Even when I’ve shown the VMs’ marginalia to some very clever, very experienced historians / palaeographers, you can see that there’s a easy stopping point tempting them: that because they are unreadable, they must necessarily be cryptographically unreadable.
But the two types of mark are manifestly not the same: they have quite different types of unreadability. That is, one seems intentionally unreadable, the other seems unintentionally unreadable. But even this overloads the word “unreadable” to breaking point, obscuring the core difference between the two which is this: that one is easy to apprehend but tricky to comprehend, while the other is easy to comprehend but tricky to apprehend. Alternatively, you can pitch this as “legible but obfuscated” vs “illegible but sensible”, if you think that helps. 🙂
What I’m clumsily trying to point out is that ‘unreadable’ is one of those words that really gets in the way of inter-domain collaboration, by offering up domain experts an easy alibi to avoid engaging with the VMs’ many problematiques. In the case of the VMs’ marginalia, the real reason an expert palaeographer should stand clear is the absence of a proper codicological analysis of the key pages supported by some state-of-the-art scans. Whereas this lacuna can be filled (in time), writing the marginalia off as necessarily cryptographic (and perhaps uncrackably so) is just crabwalking out of the way.
But perhaps I’m wrong, and the pragmatic reason historical experts feel comfortable manufacturing reasons (such as the above) not to get involved is that there is a fusty stench of unfunded academic death perceived to be lingering in the air above the VMs, by which I mean that they collectively think there is much more to lose by getting involved than there is to gain. Though in many ways such a view would be fair enough, few are brave enough to admit to it. Personally, I believe that there is an enormous amount to gain: but that the widespread (and arguably dominant?) contemporary practice of history as simply a close reading of fragments of historical texts is what gets in the way, as this does not give historians the tools to deal with a primarily non-verbal text situated outside most of the stylized art history mainstream.Creating alibis is much easier than having to face up to gaps in your core methodology.
I think you’re pretty much right on the mark with your assessment of Voynich vs. Academic — some of the kookiness that’s been attached to the manuscript over the years has served well to drive seasoned paleographers away at the first hint of asking them for an official analysis. Other than books specifically geared to Voynich research ( or UFO/Kookbooks ), I’ve only seen the manuscript seriously mentioned in a couple of books on historical cryptography ( Kahn — The Codebreakers, Belfield — The Six Unsolved Ciphers ) or one on medieval herbals ( The Illustrated Herbal — Blunt & Raphael ).
I don’t think academics don’t really want to stick their necks out for something like this. There’s just too much of a stigma in being associated with it to risk their reputation. Oh, I don’t doubt that once the text is finally cracked and a firm place is established for it in the context of historical literature — that is, once its been rendered “safe” for academia — there will be a few papers that make note of it as an oddity in their field of study.
Until then, I think we’re on our own. Edison was once asked about the solution to a difficult problem and was quoted as saying that it was too difficult for any specialist. It would be neccessary, he said, to wait for some amatuer to solve it. I think that this applies here as well.
Generalisation is always dangerous, of course, and I am sure that there
is also a variety of different opinions or levels of interest for the Voynich
MS among ‘academics’. I’ve discussed with at least one who treated the
MS as a normal old book about which it would be interesting to learn more.
Still, ‘not being too interested’ is not a crime, and not risking any opinions
might well be the right thing to do.
I also think that we can contribute to the “reputation” of the Voynich
MS. For me, it would be beneficial if it could be seen as a plain old book
written in the 15th C using the technology of that time and
influenced by the knowledge available at that time. It does have a
few very original sides to it, but I see no need to invoke all sorts of
conspiracies around every single aspect of the book.
There are no plants from outer space, there is a plain old zodiac and weird
combinations of geometrical patterns can also be seen in other MSs.
Having herbs and baths and astrology in one volume is not at all
unusual, having pages missing and other pages shuffled around is all
too common.
I’m almost tempted to say: “what’s the big deal”, but I know when I am
going too far 🙂
Rene: I can hardly disagree with what you wrote, given that you pretty much recapped what I’ve been saying for years before the radiocarbon dating. 🙂 The point of the post was to make it clear how a good number of the academics I’ve approached over the years seem happy to assert negative opinions (but without any justification), sometimes using linguistic tricks (such as the word “unreadable”) to mask them. I suspect the actual issues here are to do with the awkward gaps in modern historical methodology the VMs throws into sharp relief, such as the ongoing decline in interest in palaeography: so perhaps the big deal is not the VMs itself, but people’s general inability to grasp all the many non-textual sides of the VMs all at the same time.
There is of course a difference.
For a ‘normal’ book one could say, for example, the folios were rebound in a
different order some time before 1600, and that there are barely legible
marginalia on the last folio. That would be the end of the story.
For the Voynich MS one should not be happy to stop there. There could be
more important details. In digging for these details, and interpreting
them, there will be a transition zone between historic research and
over-enthousistic speculation. Someone used to work with ‘normal’ books
will be staying on the safe side of this unclear boundary. Such details
are rarely of critical importance.
Similar story with the page order. How does one determine the original
page order of Codex Neapolitanus (one of the oldest illustrated
Dioscurides MSS)?
1. One reads the text
2. One compares it with other copies of Dioscurides
That does not work for the Voynich MS. Instead, one starts looking for
minor clues, and combines them with some level of speculation. One needs to
make assumptions on what the author intended, without knowing anything
about him.
Don’t get me wrong, I think it is a worthwile effort, but the uncertainties
need to be spelled out, and I think that this is what the ‘academics’
are saying.
Rene:Please don’t take my comments about “academics” the wrong way. I fully realize that many/most researchers would by far rather spend there energies working on something that has an obvious “fit” in the scheme of things as a whole and into their particular disipline. . . not something that invites so much speculation as the Voynich manuscript.
It’s simply frustrating that many of us would love to have a recognized authority on paleography give us a detailed analysis of the manuscript . . . and no one seems to take us seriously.
I have to agree with you that ‘not being too interested’ is not a crime — but it is, as I said, frustrating to those of us who want to make use of those experts’ knowledge.
Hello Ernest, I agree of course.
Everyone is expecting / hoping that the C-14 results, which place
the MS more firmly in history, will contribute to a more serious look at
the MS. It will take its time though.
By the way, another serious publication about the MS is of course
Sergio Toresella’s article (in adddition to the short list in Comment #1).
Minta Collins (‘Medieval herbals: The illustrative traditions’) does not
mention it, but she makes the important statement that the 15th C
sees a huge increase in the production of herbal MSS.
Rene,
In your comment of March 9th you said re the
“weird combinations of geometrical patterns”
that the same patterns can be seen in other MSs.
Can you elaborate? So far I’ve only found the same characteristics in combination in a handful of regions, and only two in the fifteenth century, and neither of those in Italy.
Nick,
about Marginalia, labels and borderline perplexities –
There’s a nice manuscript in Ladino at Columbia U.Rare Book and Manuscript Library.
Materia medica.
Manuscript in Ladino on paper.
Ca. 15th century.
MS X893 R62
One opening (84v-85r) can be seen in detail
https://exhibitions.cul.columbia.edu/archive/files/206a9eef26e96cc4e404b350a69681ec.jpg
just to add to the scripts in the Catalan-Occitan-Arpitan region early in the 15thC