The Open Directory Project...

I've just been accepted as an editor of the Open Directory Project: for several years, its Voynich Manuscript category has been fairly moribund (if not actually dead), and I thought it would be a positive thing to try to update and restructure it, so that it could provide a set of links to Voynich-related things that was actually useful - image galleries, research, theories, etc.

I made a good start at doing this: but then I ran into a heap of problems...

Firstly, it turns out that nearly every interesting Voynich-related site I've looked at over the past six years has stopped working: Voynich dead links significantly outnumber the live links. Furthermore, many dead links (even recent ones such as ms408.com) don't appear to have made it into the Wayback Machine. And "deeplinking" (linking to sites inside a website) into the Wayback Machine is a no-no in the ODP.

Secondly, while the intention of the Open Directory Project is that it should provide a categorized directory of useful resources on a subject, Voynich Manuscript research only rarely works like that. For example, some ODP editors wouldn't even link to the Wikipedia page on their subject because it is a deeplink within another resource (i.e. within Wikipedia itself), as opposed to a user's subsite. So only a tiny handful of sites (such as Rene Zandbergen's exemplary pages on the subject, my Voynich News blog, etc) would satisfy a hardcore ODP editor's criteria for inclusion.

In other words, though I hoped that the ODP section might be the right place to bring some kind of order to the disjointed heap of fragments we call Voynich knowledge, many inside the ODP actively argue that that's not what it's for.

But if the ODP is the wrong answer, what is the right answer?

Having just spent a few days tracking down a long succession of dead links, I think there are two main types of webpage that should somehow be actively preserved: research pages (analyses of features, mainly of Voynichese) and theory/hypothesis pages ("my theory that I have, that is to say, which is mine, is mine").

And so I've just started up Voynich Research and Voynich Theories (as subsites on GC's Voynich Central website), each of which I plan to maintain as a single index page giving links to (and brief summaries of) all the research papers and webpages placed there. Though the ODP won't allow links to the Wayback Machine, I can put them in here: though my plan (longer term) is to contact the people involved asking for their permission to put an actual copy on the site, which would be a somewhat better answer.

OK, it's not a perfect answer... but it's a start.

Navigating Voynich Manuscript f1r...

Seeing the Voynich Manuscript for the first time is quite an intimidating experience: you're looking at something which is so uncertain in so many different ways - how should you try to "read" it?

In general, when you look at a page of text, you do two different types of reading: (1) you work out how everything is laid out (you navigate the page) and (2) you read what is contained within it (you read the text). In computer science terms, you could describe the layout conventions and text conventions as having two quite separate 'grammars'.

For instance, if you picked up a Hungarian newspaper, I would predict that you would stand a good chance of being able to work out its structure, even though you may not be able to understand a single word. It's perfectly reasonable, then, to be able to navigate a page without being able to read it.

What's not widely known about the Voynich Manuscript is that researchers have identified many of the navigational elements that structure the text (even though they cannot actually read them). I thought it might be helpful to post about these (oh, and I'm getting emails mildly berated me for posting too much about the wrong 'v', i.e. that it's not "Vampire News").

As a practical example, let's look at the very first page of the manuscript proper: this has the name "f1r" (which means "the recto [front] side of folio [double-sided page] #1"). You may also see this referred to as "f001r" (some people use this naming style so that their image files get sorted nicely), or even as "1006076.sid" (this is the Beinecke Rare Book & Manuscript Library's internal database reference for the high-resolution scan of f1r, which they store as a kind of highly compressed image). This is what f1r looks like:-

Note that the green splodges aren't actually part of the page itself - they're green leaves painted onto the reverse side of the folio (that is, on f1v, "folio #1 verso [back]") that happen to be visible through the vellum. I'll leave the issue of whether this is because the paint is too thick or the vellum is too thin to another day...

If we use a tricky colour filter written by Jon Grove (more on it here), we can make a passable attempt at removing the green splodges: and if we then bump up the contrast to make everything a little clearer, we can get a revised image of f1r:-


Red areas: these form the first four paragraphs of the text. These often start with one of four large vertical characters (known as "gallows characters"), and appear to have been written from top-left down to bottom-right, as you would English, French, Latin etc.

Blue areas: these are known as "titles", and are typically right-aligned words or short phrases added to the end of paragraphs. It has been proposed that the text contained in these might actually be section titles (which seems fairly reasonable). There's a brief discussion on this by (a differently spelled!) John Grove here, who first suggested the term.

Yellow area: this is a cipher key arranged vertically down the right hand side of the page that someone has written in (and only partially filled before giving up) in a 16th century hand. Though a bit indistinct, you can still make out "a b c d e" at the top left and a few other letters besides.

Bright green areas: these odd shapes appear nowhere else, and are generally referred to as "weirdoes" (for want of a better name). Interestingly, these are picked out in bright red: f67r2 is the only other place with red text that I can think of (the page that was originally on the front of what is now Quire 9).

Dull green area: this is where the earliest proven owner wrote his signature (something like "Jacobus de Tepenecz, Prag", though it is very hard to make out), which a subsequent owner appears to have (quite literally) scrubbed off the page (if you look carefully, you can see what appears to be two or more watermarks at the edges of the area). The question of why someone would want to do this is a matter for another day...

Pink area: hidden in the top right corner next to some wormholes and the folio number ("1", in a sixteenth century hand) is a very faint picture, possibly of a bird. Surprisingly, this subtle piece of marginalia doesn't appear in GC's otherwise-very-good gallery of Voynich marginalia: so here's an enhanced picture of it so you can see what I'm talking about:-.

So, even if we can't yet read f1r's text, can we navigate its layout? I believe we can! From the presence of red text, I'm fairly certain it was the first page of a quire: and from the signature and weathering, I don't see any reason to think this was ever bound anywhere apart from at the front of the manuscript. This leads me to predict that the set of four paragraphs forms an index to the manuscript as a whole, and so very probably describe four separate "books" or "works", where the "title" (appended to the end of the paragraph) is indeed the title of that book.

If you were looking for cribs to crack the titles :-) , my best guess is that the first book (section) is a herbal, the second book is on the stars (astronomy and astrology), the third book is on water, while the fourth book comprises recipes and secrets. I also suspect that this index page was composed about three-quarters of the way through the project, and that the (really quite strange) Herbal-B pages were added in a subsequent phase. But, once again, that's another story entirely...

Hidden writing on f1v...?

I've spent a long time (though "far too long" probably covers it better) hunting down obscured fragments of text in the Voynich Manuscript: so my Spidey-sense tingled almost uncontrollably when I saw a claim for hidden text on f1v in the "Marginal Writing" picture gallery on GC's Voynich Central.

I'd never heard of this before: just to be sure, I checked Reuben Ogburn's 2004 page on "Writing in and around plant illustrations" in case it had slipped in there, but no sign. If you run this through Jon Grove's colour separator filter, you can see that the brown ink used for the drawing and the brown paint used to fill it in are very slightly different: in the image below, the white area is where the filter thinks the overpainting happened.

But is there writing beneath? If you squint at the topmost image here long enough, you can start to make out something that might almost be writing. But if you filter it slightly differently, I think the answer emerges: the "signal" (below) appears to be not writing, but only compression artefacts from the MrSID wavelet encoding. Sorry, guys: false alarm! (Though next time I'm at the Beinecke, I'll have another quick look, just to be completely sure...)

Some Voynich outsiders...

As a handy (but inevitably bad) generalization, there are two kinds of Voynich researchers out there: (a) social ones (who do it in a crowd) and (b) anti-social ones (who do it alone). Broadly speaking, I'm now a (b) having first done a six-year stretch as an (a): but some people (like my old friend GC, who's like my Voynichological twin brother, though without the goatee... hmmm...) manage to stay (b) with occasional flashes of (a), despite all the provocation they (inevitably?) receive online.

But when you add things like blogs to the mix, this cosy categorization starts to fall apart. Because I blog about what I'm thinking about, does that make me a kind of passive-aggressive (a), or perhaps a falsely socialized (b)? Are blogs actually social, or merely a kind of unconscious, self-aggrandizing auto-journalism? Answers on an e-postcard (to someone else), please.

Regardless, plenty of people put out their Voynich-related outsider viewpoints in varied ways: here are some you may have missed (but which my seine net picked up). Be grateful I only kept the good stuff! :-)

(1) Richard Santa Coloma has posted up a set of long-ish posts by GC here: intriguingly, GC (who for years has winced at the thought of anything apart from a 16th century origin, largely because of Leonell Strong's decryption / Askham attribution) is now mellowing towards the 15th century (though quite how the two centuries blend together is still a little wobbly).

Incidentally, the possibility (as proposed by Richard Santa Coloma) of Cornelius Drebbel-era (i.e. circa 1600) authorship for the Voynich remains interesting, though hard to square with the manuscript's 15th century art history. But perhaps the truth will turn out to be far more magnificent. Telescope histories (such as this excellent one from the Galileo Project) will tell you that the glass in Venice produced around 1450 was being ground by Florentines (and others) into both convex and concave lenses for spectacles / bericles, and so anyone with access to both could have made telescopes and microscopes. Yet the first properly documented examples of each instrument appear 140+ years later. What is curious is that, according to the Galileo Project:

• "In the literature of white magic, so popular in the sixteenth century, there are several tantalizing references to devices that would allow one to see one's enemies or count coins from a great distance. But these allusions were cast in obscure language and were accompanied by fantastic claims; the telescope, when it came, was a very humble and simple device." (http://galileo.rice.edu/sci/instruments/telescope.html para 4)

Could it be that various individuals invented and reinvented the microscope and telescope multiple times in that century-and-a-half gap? If you view the Voynich Manuscript's quires 19 and 17 (in that order), you will see what looks for all the world like a lab notebook detailing the development of a sequence of microscopes (and possibly telescopes), seguing into speculative optical instruments. If only Richard Santa Coloma "dropped the Drebbel", he might find a far more amazing story waiting to be uncovered...

(2) Sean B. Palmer has posted some interesting pages here (on "Michitonese") and here (on the zodiac month names), though in both cases chasing behind work I had done six or so months previously. A nice resource he uses which I wasn't aware of: the Xerox XRCE Language Guesser. You feed it 5 sentences of text, and it compares them with 47 languages (though doubtless a longer list in the commercial version) to determine the closest match. Kewl! (i.e. 'fascinating technology but not actually very useful').

(3) One of the quintessential twentieth century outsiders was Terence McKenna: though I can't walk in his footsteps (largely because I'm allergic to mushrooms), it is hard not to feel some kind of admiration for his endless tilting against those powerful windmills who continue to blow us around. There's an audio archive of his work here, with a long (but often terribly wrong, I'm sorry to say) discussion of the Voynich Manuscript from 1983 here...

In it, he namechecks Mary D'Imperio's "Elegant Enigma" ("this is what your tax dollars are being used for"), and notes that the VMs' internal structuring probably indicates meaningful content However, McKenna understands that it's not a Trithemius-derived code or cipher and suggests it should be compared by computer with the work of John Dee (which Leonell Strong also flagged), even though he's very much into Dee-Kelley hoax hypotheses. Modern cryptographers may well be blind to the particular "weird quirky way" in which it was encoded/enciphered, he says: alternatively, "a chemical attack should be mounted" on the manuscript's plants. Oh, and it's "aaaaahbviously sixteenth century". Around 20 minutes in, lots of Yatesian stuff gets namechecked [if you like that kind of thing]. At the time, McKenna was "advising a group of people in Santa Cruz" (almost certainly via Ralph Abraham, I guess) in their research into the VMs, "one of the great oddities of human thought".

The problem with McKenna's Voynichological heritage is his subsequent endorsement of Leo Levitov's problematic 1987 Cathar decryption (about 24mins in, read from McKenna's "Archaic Revival"), which now looks rather foolish. Oh well! By the way, the mp3 ends with about 10 minutes of frog croaking, which may or may not be meaningful (you choose). :-)