A little more on Tadeáš Hájek z Hájku...

Note: this article has now moved to a-little-more-on-tadeas-hajek-z-hajku on Cipher Mysteries

A nice little thing just arrived in the post: I had contacted the Prague-based Society for the History of Sciences ("DVT" = dějiny věd a techniky) to ask how to get hold of a copy of its 2000 monograph on Tadeáš Hájek z Hájku. To my surprise, the DVT's Igor Janovský said - don't worry about paying, we'll just send you a copy (which they did).

It's a rather pleasant little blue-covered volume: though all in Czech, there is a contents page at the back in English. As this doesn't appear anywhere on the Internet, I thought I'd copy it here:-

5 … Introduction
7 … Zdenĕk Beneš: Lifetime of Tadeáš Hájek of Hájek – his personality, time and milieu
15 … Jaroslav Soumar: Tadeáš Hájek of Hájek and his time
25 … Michal Svatoš: Tadeáš Hájek of Hájek and Prague University
35 … Martin Šolc: Astronomy in activity of Tadeáš Hájek
41 … Alena Hadravová & Petr Hadrava: Observation devices in the time of Tadeáš Hájek
49 … Petr Hadrava: Tradition in Czech stellar astronomy (Conclusion to the astronomy of Tadeáš Hájek and foreward to S. Štefl’s article)
51 … Stanislav Štefl: Stelar studies of Be-stars with spectrograph Heros
55 … Voytĕch Hladký & Martin Šolc: Tadeáš Hájek and the calendary reform of Pope Gregorius
61 … Karel Krška: Tadeáš Hájek as meteorologist
67 … Zdenĕk Tempír: Cultivation of hop-plants up to 16th century and Tadeáš Hájek of Hájek
79 … Gabriela Basařová: Contribution of Tadeáš Hájek to Czech and world brewing
93 … Pavel Drábek: Aspects of medicine in Hájek’s treatise on beer
95 … Václav Vĕtvička: Tadeáš Hájek of Hájek as botanist
103 … Jaroslav Slípka: Tadeáš Hájek of Hájek and his “Methoposcopy”
109 … Milada Říhová: Treatise on methoposcopy of Tadeáš Hájek of Hájek
115 … Pavel Drábek: Antonius Mizaldus an interpreteur of Hájek’s Methoposcopy into French
117 … Bohdana Buršiková: “Actio medica”, or the professional dispute of Tadeáš Hájek
125 … Josef Smolka: Andreas Dudith (1533-1589) – penfriend of Tadeáš Hájek
169 … Josef Petráň: Tadeáš Hájek’s relation to practice
175 … On bibliography Hageciana
189 … Obsah [i.e. “Contents” in Czech]
190 … Contents

By far the biggest (44-page long) piece is Josef Smolka's article (pp.125-168) on Hájek's correspendence from Andreas Dudith: the table on p.137 lists 47 extant letters dating from 1572 to 1589. Dudith's correspondence is currently being edited by L. Szczucki a T. Szepessy: parts I to IV were published in 1992, 1995, 2000, and 1998, with the last two corresponding just to 1574 and 1575 (which must have been busy years). Note that Smolka has examined the letters to Hájek past 1575, not just the ones that have been edited & published.

I must admit that all this changes what I thought about the 16th century. I had previously got the impression that there was a huge explosion in scientific letter writing only in the mid-17th century, triggered by the Royal Society and Kircher's encyclopedic output. My impression of the preceding century had been that its letters had been more literary and political. But here we can see a 16th century group corresponding intensely: this pushes the boundary right back in time.

Was this an "invisible college"? Owen Gingerich received light flak for using the phrase ("The Book Nobody Read", p.82), which he defines (pp.178-179) as "tutorial and mentor relationships that transcended institutional boundaries": though in modern sociological usage, it is usually a rather more hand-waving way of expressing undocumented (but implicitly present) loose connections between members of an extended community through which ideas flow. For once, the Wikipedia entry is mostly helpful (well, up until its final summary, anyway).

I'd point out that 'mentoring' is a somewhat inexact term (as well as being a modern back-projection onto history, with "mentor" dating only from 1699, and becoming trendy in the 1990s): and that the whole "invisible college" notion comes with extensive occult, Rosicrucian, and secret society baggage which perhaps we would be better off not carrying on our journey forwards. Basically, I fail to see how using "invisible" to denote "non-academic" is helpful to anyone: I've met plenty of essentially invisible academics, haven't you?

For the most part, I think that what is meant by "invisible college" is no more than a geographically- extended community of letter-writers, trading ideas rather than goods. Others might prefer to call this a "community of letters" (though I'm not sure if this is helpful either).

And so we come to Rene Zandbergen's comment on my earlier post on Tadeáš Hájek. He writes that "According to Dr.Smolka, if Hajek had had access to the MS now known as the Voynich MS, it should be expected that he would have mentioned it to Duditius, but this is not the case." [Smolka's article on Duditius and Hájek is the one discussed above].

Actually, I do buy into this: if the VMs did get bought by Rudolph II (who, let's say, then gave it to Horcicky), we may be able to rule out the pre-1590 (and indeed the pre-1600) period. In fact, I'd say the best place to look would probably be in the community of scientific letter-writers around Europe circa 1600-1612, and particularly before 1606-1609 when Rudolph II's grip on the court started to yield to his brother Matthias. So rather than Duditius and Hájek themselves, we ought to be hunting down their successors' letters. But who would that be?

It would need someone with a better grasp of 'unpublished Bohemian scientific correspondence 1600-1610' than me to know where best to look next. All the same, I have some ideas... ;-)

The Voynich Manuscript for real people...

Note: this article has now moved to the-voynich-manuscript-for-real-people on Cipher Mysteries

It's a typical writer's puzzle: when something you read (or write) really sucks, but an even half-satisfactory alternative is nowhere to be found. That's basically how I feel about almost everything that's been written about the VMs: even though it's an amazing mystery, that also somehow highlights all the dangerous sides of knowledge, accounts always amble off in the same kind of leadenly pedestrian way. For example, I spent ages tweaking and polishing the first sentence of "The Curse":

"In 1912, when the ancient Jesuit Villa Mondragone near Rome was running short of funds, its managers decided to sell off some of its rare books."

Just like the (abysmal) VMs Wikipedia entry, the sterile factuality and precision here can't be faulted: but it's aiming for the head, not the heart. But mysteries have a certain kind of tactile, claustrophobic presence to them: they surround you, taunt you, tighten your chest as you sense an approaching breakthrough. You think you're hunting the target, when in fact all the clues are hunting you - the reader is the target.

In short, even though everything surrounding the Voynich Manuscript is a mystery, why do people persist in writing about it as if they are writing a description for a car auction - its size, shape, page-count, first historical mention, list of owners, number of pictures, valves, bhp, lalala? Capturing the raw factuality of a mystery in this way achieves little or nothing.

When I went to the Beinecke, I tried to read the texture of its pages with my fingers (to tell the hair side from the grain side): I smelt its cover and pages (just in case I could pick up any hint or note of the animal from which the vellum was made): I looked at its surface under a magnifying glass: I looked at special features through narrow-band optical filters, which I tilted to try to adjust the wavelength. I tried to stretch my range of perceptions of it to the point where something unusual might just pop out.

But most of all, I tried to imagine myself into the position of someone physically writing it: how the act of writing and state of mind mixed together, what was going on, what they were thinking of, how it all worked. And that was yet harder still.

At supper this evening, I told my son that the biggest mystery in the world is what other people are thinking: and really, that is perhaps at the heart of why the Voynich Manuscript is the biggest mystery ever - because we still cannot reconstruct what its author was thinking. It is this absence of rapport that opens up the possibility for mad, bad, and bizarre theories: because we can project onto the manuscript whatever feelings and thoughts we like.

Yet when authors write fiction, this empathy is typically where they start: working out how to create characters with whom the readers will be able to sustain some kind of reading relationship over the course of 200+ pages. Take that basic connection away, and you can end up with a writer's folly, an artificial construction to which the narrative or flow is awkwardly pegged.

So how would I start the book, if I were writing it right now? Perhaps with Averlino at his point of death - the moment when his strange book was finally set free.

"What master of Destiny was he, when the Fates had carried him back to this holy place he despised so: and what kind of master of Nature, when he could see his death fast approaching and yet could do nothing?"

You may not like it: but is that just because you've become too used to reading Wikipedia?

The Voynich Manuscript - Who Cares?

Note: this article has now moved to the-voynich-manuscript-who-cares on Cipher Mysteries

I've been debating giving a talk on the Voynich Manuscript at Treadwell's, but I keep coming back to the same problem - what angle should I take?

For me, while its content is occulted ("hidden"), it's not really an occult object per se. (Well, apart from the magic circles, and they were pretty mainstream natural magic circa 1450). And it's neither religious, nor sacrilegious, nor nonsensical, nor a conspiracy, nor a hoax.

In short, if some well-meaning rationalist has stripped away the terror, the fantasies, the heresies, the necromancy, the madness and the delusion, would anyone want to hear about that which remains - an object that is just ordinary (albeit extraordinarily well disguised)?

And similarly: in the whole process of re-writing my book, the hardest chapter to tackle has been (and continues to be) the very first chapter: yet in the first edition, this was the easiest (probably because it was mainly a high-speed roll-call of the VMs' post-1600 history).

These days, I'm reluctant to waste any of my readers' time on any of the could-be might-be nonsense that most VMs writers (such as Kennedy and Churchill, D'Imperio to a large degree, and the Wikipedia entry almost entirely) tend to fill their entire works with. Rather, my interest lies in the dogged hunt for the-thing-that-the-VMs-is, whatever it turns out to be - and that's the quest I want to take my readers on, too.

And so in the revised first edition, Chapter 1 will have almost no pussyfooting provenance, but will instead launch straight into the very specific art history evidence that places the VMs at a certain place and time - Northern Italy circa 1450.

And so in many ways, I'd like to run my talk just about the art history of the VMs (like a try-out of Chapter One) - but in other ways, perhaps I should talk about the VMs' curious cultural channelers (such as Dan Burisch, Terence McKenna, Colin Wilson, David Icke, and so on) whose streams/dreams sometimes tend to hog this blog.

I can't do both at the same time - but which should I do? What do you think?

Google PageRank for bloggers...

Note: this article has now moved to google-pagerank-for-bloggers on Cipher Mysteries

Over the past few months, I've been tracking where this Voynich News blog appears in Google's search results for "Voynich": it has been as high as #1 and as low as #13, which is quite a variation. It seems to lurch up to #5 (behind Wikipedia and voynich.nu, with two links each), before slowly sinking down to about #12 over the following fortnight, before cycling back up to #5 (or occasionally #1) again.

The other sites in the top 12 typically date from 2004 or before (equivalent to about 30 Internet years) and refer to each other a fair bit: and their age, interconnectedness, and accumulated inward links all work together to give them a Google PageRank of 5 or more when viewed as a network.

By way of comparison, Voynich News is part of a small new network of Voynich-related sites with few inbound links, and so has a PageRank of only 3. Furthermore, because the older sites are rarely (if ever) updated, their PageRank won't "flow" to Voynich News, whereas whenever Voynich News links to one of them, part of its PageRank flows out to supports theirs.

So why does Voynich News cycle around the first 12 places? I strongly suspect that to keep the PageRank values "fresh", every once in a while Google completely discards its PageRank cache and incrementally rebuilds it as it crawls around the Net. And so, without the impact of PageRank on its position, Voynich News would consistently be at #1-#5 (i.e. based solely on its content relevance). But as the PageRank cache gets progressively rebuilt, down it slides. :-(

To get a higher PageRank, I'd need people to mention it on their blogs and sites: but this rarely happens (Google also tries to filter out backlinks in comments, for example, as this was how an earlier generation of trolls tried to artificially inflate their PageRank). However, there's a big wave of Voynich interest coming later this year and forwards, so my only real crime is to be ahead of the game. Shame on me for being too early! ;-)

I've been updating this blog with (I hope) relevant and interesting Voynich-related stuff pretty much every day for ages now: but I've pretty much hit the limit of what I can do with Google and Blogger alone. For example, Blogger sites get penalised by Google because Blogger does not place different keywords or descriptions in the META tags in the header: but Google owns Blogger, for goodness' sake!

If Blogger simply added a set of META "keywords" based on the tags in a post, and had a configurable META "description" that only got put on the root page of the blog, I think that would be a huge improvement as far as SEO ("Search Engine Optimisation") goes. But Blogger seems more interesting in adding in useless sidebar Gadgets that nobody really benefits from, which is a shame.

I'd love to go in and turn Blogger round, as I think right now it's a wasted opportunity for Google: but it seems easier from where I'm sitting just to start my blog all over with a different blogging host, one which gets the SEO basics right. Which would be a shame, but there you go.

There's one little-known curiosity about META tags: if you don't have them on a web page (like most of the older sites in the Voynich network I mentioned above), then Google may well use the description given for the site in the Open Directory Project (though you can disable this with "NOODP" in a META tag). Seeing all the descriptions from the ODP I had recently edited suddenly popping up in the search listings for Voynich was quite a surreal experience for me (even though they have since disappeared again!)

My top blogger tips for high Google search results are therefore:-

• Find out the PageRank of sites that rank highly on searches for your keyword - this is the value your blog will have to match in order to appear near the top most of the time (for comparable content, that is). You can find this out with the PageRank searcher from SEO Chat, or the SEOQuake plugin (for IE and Firefox).
• PageRank is based on unique contentful inbound links to your blog (a repeated link in a site template, such as someone's sidebar list of blogs, makes little or no difference). How do you get these? Be nice to other bloggers lots of times, and hope some link back to you!
• Getting from PR3 to PR4 (and then to PR5) will take time and effort. Even high quality inbound links from directories (such as the Open Directory Project, which people always used to think was helpful) may also not help because these often get duplicated around the Web - and when Google notices duplicates, it can reject all of them (pretty much).
• Don't use Blogger, find a blog host who gives you proper control over META tags (sorry, Google/Blogger, but that's the way it is right now).

"The Alchemyst"...

Note: this article has now moved to the-alchemyst on Cipher Mysteries

Nosing around in Borders the other day, I noticed a popular teen alchemist-themed book called "The Alchemyst" (2007) by Michael Scott: it had a nice cover, good in-store marketing (early-teen-eye-high positioning, right next to some Philip Pullman books), and featured John Dee and Nicholas Flamel, doing a whole bunch of the-world-is-in-danger demonological things with two children (Josh and Sophie) who begin the story working in Flamel's bookshop. Of course, the star of the show is arguably The Codex (containing the recipe for the Elixir of Life) that gets stolen and endlessly pursued: but you probably guessed that already. :-)

And now I read (courtesy of Wikipedia) that there's a "The Alchemyst" film in pre-production, and the sequel's already in the shops. Alchemy: there's a lot of it about, isn't there, hmmm? :-o

How many Voynichologists does it take to change a light bulb?

It's a sad (but true) observation that most webpages (and particularly blog posts) on the VMs are serious, dull, dry, high-minded, conceptual guff, at best offering up a semi-quirky restatement of either the Wikipedia page, Rene Zandbergen's page, or of Gordon Rugg's hypothesis-of-possibility. You would scarce believe, dear reader, what oceans of cack I have to swim through to reach the occasional archipelago of Voynich-related interest... *sigh*

And so it is with great pleasure that I landed upon the shore of this gently satirical review of The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail. Read it and enjoy!

As for the rest of the Voynichian web, it is (sadly) pretty much uniformly humourless, with the joyous exception of the excellent Uncyclopedia Voynich Manuscript entry, which has been heavily updated since I mentioned it last year (though I'm pleased to see the "medieval VCR manual" gag is still there). Recommended!

PS: the answer to the question is (of course) "None, they like being in the dark."

Uptown top (Google) ranking...

Back in the early days of this blog (i.e. last Autumn), Voynich News ranked at about 150th if you did a Google search for "Voynich" - not bad out of 230,000 pages, but certainly with room for improvement. :-)

Earlier this year, it clawed its way up to about 20th, and then last month up to about 12th: it now it appears anywhere between 1st and 11th (!). I don't really have any sensible idea why Google's rankings move around so much: perhaps all the sites are close-to-equally ranked, and the fluctuations arise from a butterfly beating its wings beside an overheated Mountain View server. Yet it seems that this particular butterfly is working especially hard at the moment...

As for the pages that usually rank above Voynich News: well, the Wikipedia entry deserves its place (despite its unbearable focus on the massed ranks of the possible), while I have nothing but praise for Rene Zandbergen's majestic site. But most of the rest of them are starting to look a little bit old and unmaintained: for instance, John Baez's Voynich page dates back to January 2005, while the World Mysteries Voynich page seems essentially unchanged from 2003. Admittedly the Crystalinks VMs page has improved over time, but it is still fairly unhelpful.

I suppose this gets to the core of what annoys me most: there isn't a single Voynich page out there that I would comfortably call "helpful", apart perhaps from the "Introduction to the Voynich Manuscript" blog entry I put up here a while back (and even though this gets to the point and is reasonably brief, it is still twice as large as it really ought to be). To be honest, I'd write a whole book in that style if I could sustain it for more than three pages... but I suspect I probably couldn't. Oh well.

Google, of course, has no obligation to direct people either to helpful or to unhelpful sites: it is merely trying to "Do No Evil" ("Eidolon V"? "Devon Oil"?) in its quirky SMERSH-like way, and if its Byzantine page ranking algorithm somehow manages to get you a bit closer to where you want to go, so much the better. Maybe I should find a way of convincing Google's automated tools to put up some helpful sitelinks (the mini-list of links you sometimes see below search results) for Voynich News: but that's a mountain to climb another day...

Voynich f56r Sundew...?

Someone with more confidence than I have in Voynichian botanical identification has put an image of f56r on the Wikipedia page for Sundew. Presumably the key feature match was the plant's alien-style sticky tentacles, that bend forward when they're touched by prey to entrap it (yes, it's a carnivorous plant), a mechanism you'll be delighted to know goes by the name of thigmotropism.

Hmmm... what if there are other carnivorous plants depicted in the VMs? All of a sudden, might our manuscript have acquired a "Little Shop of Horrors" cachet? Altogether now: "Feed me, Seymour... feed me now!"

Voynich miscellany (again)...

The Voynich Manuscript meme continues to tap at our cultural windows, asking politely to be let in from the rain. And sometimes people do...

For example, here's a knitted squid sitting on a copy of Gawsewitch's "Le Code Voynich" (don't be put off by the LiveJournal 14+ age warning, it really is a knitting page).

Over at evilbore, Eric P is getting cross about how the VMs is sneaking in under the cultural radar: "What's caused this subconscious societal permeation of this obscure text?" he asks, before linking to Voynich News (good call!)

Or alternatively, here's someone called Malcolm starting a game of Lexicon based around a (fictional) deciphering of the VMs. Lexicon is an RPG where players take on the role of cranky scholars building a faux Wikipedia (one letter at a time, hence the name) around a fictional world, while trying not to cite themselves. Errrm... just like the real Wikipedia, then. ;-)

Norbert R. Ibanez has posted up some thoughts on the VMs in 'English' (with a PDF you can download): though his ideas may be basically OK, I don't like his automatic translator much. :-(

And finally, I've had some visitors from a posting about my VQ ("Voynich Quotient") page put up on the Yog-Sothoth forums (dedicated to H. P. Lovecraft and Call of Cthulhu players). One poster mentions "Keeper's Companion Vol. 1, p.63", where it presumably links the VMs to the Necronomicon: add that to the ever-growing web of Voynich references out there.

Introduction to the Voynich Manuscript...

Every few days, I get asked to recommend a good introduction to the Voynich Manuscript (the 'VMs' for short). But each time this happens, my heart sinks a little: given the size and scope of historical research you'd need to have to properly grasp the subject, it's a bit like being asked to recommend a good 5-page encyclopaedia. Or rather, as none such exists, like being asked to write one.

However, you can describe it in a paragraph: it's a handwritten book that's 230+ pages long, very probably about 500 years old, and filled with strange words and obscure pictures no-one can understand. I call it "a Scooby Doo mystery for grownups", but one where everyone is trying to pin the blame on a different janitor: and so the story loops endlessly, as if on a lost satellite cartoon channel.

For once, the Wikipedia Voynich Manuscript page falls well short of being genuinely useful: the VMs is so contested, so politicized, so intensely rubbish that the whole neutral tone Wiki-thing fails to please (I gently satirized this in my VQ questionnaire). Bucketfuls of worthlss opinions, and endless pussyfooting around: throw all that junk away, I say, and start from scratch. *sigh*

But if Wikipedia's faux-scientific neutrality can't get you started, what can? If (like me) you are a fan of Ambrose Bierce's "The Devil's Dictionary" (1911), your ideal introduction to the Voynich Manuscript might well be succinct, partial, and cynical (in fact, almost toxically so). In this vein, I heartily recommend "Folly Follows the Script", an article by Jacques Guy (AKA "Frogguy") in the Times Higher Education supplement from 2004. While ostensibly reviewing Kennedy and Churchill's recent book on the VMs, Guy rips apart a lot of the pretension and falsity that now surrounds the manuscript, in particular Gordon Rugg's much-vaunted (but actually resoundingly hollow) hoax papers. Which is, errrm, nice.

If you prefer lots and lots (and did I say lots?) of data, the best introductory site by miles is Rene Zandbergen's excellent voynich.nu, in particular his "short tour", and the even shorter tour. But frankly, it's hard for most people to care about Newbold, Petersen, Friedman, Strong, Brumbaugh, O'Neill, Feely, Manly, and even John "The Brig" Tiltman unless you've already lurched over the line into Voynich-obsessive mania: none of them could read a word of the VMs, and they're all long dead.

Alternatively, if you prefer a kind of gentle postmodern defeatism, I could happily recommend a very readable article by Lev Grossman called "When Words Fail", which first appeared in Lingua Franca magazine way back in April 1999: sadly, nothing much of substance has changed in the intervening decade (or, indeed, over several preceding decades too).

This might seem a horrible thing to say, given that so much ink has been spilled (and, more recently, so many HTML tags wasted) on the VMs over the last century in the honest pursuit of this wonderful (yet devastatingly cruel) enigma. But we still know next to nothing of any real use: the kind of intensely Warburgian art-historical research I've been slaving over for the last six years seems totally alien to most 'Voynichologists', a title that perpetually hovers too close to David Kahn's Baconian "enigmatologists" (see "The Codebreakers" (1967), pp.878-9), with their "deliriums, the hallucinations of a sick cryptology".

All of which is to say that both cynicism and nihilism are probably good starting points for reading up on the VMs: a century of careless credulity has got us all nowhere. But this is not to say that I am pessimistic about any advances being made. In fact, I would say that "the Devil's in the details" or the alternative "God is in the details" (both of which are sometimes attributed to Aby Warburg!) to flag that, beyond the superficial flurry of foolish and wishful opinions out there, I think there are things we can (and eventually will!) know about the Voynich Manuscript; but that for the moment these remain hidden in its vellum margins.

All of which is another story entirely...