works – although I won’t go into its mathematics here.
Every point in the cycle, every point in time, has a quality. And this quality can be divined by certain methods.
The medieval year, after all, was as astrological as ecclestiastical, and both impart significance to certain days and cycles.
Rather than describing Voynichese as a “cosmological language” we could, perhaps, just as accurately describe it as an “astrological language”.
And astrology, of course, can be put to oracular uses.
Are the lines, labels and paragraphs of the Voynich text “readings” in an oracular sense?
* * *
There are those who deem the illustrations entirely deceptive, or else encoded.
The text, they say, is about something entirely other than how it appears.
I don’t see any reason to doubt that the text and illustrations are a unified project and no reason to have any grave mistrust of the illustrations.
The language – as I now understand it – appears to be tailor-made for the content announced by the illustrations.
I also suppose the text contains information. But, despite appearances, it is not linguistic in nature, properly speaking.
It is an enduring fact, however, that it seems linguistic in nature. It is presented as a written language, with letters and words and word breaks.
If it is, say, tables of coordinates or astronomical information, or something of that sort, it has been presented as a written text in what has been made to appear to be a language.
That requires an explanation. A ‘Language of the Nymphs’ is a better explanation than most.
That is, the celestial and natural cycles have been personified as nymphs – it follows from the personification that the record of those cycles is presented as their speech (or song).
R.B.
No comments:
Post a Comment