[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: VMs: The "key" f116v.1-2: a Latin Prayer to Virgin Mary



Hello Elmar,

Many thanks for your stimulating questions. I really appreciate it.

As you I read "abta" in line 2. But "abta" is nothing but another medieval Latin orthography for "apta", please see Lexicon manuale ad scriptores mediae et infimae latinitatis, s.v. abtus, column 46: "abtus -- pro aptus".

You ask why the author uses different signs for "s". I was thinking about that, too. I could be that the verse contain a date (year):
- the capital "M" you mentioned at the end of line 1 is a sign for 1000 (Elmar, please look at the lettershapes in Cappelli, p. 417; these "M"s look indeed somewhat like an "ai");
- "c" is a sign for 100;
- "x" is a sign for 10 (please see Cappelli, p. 419, it's our "x");
- "v" is a sign for 5.


Then we have: M + CCCC + XXXX + V= 1445.

You supposes that lines 1/2 (as I read and interpret them) and lines 0/3 have different meanings, but are by the same hand. Therefore you concludes: Lines 1/2 cannot be a Latin prayer. Two answers:

(1) AFAIK there is no shared reading or interpretation of lines 0/3 so far. Thus we cannot play lines, which we do not understand, off against lines, which make a good sense. Vice versa, I would say we should read lines 0/3 in the light of lines 1/2.

(2) Lines 0/3 obviously contain Germanic words. What makes you so sure that these lines are written by the same person? Line 3 seems to be written by someone who tried to translate lines 1/2.

You also presupposes that the Voynich MS is enciphered and that therefore it is not suitable that we have a Latin prayer on its end. I admit that I would find an enciphered VMS more fascinating than a plain text (probably like the most of this group). But there are two possible answers:

(1) Perhaps the Latin prayer disguises the -- whatever -- non Christian content of the MS.

(2) It is always a good idea to look for the context of a text that you want to translate. In this point I agree absolutely with you. But the above maxim only makes sense if we seriously know the context (or at least if we know the context better than the text we concentrate on). To my knowledge in the last 80 years there were no really *sufficient* step towards a cryptological solution of the main body of the text. AFAIK with exception of the disputed solutions of Feely, Levitov, and Stoijko there is no single sentence of the main body someone of the Voynicheros could really "translate". So, why are you so sure that this text is enciphered or encoded? So, again, why playing a text (if any) which we absolutely do not understand off against Latin verses we can understand?

At least, a word to the naked Mary. I have to confess that I do not know if there are any illustration of a naked Virgin Mary. This was only a wild guess and whatever we can make from it, it should not undermine the other considerations which (as I hope) stand on the ground of serious science (Latin grammar, Latin vocabulary, and shared theological assumptions).

Best
Gregor

----------------------------------------------
Institut fuer Philosophie
Martin-Luther-Universitaet Halle-Wittenberg
Schleiermacherstr. 1
06114 Halle
Germany
E-mail: gregor.damschen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.phil.uni-halle.de

----- Original Message ----- From: "Elmar Vogt" <elvogt@xxxxxxx>
To: <vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 11:24 AM
Subject: Re: VMs: The "key" f116v.1-2: a Latin Prayer to Virgin Mary





G. Damschen wrote:

The "key" f116v.1-2: a Latin Prayer to Mary

This is an addendum to my earlier note on folio 116v.1-2 from 3 September 2005.

If we read line 1 as I did the day before yesterday ("archicon ola dabas.") and if we read the sign in line 2 behind "si", "mari", "mori" and "vi" as "s" (as Jorge Stolfi rightly proposed in an email from 13 April 1999) we get:

f116v.1:   + árchicon óla dabás / + multás / + #e + cárcere + pórtas +
f116v.2:   sis + maris + moris + vis + apta + ma+ria +

Now I think it is quite obvious that this is nothing but a Latin prayer to the Virgin Mary: In Medieval theology Mary is called the vessel ("vas", sometimes "aula", "templum") which gives birth to the Ruler ("archikos"), i.e. Christ. By that, she also gives us many doors out of the prison (the body?, the Underworld?) ([#]"e carcere") to Heaven, she is called "door to the Heavens" ("porta celi"). She is the force or essence ("vis") of man ("maris" from "mas") or of sea ("maris" from "mare", cf. Mary as "stella maris") and the force of moral ("moris" from "mos"), the neat Mary ("apta Maria"). Translation:

f116v.1: + You, vessel, gave the Ruler and many doors out of the prison. f116v.2: May you be the power of man and moral, neat Mary. +

Conclusion:
The so-called "key" to the Voynich manuscript (VMS f116v.1-2) is a prayer to the Virgin Mary in clear Medieval Latin. This prayer reflects Mary's role as mother of Christ and as Porta celi. It is bound by metre (line 1 is a hexameter; line 2 has a somewhat metrical structure -- though it is no pentameter). There is absolutely no indication that these lines contain any cryptological key, null-letterss or mess. Newbold's and Brumbaugh's readings were misleading. Furthermore, there seems to be a connection between the word "archicon" in line 1 and the words "oror.sheey" in line 3: "archicon" probably is a 'translation' of "or.sheey" (see my last mail).


P.S.: Just a guess: If we assume the woman left to the lines on f116v is Virgin Mary, then the animal above her could be a lamb and the thing above it a vessel?

Any comments?


Hello Gregor,


I very much appreciated your sophisticated and thorough examination, but, honestly, I don't really buy the solution.

I have issues with the handwriting as detected by you: You have consistenly translated the "8" shape in the first line as "s", whereas in the second line it's "x" which turns into "s". Why would the author use two different shapes?

To me, the claimed "r" in "archicon" appears to be the exact shape as the "u" in "multas" -- and both look more like an "n" to me.

At best, the author wrote "abta", not "apta", IMHO.

I'd be willing to accept this, though, if the prayer would make sense in the overall context of the VM:

But, first of all, we have the "pontifer" line at the very top of the page, and the VM code and "so nim gas mich" directly underneath, which fail to fit into the picture of the prayer. Furthermore, by assuming that the figure to the left is the Virgin Mary, you assume that the notes on f116v were written by the VM author(s), ie are not an independent text by a later owner.

Now, this would be very odd -- the VM is characterized by the absence of Christian iconography, so ending this book with a latin prayer (in plain text, rather than cipher!) is jarringly different. Likewise, depicting the Virgin Mary *naked* and without any attributes of her rank is even more weird. (One could say that she is "disguised" as a part of the VM encoding, but that wouldn't make sense with a Christian prayer identifying her right next to it.)

So, I wouldn't really place my money on a bet for your solution, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

Cheers,

Elmar

--
Elmar Vogt / Königswarterstr. 18 / 90762 Fürth / GERMANY
elvogt@xxxxxxx / www.beamends.de / Tel.: (++49/0)911 - 31 52 58

"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something,
sometime in your life." (W. Curchill)

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


-- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/89 - Release Date: 02.09.2005



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