Skip to main content

Voynich Manuscript

Voynich Manuscript, cropped featured pic


Back in 1912 a Polish book dealer, Wilfrid Voynich, purchased an odd manuscript from Jesuits in Rome. The Jesuits of the Villa Mondragone were in need of cash and so were selling off some of their holdings, including this old 15th century book.


Voynich kept it until his death in 1930. It is now in the possession of the Yale Library.


Based on the illustrations, (see above), Voynich inferred that this was supposed to be a medical or pharmacological text from that period. but he didn't recognize the language. Neither has anyone else since. The "Voynich manuscript" has become a standing challenge to cryptoanalysis. indeed, it is so difficult to decipher that one hypothesis is that there was no purchase from the Jesuits at all, that the whole thing was Voynich's hoax, and that the text-like symbols are nonsense. But carbon dating supported his account and the 15th-century origin.


There is another theory, that it is an older hoax, perhaps some Renaissance-era prankster saw fit to mix up some nonsense text with various randomly chosen illustrations. In that case, Voynich (and his Jesuit counterparties) were among the victims of the hoax, not its perpetrators.


But that interpretation seemed a bit unlikely to a lot of people. The counter argument might be concisely phrased: didn't people in the 15th century have better things to do with their time?


So the text remained a mystery. That is, until February 20, 2014, when word went out to those who care about such matters that a British linguistics professor named Stephen Bax had achieved a breakthrough.


It is far from a translation, but Bax has identified a handful of proper names used in the text. He suspects that it is in neither fraud nor code, but a still-unidentified Near Eastern natural language.


The march of human knowledge is fascinating to observe.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak