No replies to this topic

[Admin]

Ever since it was discovered in 1912 by bookseller Wilfrid M Voynich, whose name it bears, the Voynich Manuscript (see FT130:42–46) has fascinated decipherers, from profess­ional code-breakers to amateur enthus­iasts. Suggested authors range from Roger Bacon to William Shakespeare and even Wilfrid Voynich himself. It has been said to contain the ‘last rites’ of the Cathars, the ‘elixir of life’, and even End-Time instructions from spacemen. Surrounding most pages are mystifying drawings of plants, zodiacal constell­ations, bathing females and what looks like piping systems or microscopic views, although it must be said that many are in line with ancient traditions of medical illustrations. [1]

The Voynich’s resistance to decipherment has often led to cries of “hoax”. The manuscript contains a zodiac; as astro­logy was reintroduced to Europe in the 12th century, [2] that’s given investigators 800 years in which to place it.

The best Voynich research involves such concepts as ‘entropy’ or Zipf’s Law in discussions so strange that any univers­ity’s maths department would be proud of them. The worst is based upon misunderstood context and unsubstantiated speculation. For example, to some the Voynich’s ‘Sagittarius’ emblem (above) proves the Voynich must be 20th-century! How else can you explain this exact replica of actor Robert East in his role of Harry, Prince of Wales, in the 1983 hit comedy The Black Adder? Silly, I know, but that’s a fair parody of the worst out-of-context research in Voynichology.

Fortunately, most Voynichology falls between these two extremes. Voynich­ologists themselves are equally varied, ranging from ex-military cryptographers to stay-at-home trailer park boys. They are wonderfully accepting of the strangest ideas, but woe betide anyone who deflates one of their sacred cows!

In 1976, Rodney Dennis, the Curator of Manuscripts at Harvard University’s Houghton Library (basically a librarian), identified the Voynich script as based on the 16th-century Humanist Hand, probably on the mistaken assumption that scripts followed the same evolution as typefaces. [3] By the time Kennedy and Churchill wrote their The Voynich Manuscript in 2004, [4] this view had hardened into “all scholars agree it’s based on Humanist script”. Professional and amateur palæo­graphers most certainly did not agree, but perhaps now they’ll be listened to without the uphill struggle.

When Austrian broadcasters ORF announced it was planning to have multidisciplinary experts re-examine the Voynich for a TV documentary, there were yawns – but when it was announced that  forensic tests would be included, now that was exciting news. After The Voynich Manuscript was shown on 13 December 2009, the Voynich world was galvanised with discussions about the findings and implications. The most tang­ible datum was the carbon-14 testing done by the University of Arizona, which dated the manuscript to 1404–1438 with 95 per cent confidence (2 sigma). That is one of the date ranges in which carbon dating is particularly accurate.

Then McCrone Associates tested the ink and determined it was made from iron gall, and that it had been applied to “fresh” vellum: i.e. before a patina had built up, meaning within months of the vellum being made if not mere weeks afterwards,  adding that one vertical line of text on the first page used ink of 16th- or 17th-century origin.

So what is the upshot of these objective tests? Well, the modern hoax theory has been ruled out, as has any “Humanist Hand” nonsense, and would-be cryptanalysts are able to rule out sophisticated Renaissance ciphers and a prori languages and look to the late mediæval period for possible culprits. Also that all the late 15th- and 16th-century theories are in trouble; and the pre-15th century ones have had to fall back on the fact that the late 14th and early 15th century were rife with forgeries produced to justify traditional, but undocumented, privileges, lineage, and qualifications). [5]

A quick dip into the world of Voynich­ology via any of the many lists [6] or online forums shows that debate is as alive and as healthy as ever; and the Voynichologists themselves every bit as interesting and varied as they ever were. Unfortun­ately, some Voynich­ologists are interpreting “fresh” as “not previously used” to keep their late 15th- and late 16-century theories alive.

Source