Posted by Anonymous on 23 Jun 2004 at about 14:40.
this manuscript has the look of work produced by what are called in the art world outsider artists: untrained, selftaught, primitive technique often socially outcast, frequently mentally ill. this book would have cost a lot to produce. but if there were perhaps some deranged son of wealthy nobles, his parents might have indulged him with vellum and all the other materials if scribbling and painting in his book pacified his manic tendencies.
Posted by Anonymous on 23 Jun 2004 at about 17:32.
This assumes, of course, that one is to view the Voynich as simply a work of art. Do we know that it was meant only to be appreciated aesthetically?
It also presumes a social status and mental illness in the case of an extremely difficult craft, while there is no evidence linking these factors.
Finally, I disagree that the invention of a language and several plant species (if we are assuming 'invention' on the part of the author) is a "primitive technique."
Posted by Anonymous on 23 Jun 2004 at about 20:30.
all good points. my post was brief and didnt go into detail, so here are some responses to what you bring up.
one of the hallmarks of "outsider" artists is that their work is not necessarily about art, or less about art than about creating a system, cosmology, theology, etc. that gives meaning and stability to their oft-times turbulent lives.
i mentioned the need for high social standing simply because this would have been an expensive and time consuming project, and only someone of wealth would have been able to do this if it were such a project as i suggested.
what does in fact link mental illness and the "extremely difficult craft" you mention, is that a very large number of outsider artists have in
fact worked in book form. this is what made me consider this in the first place. henry darger wrote and illustrated several monumental books, one over 10,000 pages long. adolf wolfli and many others also produced books as one of their most important formats. and again, i think this was far less for aesthetic reasons than for the organizing and authoritative nature of books.
also, the use of the term primitive did in fact refer to specifically to the technique in the voynich, and i think is used justifiably. the botantical and nymph drawings are powerful but in terms of technique primitive, and the lettering and layout are not in the least slick or sophisticated, but that is in no way a negative. outsider art draws much of its power from the direct personal nature of it's technique, in combination with it's powerful imaginative force. you're right, the invention of language and imagery is indeed very impressive, as in most outsider art, but can indeed be rendered in technically primitve means.
my guess is that it probably wasn't in fact an "outsider art", although i think it is a valid enough possiblity that it should be considered. i havent seen anyone else raise this possiblity and so feel it is worth adding this idea into the mix.
Posted by DigitalDragon on 24 Jun 2004 at about 05:24.
Would it not be logical that if you had something worth recording, something important enough to spend time upon to this extent (months at the very least), that you would ensure that it was decipherable? I would hope that a sane person would think so. That’s not to say that some insane idiot came into possession of the only existing document of some ancient work that deserved to be recorded for future generations. A document, initially intended to be openly observed by future generations. And subsequently was rendered incomprehensible by some idiot in the past that unfortunately become the sole possessor of it. That has not even been considered in any of the theories that have developed around this enigma.
So, I will add it to the possibilities.
-dd “I am a marvelous housekeeper. Every time I leave a man, I keep his house.”
Posted by Anonymous on 24 Jun 2004 at about 04:18.
It's really hard to tell whether this is a ciphered text or not. Though IMHO it's a bit hasty to tie this to anyone or anything without more concrete proof one way or the other. So any opinion/theory is about as good as any other. I did find a few things interesting about this text -
a. The circle charts/drawings on various pages, might they be copies of some kind of coding wheels used to generate the text?
b. Some of the drawings seem to have a cross pattern in them.
What does this mean? I don't know, but I thought it interesting. For all I know it could have been some fake holy text for a "mystic" seer of the past.
Just a thought. If the Manuscript is indeed a production of the Dee/Kelly team, it may well have similarities in statistical structures to Enochian. Maybe?
To sit in silence when we should protest makes cowards out of men
Posted by Anonymous on 24 Jun 2004 at about 09:08.
To me it just looks like a classic example of a post-medieval botanical/herbal study, albeit one written in code for whatever reasons the author saw fit. I can't really understand why it's viewed as such an enigma in some quarters.
Exactly. I think what makes people consider these plants and drawings so confusing is that the plants are shown in flower and also after seeds are on in the same drawing. Not the usual way of showing these elements. In most that I have seen the seeds or leaf or root/bulb are done in seperate sections. Enlargements of root/bulb sections or what looks like layered stem sections look unusual, but if you imagine a circle in todays plant books representing magnification they don't look so strange. And although it is unusual to represent plants in drawings that have both flower and seed at the same time, in nature it's pretty normal. Today most people "dead head" flowers that are spent and never get to see the seed pods and flowers on at the same time. If you're a seed saver like me, or somebody during the time these were supposedly written, gathering wild or seed saving, I think these drawings would have been pretty clear.
The little naked ladies? I don't know, I guess they do look more biological. Perhaps they represent "humors" in the blood effected by these plants?
The writings look just on edge of familiar don't they? My own shorthand to myself is unreadable by others. I don't know, perhaps someone wanted to be the only distributor of this knowledge at that place and time. Seems to have worked better than a patent. :-)
Posted by Anonymous on 28 Jun 2004 at about 15:41.
I think the strange appearance of some of the plants could also be due to the artist attempting to depict them purely from written (or spoken) descriptions. If you look at Gerard's Herbal (from circa. 1600) he goes to great pains to describe the appearance of each plant, a tradition maintained in similar books today, even well-illustrated ones. Trying to draw a recognisable specimen from such descriptions may well result in something akin to the illo's in Voynich, and would explain why it's hard to see what species is being depicted.
Posted by Abramelin on 27 Jun 2004 at about 15:16.
Personally, I think that the enigma remains because it is 296 pages of text that is impossible to read. Granted, the illustrations are primitive, but they might not be seen as so primitive if they were understood as copies of illustrations done by someone with limited resources (paint, experience, etc.).
It could be just that: a copy of another work. If you have ever tried to read medieval manuscripts, they are extraordinarily difficult for the modern eye to decipher. Perhaps this work represents someone in, say, 1500, trying to read an illustrated manuscript from 100 AD, without actual knowledge of the language being employed.
Posted by Albino_Crow on 29 Jun 2004 at about 09:32.
I think it's important not to overlook the cast of characters attributed to this script; John Dee, Roger Bacon, various members of royalty, etc. The importance of it during it's home-era becomes evident, so to say it's the forlorn work of an 'outsider artist' is somewhat hard to swallow, but, I'm open for anything. My gut is leaning more toward an alchemical and esoteric bent as to it's contents, and as far as the cipher goes I'm thinking it may be next to impossible to decipher if you don't have the primer. It's been said in it's corellating study that the characters found in the book haven't been discovered anywhere else in the World. This very well may be because it was only intended to be used once. It's primer, or corroborating means to parallel it's contents has been lost. It's obvious the book wasn't meant to be read by the World considering it hasn't been understood since 1921 by the consensus population. I think this is a textbook case of the uninitiated stumbling upon something very secret, and as a result bumbling about indefinitely.
Posted by the shadow on 13 Jul 2004 at about 04:14.
I voted for Edward Kelly because he was such a bizarre character, and I don't think it would be beyond him to do such a thing, but I have since had another thought.
I may be a bit off course here, but it occurred to me that someone who thought along those fantasy lines was Jonathon Swift.
Now the timing may be wrong if it was done in the middle ages;Swift having written Gulliver's Travels in 1726, but the type of thing that Swift excelled in was the most amazing fantasy, and what better than to make a world with a language and plants that didn't exist.
What value do you get out of The Daily Grail over the course of a year? Is it worth the price of a coffee? Perhaps the price of a magazine subscription? Whatever it is, you can help ensure the future and independence of TDG by sending a 'voluntary subscription' of any amount. Your support is appreciated!
Comments
this manuscript has the look of work produced by what are called in the art world outsider artists: untrained, selftaught, primitive technique often socially outcast, frequently mentally ill. this book would have cost a lot to produce. but if there were perhaps some deranged son of wealthy nobles, his parents might have indulged him with vellum and all the other materials if scribbling and painting in his book pacified his manic tendencies.
This assumes, of course, that one is to view the Voynich as simply a work of art. Do we know that it was meant only to be appreciated aesthetically?
It also presumes a social status and mental illness in the case of an extremely difficult craft, while there is no evidence linking these factors.
Finally, I disagree that the invention of a language and several plant species (if we are assuming 'invention' on the part of the author) is a "primitive technique."
all good points. my post was brief and didnt go into detail, so here are some responses to what you bring up.
one of the hallmarks of "outsider" artists is that their work is not necessarily about art, or less about art than about creating a system, cosmology, theology, etc. that gives meaning and stability to their oft-times turbulent lives.
i mentioned the need for high social standing simply because this would have been an expensive and time consuming project, and only someone of wealth would have been able to do this if it were such a project as i suggested.
what does in fact link mental illness and the "extremely difficult craft" you mention, is that a very large number of outsider artists have in
fact worked in book form. this is what made me consider this in the first place. henry darger wrote and illustrated several monumental books, one over 10,000 pages long. adolf wolfli and many others also produced books as one of their most important formats. and again, i think this was far less for aesthetic reasons than for the organizing and authoritative nature of books.
also, the use of the term primitive did in fact refer to specifically to the technique in the voynich, and i think is used justifiably. the botantical and nymph drawings are powerful but in terms of technique primitive, and the lettering and layout are not in the least slick or sophisticated, but that is in no way a negative. outsider art draws much of its power from the direct personal nature of it's technique, in combination with it's powerful imaginative force. you're right, the invention of language and imagery is indeed very impressive, as in most outsider art, but can indeed be rendered in technically primitve means.
my guess is that it probably wasn't in fact an "outsider art", although i think it is a valid enough possiblity that it should be considered. i havent seen anyone else raise this possiblity and so feel it is worth adding this idea into the mix.
1 May 2004
6 years 19 weeks
Would it not be logical that if you had something worth recording, something important enough to spend time upon to this extent (months at the very least), that you would ensure that it was decipherable? I would hope that a sane person would think so. That’s not to say that some insane idiot came into possession of the only existing document of some ancient work that deserved to be recorded for future generations. A document, initially intended to be openly observed by future generations. And subsequently was rendered incomprehensible by some idiot in the past that unfortunately become the sole possessor of it. That has not even been considered in any of the theories that have developed around this enigma.
So, I will add it to the possibilities.
-dd “I am a marvelous housekeeper. Every time I leave a man, I keep his house.”
It's really hard to tell whether this is a ciphered text or not. Though IMHO it's a bit hasty to tie this to anyone or anything without more concrete proof one way or the other. So any opinion/theory is about as good as any other. I did find a few things interesting about this text -
a. The circle charts/drawings on various pages, might they be copies of some kind of coding wheels used to generate the text?
b. Some of the drawings seem to have a cross pattern in them.
What does this mean? I don't know, but I thought it interesting. For all I know it could have been some fake holy text for a "mystic" seer of the past.
11 May 2004
1 year 14 weeks
Just a thought. If the Manuscript is indeed a production of the Dee/Kelly team, it may well have similarities in statistical structures to Enochian. Maybe?
To sit in silence when we should protest makes cowards out of men
To me it just looks like a classic example of a post-medieval botanical/herbal study, albeit one written in code for whatever reasons the author saw fit. I can't really understand why it's viewed as such an enigma in some quarters.
3 May 2004
33 weeks 5 days
Exactly. I think what makes people consider these plants and drawings so confusing is that the plants are shown in flower and also after seeds are on in the same drawing. Not the usual way of showing these elements. In most that I have seen the seeds or leaf or root/bulb are done in seperate sections. Enlargements of root/bulb sections or what looks like layered stem sections look unusual, but if you imagine a circle in todays plant books representing magnification they don't look so strange. And although it is unusual to represent plants in drawings that have both flower and seed at the same time, in nature it's pretty normal. Today most people "dead head" flowers that are spent and never get to see the seed pods and flowers on at the same time. If you're a seed saver like me, or somebody during the time these were supposedly written, gathering wild or seed saving, I think these drawings would have been pretty clear.
The little naked ladies? I don't know, I guess they do look more biological. Perhaps they represent "humors" in the blood effected by these plants?
The writings look just on edge of familiar don't they? My own shorthand to myself is unreadable by others. I don't know, perhaps someone wanted to be the only distributor of this knowledge at that place and time. Seems to have worked better than a patent. :-)
I think the strange appearance of some of the plants could also be due to the artist attempting to depict them purely from written (or spoken) descriptions. If you look at Gerard's Herbal (from circa. 1600) he goes to great pains to describe the appearance of each plant, a tradition maintained in similar books today, even well-illustrated ones. Trying to draw a recognisable specimen from such descriptions may well result in something akin to the illo's in Voynich, and would explain why it's hard to see what species is being depicted.
1 May 2004
7 years 14 weeks
Personally, I think that the enigma remains because it is 296 pages of text that is impossible to read. Granted, the illustrations are primitive, but they might not be seen as so primitive if they were understood as copies of illustrations done by someone with limited resources (paint, experience, etc.).
It could be just that: a copy of another work. If you have ever tried to read medieval manuscripts, they are extraordinarily difficult for the modern eye to decipher. Perhaps this work represents someone in, say, 1500, trying to read an illustrated manuscript from 100 AD, without actual knowledge of the language being employed.
29 June 2004
5 years 6 weeks
I think it's important not to overlook the cast of characters attributed to this script; John Dee, Roger Bacon, various members of royalty, etc. The importance of it during it's home-era becomes evident, so to say it's the forlorn work of an 'outsider artist' is somewhat hard to swallow, but, I'm open for anything. My gut is leaning more toward an alchemical and esoteric bent as to it's contents, and as far as the cipher goes I'm thinking it may be next to impossible to decipher if you don't have the primer. It's been said in it's corellating study that the characters found in the book haven't been discovered anywhere else in the World. This very well may be because it was only intended to be used once. It's primer, or corroborating means to parallel it's contents has been lost. It's obvious the book wasn't meant to be read by the World considering it hasn't been understood since 1921 by the consensus population. I think this is a textbook case of the uninitiated stumbling upon something very secret, and as a result bumbling about indefinitely.
" There is no Religion higher than the Truth. "
24 June 2004
4 years 49 weeks
I voted for Edward Kelly because he was such a bizarre character, and I don't think it would be beyond him to do such a thing, but I have since had another thought.
I may be a bit off course here, but it occurred to me that someone who thought along those fantasy lines was Jonathon Swift.
Now the timing may be wrong if it was done in the middle ages;Swift having written Gulliver's Travels in 1726, but the type of thing that Swift excelled in was the most amazing fantasy, and what better than to make a world with a language and plants that didn't exist.
shadows
9 May 2004
18 weeks 6 days
Edith Sherwood's solution seems very reasonable to me.
http://www.edithsherwood.com/voynich_dec...
Besides, I don't trust carbon dating as a 100% reliable test.