|
|
Post by Joe S on Dec 22, 2003 1:40:54 GMT -5
While doing a little googling I was suprised to find that the infamous Voynich manuscript was assocaiated with Francis Bacon. World Mysteries: The Voynich ManuscriptAll the indications are that the manuscript was written sometime between the 12th and 15th Centuries in central or eastern Europe, which would mean Bacon probably could not have produced it. It's also mentioned in association with arch Alchymists Richard Kelly (who some claim created it) and John Dee (who was noted for writing strange texts in an unknown language that he claimed were narratted to him by Angels). What thinkest thou? Joe. |
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte on Dec 22, 2003 9:57:47 GMT -5
Very interesting indeed. Thank you--again.
It is never a surprise to me when things are associated with Francis Bacon, as he was "a writer not for a time but for an age", and my understanding of it all is but scanty.
In my time spent with "Fern", the "Voynich Manuscript" never came up, possibly, it flew by me in the "heavy and continuous delivery of projectiles" she bombarded me with daily in her short-tempered manner. "Fern", says Papa, "you have to learn to control your temper." Maybe it will come up down the road.
In the article, the first thing that caught my attention was the villa "Mondragone", and my mind said alchemy, and when I saw the drawing of "unidentified plants", and reading "herbal recipes, naked women frolicking in bathtubs" etc., there is no doubt left.
Shakespeare has Cleopatra drinking "mandragora" that she may sleep out this gap of time when Antony is away. The plant or root is also mentioned iirk in the Bible. Of course, the villa "Mondragone" could also have been the dwelling place of "2 legged Dragons", the Egyptians term for Initiates.
If the manuscript was written in the late 13th century, Roger Bacon would be a more likely candidate, but if it was written, as some experts believe, in the 15th and 17th century, then Francis Bacon and "his friends in the barn cellar" could be the authors.
When I read the description of the language, or languages, and the "intelligible underlying text: in a natural language: Latin, abbreviated Latin, the term "latin prattle" of another anonoymous author came to mind.
I just remembered, and as a side note to "pig Latin" I once had a dream, long before I met Fern, in which I was standing in a meadow by a barn. A number of pigs were eating grass and took it into the barn which was multi-teared. They walked in a zig-zag fashion up and down. Watching this I became upset because the grass they were eating, or stealing, was "Arabian Grass." The thoughts that come with this are uncanny.
I don't know how to understand Rudolph II of Bohemia "collected dwarfs and had a regiment of giants in his army." That is to question: was it collection of figues forming an army, or an ordianry army. As you know the former would go heavely into the esoteric.
Names like Hildegard von Bingen and Trethemius of Sponheim bring Paracelsus, who was instructed by Arabians in Turkey, into the picture, and then we're getting into deep waters.
There seems to be the same great Adept among us at all times "THE GREAT SOUL--who in the struggles of (again-my note) the eighteenth centurey worked suffered and triumphed." These words are ascribed to him:
"HAIL BRETHREN: DEATH HAS BEEN OVERCOME IN VICTORY. MAN FIRST-BORN IS A DWELLER OF THE EARTH. THE SECOND MAN REBORN IS AN INHABITANT OF HEAVEN. YOUR WORK IS NOT IN VAIN. REJOYCE!"
Only when we are ready for such truths will there be found a way to decipher this manuscript.
This is some of what methinks.
Charlotte
|
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte on Dec 23, 2003 11:04:47 GMT -5
Can't let the VM go easely, I havent yet clicked on any links.
"Historically, it first appears in 1586 . . ." It was precisely at and of this time Madam von Kunow speaks "of that experience the young barrister, Francis Bacon, had passed through", and the "fateful burden resting upon Francis Bacon . . ." She writes: "An unpublished letter from Francis Bacon . . ." concerning his private life to an unknown recipient was written by Bacon "between 1580 and 1590."
The VM
"The Rosicruician conspiracy was being quietly fomented during this same period. (1586) To Rudolph's court came an unknown person who sold this manuscript to the king . . .", and the Emperor "must have been highly impressed by it."
So the dates are good to somehow find Francis Bacon in all this. Then, there is this unknown person who appears in the courts of Europe at this time, and also, it is rumored, at the signing of the "Declaration of Independence." The occult origin of the United States, no matter far and wide denied, are openly stated by some former Presidents, can be read and seen in many places, the full scope only gradually coming to the surface.
"Accompanying the manuscript was a letter that stated that it was the work of the Englishman Roger Bacon, who flurished in the thirteenth century . . ." Maybe this is a thinly veiled blinder. The plan offered by Francis Bacon in "Instauratio Magna" is a "total Reconstruction of Sciences, Arts, and all Human Knowledge", or the creation of an entire humanity.
There is a note of John Dee lecturing in Prague around this time, and
"The manuscript somehow passed to Jacobus de Tepenecz, the director of Rodolph's botanical gardens (his signature is present in folio 1r) and it is speculated that this must have happened after 1608, when Jacobus Horcicki received his title 'de Tepenecz." Then in bold letters: "Thus 1608 is the earliest definite date for the manuscript." What is one to do with the gap of three century?
The manuscript confirms many things, and I have no doubt that from the time Cosmo de Medici had a talk with Plethon, then send out for, and bought up every piece of paper of Plato's writings for Ficino to translate, and somehow the Corpus Hermeticum surfaced and was translated by Ficino, the time and events we are talking about in Europe, the founding of America, and the current world situation, is all part of this cyclic beginning and continuance of a new era we talked about previously. I see Adriadne's thread unbroken.
Charlotte
|
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte on Dec 28, 2003 10:17:22 GMT -5
Looking some more at the Voynich Manuscript
"A first 'solution' was announced in1919, by William Romaine Newbold (Newbold, 1921), who caused a sensation by claiming tha the manuscript dis indeed contain the work of Roger Bacon and that Bacon had known the use of the compound telescope and microscope, seeing the spiral structure of the Andromeda galaxy only visible with modern telescopes and cell structure unknown in the 13th Century.
What Newbold discovered in the text was absolutely astonishing--enough to gather a lot of attention from the scientific community. The biological drawings in the text were discribed asseminiferous tubes, the microscopic cells with nuclei, and even spermatozoa. Among the astronomical drawings were the descriptions of spiral nebulae, a coronary eclipse, and the comet of 1273. One of the more baffling things of this was that many of the drawings of plants, and of the galaxies appeared to have been invented. There was no doubt that if Bacon was the author of such a text, he must have had some way of obtaining the information.
For instance, Newbold's translation of the caption near the drawings of the nebula of Andromeda (which clearly shows it's spiral characteristics), gave it's location by the following:
'In a concave mirror I saw a star in the form of a snail....between the navel of Pegasus, the gordle of Andromeda, and the head of Cassiopea."
The baffling thing is that the drawings of plants and galaxies appear to have been invented. I'm not sure what is meant by "appear to have been invented", but how does anyone, even Roger Bacon, "invent" a drawing of our Milky Way "to close to be ignored", the structure of a cell, and a spermatozoa, without knowing of it?
The first mistake hard nosed science, and most of the world makes is, that things were not known before our time, and that things can be observed and know with instruments only, even though, in their time, the writers of the Bible state "that there is no new thing under the sun." It is another mistake to think that the Bible, even with alterations, is "not reliable", "invented to fool and control the many", and whatever. . . .
Roger Bacon, "Master of Forbidden Arts", so to speak waved his magic wand and "filled a palace with music and from the harmonies fashioned dancers and a dance, the dancers had risen, it seemed, to the realm of the stars, far above the soul's sublunary prison", the physical body.
There are two things here, the illusionary phenomea with which the magician intertains, "which is nothing compared to pulling the Real out of illusion", my philosophy teacher.
These things, of coming in contact with the Real, where there is "no thing" other than one's Self being the Real, are never demonstrated to the doubter's, ever. Therefore, untill the doubter lays away all his pride, willful ignorance and haughtiness, looks with awe and wonder upon the universe to come to know its Maker, because for this he was made, Hermes teaches, he won't be recognized as one to be shown the galaxies without instruments.
Both, Roger and Francis Bacon were alchemists of the spirit.
The sages teach, and I have mentioned this several times, but nobody ever even acknowledged the words, let alone give me an argument, that man is a microcosm, and that "what is true in the greater is true in the lesser", a philosophical axiom, so why should it be baffling that the author of the VM also saw or knew the microscopic cell with its nuclei, a replica of the spiral galaxy, our Milky Way.
In the spiral arms of our galaxy new stars are born from "raw materials" hydrogen and helium, formed stars are in "the middle", and around the center, the cosmic halo, the most brilliant stars, "doing homage to the eternal spiritual sun", as the philosophers phrase it. For them the stars are conscious beings, and for me as well.
Similarely, the cell has an outer cytoplasm, in which raw materials are processed, the protoplasm, connected to, or part of the nucleus, where the materials are refined, and the nucleus where dwelleth the god who never leaves his temple. Only the Hierophant, who was the god's messenger and interpreter was known to the deciples of the temple, from which deciples the Hierophant brought messages to the god, probably reporting of how we progress. Neither the cosmic nucleus nor the cell nucleus is "seen." We are the inscrutable mystery, and when we know ourselves we'll know it.
The Greeks show this so beautifully in Delphi. Science is beginning to lean heavely on the ancient teachings.
Charlotte
|
|
|
|
Post by BERNHARD on Dec 30, 2003 10:22:24 GMT -5
hello Charlotte, it's my first contribution here !! the next weeks i hope to have more time to share your interesting debates ! now back the the item above: very recent (summer/autumn 2003 scientific research and analysis believe to be able for a proof that it is a (very intelligent made) fake ! an as the faker a certain person is under strong suspicion ! ( not Da VINCI ! ). more about that in the coming days ! -- btw.: what about my information regarding the first real flight of a precise reproduction of da vinci's flight machine called PIUMA ?? ( in dec. 2003 ) . for other members a short summary: "******
Dec. 2, 2003 - A flying machine sketched by Leonardo da Vinci 500 years ago,
flew gracefully last week, proving that the Renaissance genius could have
made flight history long before the Wright brothers.
Angelo D'Arrigo, a former world champion hang glider, made Leonardo's dreams
on manned flight come true as he flew the "Piuma" (feather), a flying
machine conceived by the Florentine visionary during his studies on
ornithopters - planes with bird-like flapping wings.
Sketched in 1510 in a folio of the Madrid manuscripts that was unearthed by
chance in 1996, the Piuma bears an extraordinary resemblance to a modern
hang-glider.
" **** ok ! now best regards from bavaria: Bernhard
|
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte on Dec 31, 2003 10:57:30 GMT -5
Grüss Dich Gott Bernhard!  Willcommen! I am so glad you're here to put the brakes on for me with some staunch German science. ;D Because of even the little information given by scholars, and other things as well, I'm inclined to believe it is a real alchemical treatise. The notion that Voynich wrote it himself "is effectively excluded both by expert dating of the manuscript, and by the evidence of its existence pror to 1887." "One problem with the earlier hoax theory is that, as will be shown, certain word statistics (Zipf's lawas) found in the manuscript are characteristic of natural language. (This I also noticed in Mohamed repeating the same sound-syllables) In other words, it is unlikely that any forgery from the 16th century would 'by chance' produce a text that follows Zipf's laws, (first postulated in 1935). Do you know who the "faker" is, supposedly? I haven't had time to check out Leonardo's Piuma, I only remember hearing about it briefly, and hope you will elaborate. Meanwhile I will look into it. Off zur Arbeit Charlotte |
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on Jan 1, 2004 8:27:55 GMT -5
Hi all: Here is a site with all the colour images of The Voynich Manuscript that are available. And here is an excerpt from an email sent to me by Mark Harlem: ... For a short excerpt:
When, in 1639, the Prague citizen Georg Baresch wrote to the famous Jesuit scientist Athanasius Kircher that he owned a mysterious book which was written in an unknown script and profusely illustrated with pictures of plants, stars and alchemical secrets, he thought that Kircher would be able to decipher this book for him. He could not have guessed that not only was Kircher unable to do this, but that a long row of vastly more expert codebreakers were equally going to fail. The book has come down to us and even now, more than 360 years later, not a single word from its 234 pages can be understood.
You may find the link here: www.voynich.nu/index.html
I am sure you and the others will have your hands full on this one.
Please share it with your brethren at the various MB's and give them my best regards.
Kindest
Mark
Enjoy. Cheers Don Barone |
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on Jan 1, 2004 8:48:13 GMT -5
Hi All: Here is a picture of what Bernhard was speaking about in regards to Leonardo and flight. Awfully clever design for a man who lived almost 500 years ago I would say. |
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte on Jan 2, 2004 10:01:45 GMT -5
Hi Don,
When we think about it, Leonardo was an awfully clever man, to say the least. His Vitruvian Man is brought to our attention in daily life almost as much as the Pyramids and other things Egyptian.
Thanks for posting his drawing, Mark's message and the links.
Charlotte
|
|
|
|
Post by BERNHARD on Jan 5, 2004 10:43:05 GMT -5
DEAR CHARLOTTE and DON, first of all i wish you ( and all other members ! ) a happy and hopefully more peaceful year 2004 ! actually i am still very busy ( the typical situation at great computing centers at the end/beginning ofa year), therefore i am not always available or active. so please accept (and excuse) my delays. in some weeks it will become better ! well, now back to the topics. let's start with the VOYNICH manuscript: for the moment i will only provide some additional links ( may be for for other readers in the background). 1.) a very comprehensive website : www.voynich.nu/ and 2.) the actual analysis - from dec. 2003 - supposing a fake or hoax: www.nature.com/nsu/031215/031215-5.html and then back to LEONARDO DA VINCI: the reported flight ( in Italy ) was that of a (modern looking) HANG-glider, not that of this other flight-machine model performed and elevated by the muscle-power of a human pilot himself. here is the (italian) homepage of the italian reconstructor Angelo D'ARRIGO ( a former glider-champion !) concerning his so called PIUMA project: www.angelodarrigo.com/leonardo/?start_i interestingly da-VINCI's glider concept seemed to be from around 1500/1510, and it's description/drawing was (re)-discovered in 1996 ! did LEONARDO have a real flight with it ? may be, because it exists the drawing of a so called aerial view of a landscape by him ! (from 1502) do we see here the artistic impression of such a gliders-flight ? in this case Leonardo himself MUST have been the pilot ! here again the link with Angelo's first flight in dec. 2003 : dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20031201/leonardo.html and now more about the other different flight-machines ( including a parachute model ) constructed (or proposed) by LEONARDA DA VINCI: www.geocities.com/the_wanderling/leoring.html look esp. at the "da vinci glider" where you can find the aerial view of a bird ! would be interesting to compare the area or landscape around FIRENCE and MILANO, where we can find Leonardo working about the time of 1500 !! does leonardo's aerial view match with a corresponding part of an existing topographical map !?? best regards: Bernhard alias Bernie |
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on Jan 5, 2004 11:16:01 GMT -5
Hi Bernhard ... Not sure if Leonardo flew or not as an inspriation for this painting but please note that the shape of the lake is indeed in the shape of a bird [eagle ?]. Chance or nature or a picture within a picture ? Not sure but look at this picture and allow yourselves to be the judge.  Cheers Don Barone |
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte on Jan 7, 2004 10:37:44 GMT -5
What have you gotten us into here Joe S! The pictures are beautiful Don, and my head is spinning just from the little I have read. Hilfe Bernhard. Charlotte |
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on Jan 8, 2004 6:43:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on Jan 8, 2004 6:57:41 GMT -5
Hi All:
In the zodiacal images I linked to in the above post they appear to show a woman perhaps going through various stages of pregnancy. Could they be encoded birthdates ?
Hmmm .... could be !
Cheers
Don Barone
|
|
|
|
Post by BERNHARD on Jan 8, 2004 11:02:09 GMT -5
Dear DON BARONE and Charlotte, the proposal in relation with eventually coded birthdays may be of intererest. counting all the male-figures and the two centered fishes i got 31 (days per month pisces ?). a pregnant status may not have been been intended, because the common european female representation in the middle ages was that of a fat hip(ed) woman. you know what i mean  ! thus these ladies must not have been shown in a pregnant phase. regarding the text, i mistrust it, eventually no text or encoded text, because some characters (or sign) are too often repeated. will then be a semantic problem. of interest are the individual pattern of the "tubes" in which the persons are represented. of any evidence ? eventuall all this is only a fake ( by an intelligent man) for selling something worthless, shaped in a top-secret looking mysterious magic outfit , to another person with a good financial income or a higher position, or a fake to fascinate other "outstanding" persons to stabilize the own (the fakers) status as a magician or scientist or astronomer/astrologist ( at that time often in combination (to survive), or simply to get a new job. an encoded scripture to keep real knowledge in a secret state for the writer himself ?? hmm, can be, but i am not so convinced. best regards: Bernie - will be back on next monday - sorry - |
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte on Jan 9, 2004 10:00:42 GMT -5
Hi Don and Bernie, Don, is the  because you understand the alchemical symbols but keep it from us? The "tubs" you, Bernhard, mention, must be "the tiny naked women frolicking in bathtubs connected by intricate plumbing looking more like anatomical parts than hydraulic contraptions", stated in the article. But the appearantly pregnant women are holding stars. I don't understand any of it, but maybe a case could be made for matter=women symbolically being pregnant, because it is she who gives birth, being purified by "taking a bath", and spiritualized, becomes the stuff we're made of: star or comet dust, in modern science as well. It is said that the process from above to below, the fall, and back to the above, is intricate and of "seamless" relationships, hence the "intricate plumbing looking more like anatomical parts." The notion of "hydrolic contraptions" belongs to the thoughts of him who puts the tiny naked people in "rubbish bins." Not so Newbold's "the biological drawings in the text were discribed asseminiferous tubes, the microscopic cells with nuclei, and even the spermatozoa." And "among the astronomical drawings were the discription of spiral nebulae, a coronay eclipse, and the comet of 1237." So we have, as I said before, the cell and our Milky way, the micro and macrocosm, and the sperm looks to me like a rudementary human head and spine, as Mr. Hall also shows so beautifully in "MAN Grand Symbol of the Mysteries." It would take the knowledge one who understands all alchemical symbols to give us an interpretation, but that, I think, has to wait. I don't think it is a clever forgery of a highly intelligent person. Is this the opinion of German scholars or your own, Bernhard? I wish I could describe the fiery sunrise here in LA at the moment, maybe someday we can transfer such images from mind to mind. Charlotte |
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on Jan 9, 2004 11:37:22 GMT -5
Charlotte you wrote: Er ... not exactly CC. It is to stop this ...   Cheers Don Barone |
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on Jan 13, 2004 22:57:06 GMT -5
Hi All:
While searching another matter I happened onto a site which had the Legend of Madoc written in both English and Welsh. Now for any of you who have looked at a page of this very strange language it really is unreadable and the strange use of double letters is very noticeable. I was wondering ....
What if it [The Voynich Manuscript] is written in either Welsh or a coded Welsh. Who would ever think to check this obscure language and then gone even further and tried to decode it with this as a possible key. What think ye all ?
Cheers
Don Barone
|
|
|
|
Post by BERNHARD on Jan 15, 2004 9:01:27 GMT -5
DEAR CHARLOTTE ( and others), considering the voynich-manuscript as a intelligent made fake, by a well educated or sophisticated person of his time, was only a proposal of mine, it is not a common view of german scholars doing some research on this voynich-subject. i could imagine the (supposed) faker, combining a lot of esoteric, astrological and alchemistic symbols and other items to secret and mysteriously looking mixture of papers ! ( using it ony for joke or to irritate other persons, or for the intention to guard and serve his very own interests (money,career and so on). on the other hand, in case of a true mediaval document, one must try to find out the language, in which the voynich-author primaryly composed it's work. this is the very important first step. then one could try to apply or try out some of the stand enciphering tricks or methods of the (european middle ages). these methods are mostly well known and described. the idea of don barone is surely of interest. problematic in every case is the fact, that you must be able to understand and read the mediaval dialects existing in england/ireland/scotland and so on ! what a hard work to do, and always the suspicion in your mind, eventually being the victim of a well inspired old faker servus from bavaria: Bernie |
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte on Jan 16, 2004 8:08:43 GMT -5
Hi Bernie, I would have to read every opinion and comment on this vexed VM to get a better "feeling" as to whether or not it's a fake. It doesn't seem logical that one who can produce such a document would have to fake it. I can think of two possibilities. 1, the author understood from the beginning what he was doing; 2, he began to explore astronomy, biology etc., and alchemical symbols, and surprised himself: look what I found! I have to put this on paper! In studying a thing long enough, and deep enough, and just letting thoughts about it flow in and out, eliminating what doesn't work, there comes a time when one knows enough about it one knows all of it. But it is only another synethesis giving a new thesis in the greater, and say the wise: "Whatever you think it is it is not!" My crazy thinking always leads me to the same conclusion, to wit, when I know myself I will know what millions call God. I prefer Plato's: "The One, the Beautiful, and the Good." Mein ideal. I'll bet you a Euro to a Dollar that it is not a fake. Concerning Leonardo's "flying mashine", did you mean to praise him as a genius who knew all about "flying" above and below? Or do you have other thoughts about it? I have to make sure dass Du nicht einfach verschwindest von hier Servus von Kalifornien Lotte |
|
