Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Voynich Manuscript May Have Been Decoded

Posted by kdawson on from the ask-a-navajo dept.

MBCook sends word on a possible solution to the mystery of the Voynich Manuscript, which we last visited nearly 6 years ago. "The Voynich Manuscript has confounded attempts to decode it for nearly 100 years. A person named Edith Sherwood, who has previously suggested a possible link to DaVinci, has a new idea: perhaps the text is simply anagrams of Italian words. There are three pages of examples from the herb section of the book, showing the original text, the plaintext Italian words, and the English equivalents. Has someone cracked the code?"

16 of 320 comments (clear)

  1. It Hurts by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Interesting

    perhaps the text is simply anagrams of Italian words.

    Then why does she only offer up a single page of plants as decoded anagrams? What about the other ~199 pages? What about the pages of block text?

    More importantly, why does the Voynich Manuscript flip between things derived from plants like gallic acid, oil and then return to naming the plants? Furthermore, I call the labeling of the plants to be absolute complete bullshit. Yes, I said it. I'm not a botanist but I grew up on a farm and I know many of these plants very well and I can't tell any distinguishing characteristics apart from the drawings. This is what a garlic plant looks like. Not like this. I mean, come on! Did Edith Sherwood ever stop to think that maybe -- similar to numerology in The Bible -- she'd be able to make words out of any strange text regardless of its true origin?

    Here's a real gem:

    This brief sentence indicated that the use of anagrams should be investigated. This was further supported by reading Wikipedia’s report that anagrams were popular throughout Europe during the Middle Ages and that some 17th century astronomers, while engaged in verification of their discoveries, used anagrams to hide their ideas.

    You found that on Wikipedia? Call Yale University, you've decoded it. Citing Wikipedia for a fact while analyzing centuries old manuscripts? Why you bother to put PhD after you name bewilders me.

    This is the game that will be played with the Voynich Manuscript. Every so often people will claim to have 'decoded it' by offering up a small part of the manuscript which very imaginative minds have pulled together 10+ very very flimsy clues that point to some individual. The fact that there are so many coincidences will add weight to it being the real explanation. But it oddly won't work for 99% of the manuscript. Now if the manuscript is ever decoded, a hell of a lot more than two pages is going to make sense. In fact, when someone figures it out, 99% of the manuscript will make sense.

    If you want my theory, we're dealing with an unknown autistic artist's work. Someone lost in a period of time where autism was misunderstood and they are forever lost to anonymity except they'll get the last laugh because we'll never understand what message they were trying to get to us. And some of us might go mad spending hours and hours and hours trying to figure this out with no luck.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:It Hurts by Yvanhoe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Then why does she only offer up a single page of plants as decoded anagrams? What about the other ~199 pages? What about the pages of block text?

      She calls for help from people knowing medieval Italian. Apparently she used a reference book on the medieval Italian name of certain plants ot get these hints. She makes the interesting suggestion that this was written by a child, maybe mimicking scientists he knows be drawing "obvious" stuff, i.e. the plants in the garden and in the kitchen, and "hiding" his discoveries using a code used by scientists of the time.

      You found that on Wikipedia? Call Yale University, you've decoded it. Citing Wikipedia for a fact while analyzing centuries old manuscripts? Why you bother to put PhD after you name bewilders me.

      She referred to Wikipedia as an inspiration to explore an anagram-based lead. Not such a bad thing to do.

      If you want my theory, we're dealing with an unknown autistic artist's work.

      That was the theory that sounded the most plausible to me too, but these new leads and discoveries call for more investigation, I would say.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    2. Re:It Hurts by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 5, Funny

      So she has apparently decoded a manuscript written in a language she does not read (medieval Italian) does not know what a medieval herbal looks like, is not a botanist, a linguist or anything else that would be helpful to decoding a medieval manuscript of any kind .....

      For her next trick she will disprove Einstein, and prove the world is flat .....

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    3. Re:It Hurts by divisionbyzero · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It seems like you're being a bit harsh. She seems like an amateur doing amatuerish work that has found something suggestive. It's not like she tried to get it published in a journal or claims to be a some sort of professional. Sure she has a phD after her name but that doesn't mean she is trying to claim he phD applies to Voynich Manuscript. Maybe I'm being naive.

    4. Re:It Hurts by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Since you're not a botanist (nor am I) how do you know what garlic looked like 600 years ago? When corn was first cultivated, it looked like what we call "baby corn" today. It wasn't until centuries of selection and cross-breeding that we got the much larger corn that everyone knows.

      That said, I agree with your premise that this is a shaky "solution", but I wouldn't rule it out based on that evidence.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    5. Re:It Hurts by vegiVamp · · Score: 4, Informative

      I generally agree with your rant, but I'd like to point out that the Allium family has more than just regular garlic. A wild plant that's called 'daslook' here (look is garlic) of that family, does look a lot more similar to the drawing: http://www.waterwereld.nu/images/daslook2.JPG .

      Ah, wikipedia is helpful again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allium_ursinum

      The leaves are quite nice in a salad, too :-)

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    6. Re:It Hurts by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Informative

      Since you're not a botanist (nor am I) how do you know what garlic looked like 600 years ago?

      Well, here's an illustration from the 15th century. Notice any bulbous feature that is lacking in the Voynich sketch? Notice they don't even bother to depict the root system in the 15th century sketch unlike the Voynich. My point was, not a single one of those plants relayed the distinguishing features you would obvious take care to note on the plant--all she offers is the leaf of stachys that has a hilarious tuber below it in the Voynich sketch but nothing in her botanical book! An obvious stretch of the imagination is the rose bush with no roses.

      When corn was first cultivated, it looked like what we call "baby corn" today. It wasn't until centuries of selection and cross-breeding that we got the much larger corn that everyone knows.

      I'm not sure where you found information that plants have changed dramatically in a few hundred years. While it's true that they have changed dramatically over thousands of years and since the advent of agriculture, 600 years is not the same as 6,000 years. While you're kind of right that thousands of years changed plants, I assure you that most if not all of today's plants look the same as they did 600 years ago.

      --
      My work here is dung.
  2. Really now by Bluesman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I know nothing about this manuscript except what is written in this article, but if it's anagrams, a simple analysis of the letter frequency would have revealed that.

    --
    If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
  3. Hmm... by denzacar · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wasn't Voynich Manuscript already solved by Randall Munroe?

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  4. I cracked the code years ago. by Cornwallis · · Score: 5, Funny

    It says:

    Pound pastrami, can kraut,six bagels--bring home for Emma."

  5. Hypothesis testing by PopeOptimusPrime · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hypothesis: The manuscript is anagrammatic Italian.
    Corollary 1: The manuscript should contain appropriate letter frequencies for said language.
    Corollary 2: The manuscript should contain all relevant letters.
    Conclusion: Neither Corollary 1 nor 2 are true, thus hypothesis is rejected.
    ...
    ???
    ...
    Add to the annals of the internet.

  6. Debunked almost a year ago by Weedhopper · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://www.ciphermysteries.com/2009/02/17/edith-sherwoods-anagram-cipher

    1. Re:Debunked almost a year ago by Culture20 · · Score: 5, Funny

      now it just brings out the "Dan Brown is the realz" crowd and other conspiracy nutters.

      Dan Brown IS real. You Dan Brown deniers are the real conspiracy nuts. "It's a ghost-writer" "It's plagiarized from aliens" "My dog is Dan Brown" Nutters all.

  7. And it says... by halcyon1234 · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Duis ut nibh et nunc scelerisque vestibulum non ac diam. Sed porttitor mauris a lorem tempus faucibus.

    This is a test of my new pen."

    --
    UTF-8: There and Back Again
  8. Unless... by jDeepbeep · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Now if the manuscript is ever decoded, a hell of a lot more than two pages is going to make sense. In fact, when someone figures it out, 99% of the manuscript will make sense.

    That is, unless the manuscript is using a collection of ciphers (one for each section perhaps?), in which case, one key won't unlock everything.

    Just a thought.

    --
    Reply to That ||
  9. Re:Da Vinci makes sense by Verdatum · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Regardless of how much it does or does not look like Da Vinci's hand, I very much agree with your second paragraph. She sounds like a lovely armchair investigator; happily and quietly posting her suppositions on her own website (though the website begs for a CV; it'd be nice to know in what field and from where that Ph.D originates). I find it no different from my enjoyment in tinkering with the Millennium Prize Problems when I have no business doing so.

    The problem I have is with the story submitter. Would it have been so difficult to discover that this paper specifically was debunked 10 months ago, and what was written like the first few days of a breakthrough has yet to come to any fruition. I think it's a little mean to force her to stand up to slashdot peer review. Worse and plain irritating for the summary to be so exaggerant of the claim. If it was like "Here's a cute theory, she thinks it was Da Vinci, and believes she has a couple lines translated!" then a fun discussion would be had by all sans the unwarranted excitement.