Re: VMs: some thoughts/observations

[William Edmondson <w.h.edmondson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Elmar, and in passing I'll try to deal with Nick's posting also from 
22.59 same day.

And, following John's comment about newbies.... take this as innocent 
enquiry coupled with what I hope is careful speculation.

My concern about the form of the document is as follows.

Who is it intended for? - reflecting on the intended audience will lead 
us to better understanding of motivation/content/decipherment 
options....  It seems to me (intuitively) that VMS is confusing in its 
form, and that poses problems for us which we need to address.


The coverage, superficially, looks to take in alchemy, botany/herbals, 
astrology, the occult maybe.... the sort of topics one would find in the 
rantings of a deluded alchemist, for example, or some sort of religious 
strangeperson, or whatever.  Current pre-occupations amongst the 
chattering classes at that time? (mid/late 16th C)  This is really 
impressionistic, but given that we only have the images, and the 
arrangement of the text/document as a whole, to work with at this stage, 
let's assume that such impressions matter (see below). [Alternatively, 
one might want to argue the document is earlier than that (hence 
cruder?) and is a genuine attempt to record some 
knowledge/discovery/opinion.....  I'll try to cover that later.]  But 
continuing with my first impressions.....

Superficially, yes, but unconvincing in detail.  There are clear 
alchemical references, but no details that really matter.  The plant 
drawings are odd, and oddly placed. etc.  The document appears allusory, 
not factual (or allusive, if you don't like the archaism).

Surely a really clear alchemical text might be distinguished by more 
detailed symbolic drawings and more symbols, more apparatus; a really 
clear herbal would have more accurate plant drawings (they have to be 
used for identification, remember, else you might hurt someone). 
[Current alchemical experts say VMS is not alchemy; I suspect current 
herbalists would likewise dismiss it.]

Such documents would also have clear purposes.  They would be a matter 
of record, or would constitute a summary or encyclopaedic account, or 
would serve as a vade mecum, or whatever.  They might serve as a 
personal account of work in progress (marginalia surface in such 
documents) or of a life's work.  If written by more than one hand they 
might constitute a collocation of different bits of work on a theme, or 
records of another's work (cf the MS on Bacon's work I looked at - 
restating aspects of such work, sometimes getting it wrong and being 
corrected by others, gathering accretions of annnotations, marginalia, 
etc as time went by).  They might be instructions, or records of 
discoveries.  And so on and so forth.

But VMS? - the purpose remains obscure because the images do not 
clearly/unambiguously indicate what sort of document it is - and this 
brings us to the script/content.

Documents in 'clear', even with specialist jargon, are intended for 
others to read.  Diaries are usually written in clear with eventual, 
vague, non-specific 'others' as readers in mind.  Even personal 
notebooks (such as one might take to a conference to record one's 'take' 
on a speaker/presentation, for example; or such as one might use in a 
laboratory, to record an experiment.....) tend not to be written in 
private languages.  Such private schemes tend to be to record 
discoveries or ideas that one wants to record which might be dangerous 
to oneself if read by others.

So, to produce a document which is not readable is a bit of a 
contradiction.  It becomes in itself (regardless of content) something 
with meaning/intent.  In-group/out-group distinctions come to mind 
(children have to keep up with the latest playground slang; parents 
almost always fail to do so...).  Spying and secrecy of that sort.... 
but the artefacts themselves are usually not bandied about, and cyphers 
are used for extra special security, not to fascinate.  Suggestions of 
'special knowledge' are linked to special writings/languages (even when 
these are shared, as amongst sects) and in also relation to special 
sources (e.g. Enochian).  Thus an unreadable document 'makes sense' if 
it is interpreted as recording special knowledge, or coming from a 
special source, almost regardless of whether or not it can be understood 
eventually by a(ny) reader, or whether it comes with/in the hands of/ a 
hermeneut.


So, in relation to VMS - we seem to have a document which alludes to 
topics known to people known to be interested in mysteries, discoveries, 
and sometimes genuine things like the medicinal value of plants.  The 
unreadability lends verisimilitude to otherwise rather 
poor/incomplete/inadequate diagrams/drawings.  The unreadability is 
plausible - it looks language like, not random squiggles.

Note - at that level of analysis the document is very successful - it 
excites in us now precisely the right responses - what is the content/ 
what is the language? [And note further that it does his even though we 
can look at more alchemical/herbal... MS in a day than most folk in 16th 
C might see in a decade.]

So, the document looks primarily like it was intended to deceive, not to 
hide, or to preserve for posterity (but with an unfortunately lost key). 
It was intended to evoke the response that it records for posterity, 
but with an unfortunately lost key.  [And, maybe to look older than it 
is, or than its circulation/movement in the late 16th C.]

That it is such an artefact, I argue, explains the work that has gone 
into making it look convincing.  It is going to be handled by people to 
whom it looks plausible and/or relevant (and perhaps a bit old, but 
recent enough to be exciting - we must take care with our perceptions of 
time here).  The work is an investment.  The document is an asset 
(fakes/fogeries often have considerable work put into them).

But then what is the 'language'?  It could be gibberish, but looks too 
complex for that.  But mere complexity doesn't mean it has to be 
decodable.  It apparently looks too complex to be worth the effort of 
artefice.  But who says?

Language skills are things humans are good at.  Children can master pig 
latin with incredible ease.  Special phonological variants of 'normal' 
speech are known amonst twins (twinnish takes several forms, I gather). 
Kelley/Dee developed Enochian.  Other folks have no doubt developed 
other 'languages' for deception/privacy (not codes, you understand). 
Pidgins are well attested, and Creoles likewise. Sign languages used by 
the deaf, complete with 'phonological' structure, morphology, syntax, 
pragmatics...... are created widely.  So, language invention is not 
necessarily 'expensive' and not worth the effort.  Recall also that most 
people now, as the erudite then, speak more than one language.  I recall 
reading that Dee had Russian as well as the usual Latin and English. 
Probably other languages also.

What is to be gained with language invention?  Simply that code-working 
was known at the time, and known to be problematically unreliable. Sure, 
some work better than others, but to put something into code would 
invite reflection on....'what do they read when they decode it'? If the 
underlying message is gibberish, then of course decoding is going to be 
difficult because you won't know if you have succeeded! But that 
actually presents the forger with a big task - they have to make more 
than 200 pages of stuff look plausible.  The easiest way is to invent a 
language - and even, indeed, to write standard/stale/inconsequential 
stuff about the topics depicted in the diagrams/images; and/or some 
invented fictional stuff. That way the forger can easily/quickly produce 
stuff at length, with the right sort of convincing appearance. 
Languages can be 'fluently used' but will be essentially private if 
invented.  Even real languages can remain essentially private if used in 
restricted circumstances.

So, in sort of summary, we have to consider the VMS as follows:

The document is completely genuine, maybe 15th C, possibly 16th C, 
contains genuine commentary/record, and rather odd drawings. The images 
are not that 'readable', and the script/language is unreadable. It seems 
to be in two hands, but not much else is really known. No other 
instances of such writing exist, and similarly odd drawings in documents 
don't seem common [are there any comparable documents, in terms of 
appearance, where the content is known and the images understood?].  It 
is unique, in essence, and a challenge for scholars.

Or

It is complete gibberish surrounded by fanciful nonsense diagrams, and 
intended to deceive/defraud.  This requires certain sorts of skills, 
especially given the structure of the script, but is not impossible. 
Uniqueness is unproblematic, and content ditto.  We just has to prove 
that it is meaningless (interestingly difficult).

Or

It is intended to deceive, but is not gibberish.  This would require 
both skill and experience in the perpetrators; inventing and using a 
language is demanding, but quite feasible (and in relation to possible 
perpetrators requires skills they are known to have had).  Also, 
producing a document this way would be an enjoyable challenge, fun 
rather than chore.  Try writing out 200 pages of pseudo-text trying to 
make it look language like but otherwise random gibberish devoid of 
meaning.  I'm not sure I'd even know how to begin.  We are left with a 
'decypherment challenge' - that is not changed.  What we should 
recognize is that we might well be disappointed!

So - why isn't VMS a genuine unforged secretive document full of 
treasures for us to uncover?  That is what we are encouraged to believe. 
I believe I recognise that I am being encouraged to believe it, and 
indeed that that is the intention of the creators.  They have done a 
great job.  But I don't believe it.  It just doesn't feel right.


Forgive these ramblings - if they are not to your taste.  Maybe 
voynichese is a disease?

Cheers

William




Elmar Vogt wrote:

> William Edmondson wrote:
>
> > I am really puzzled that its form is not bothering more people.  
>
>
> What do you mean, William?
>
>     Elmar

--
Dr William H Edmondson
School of Computer Science
University of Birmingham
Edgbaston B15 2TT
United Kingdom

Voice  -  +44-121-414-4763
email  -  w.h.edmondson@xxxxxxxxxx



______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list