Skip to main content

The Friar and the Cipher – Lawrence & Nancy Goldstone **

The subtitle Roger Bacon and the Unsolved Mystery of the Most Unusual Manuscript in the World should be a bit of a giveaway here. There isn’t going to be a satisfying conclusion to this book because it’s about an unsolved mystery. In fact, the text is largely concerned with two subjects – the 13th century proto-scientist Roger Bacon, and the Voynich manuscript, a strange enciphered text that has been ascribed to Bacon on flimsy evidence, though most scholars now believe it to be several hundred years too modern for Bacon. The manuscript has never been deciphered – many “translations” have been hopelessly based on anagrams that could mean anything – and it may well never be, or even be capable of meaningful translation.

 So the manuscript itself – by appearance a mixture of a bizarre herbal that contains some plants that may be of New World origin with strange astrological images – isn’t exactly news. Neither, frankly, are the chapters that the Goldstones dedicate to Bacon and the man often considered one of the manuscript’s first owners, the Elizabethan Bacon fan, John Dee. There is a much better book on Bacon in Brian Clegg’s The First Scientist (not even referenced by the Goldstones) and Dee gets a far better treatment in Benjamin Wooley’s The Queen’s Conjuror (which at least is in their bibliography).

 In the coverage of Bacon’s life and work there are a number of small but telling flaws that suggest rather rapid research from limited sources. Statements made as fact about Bacon’s history (his birthdate, for instance, which could as easily be 1220 as the 1214 given in the book, or the timing of his journey to Paris, which is largely speculative) have no documentary basis. Bacon’s medieval science is totally misunderstood when his term “species” is interpreted as forces – light, for example, was considered by Bacon to be an example of species, which surely even the Goldstones wouldn’t think of as a force?

 Similarly there are some worrying errors when they finally get onto manuscript and its encipherment (only about the last fifth of the book). They comment “In some ways there has been no real progress at all. From Roger Bacon’s time… [onwards] any code or cipher fashioned by human ingenuity was susceptible to decipherment by the same means… no matter how brilliant the mind that fashioned a code, an equally brilliant mind might break it.” This isn’t misinterpretation, it’s plain wrong. As they should have picked up from their reading of Simon Singh’s The Code Book, for nearly 100 years now there has been a totally unbreakable form of cipher – the one time pad. It’s a pain to use, but it isn’t just difficult to break, it is absolutely (no matter how clever you are) impossible to break. Period.

 The Voynich manuscript is still a fascinating subject, and the book’s quick coverage of the attempts to decipher it are interesting if frustrating, because the authors seem determined to keep it as a medieval mystery when it almost certainly isn’t. But this just isn’t the right book for the subject.
Paperback:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you 
Review by Martin O'Brien
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Laws of Thought - Tom Griffiths *****

In giving us a history of attempts to explain our thinking abilities, Tom Griffiths demonstrates an excellent ability to pitch information just right for the informed general reader.  We begin with Aristotelian logic and the way Boole and others transformed it into a kind of arithmetic before a first introduction of computing and theories of language. Griffiths covers a surprising amount of ground - we don't just get, for instance, the obvious figures of Turing, von Neumann and Shannon, but the interaction between the computing pioneers and those concerned with trying to understand the way we think - for example in the work of Jerome Bruner, of whom I confess I'd never heard.  This would prove to be the case with a whole host of people who have made interesting contributions to the understanding of human thought processes. Sometimes their theories were contradictory - this isn't an easy field to successfully observe - but always they were interesting. But for me, at least, ...
Post a Comment
Read more

The AI Paradox - Virginia Dignum ****

This is a really important book in the way that Virginia Dignum highlights various ways we can misunderstand AI and its abilities using a series of paradoxes. However, I need to say up front that I'm giving it four stars for the ideas: unfortunately the writing is not great. It reads more like a government report than anything vaguely readable - it really should have co-authored with a professional writer to make it accessible. Even so, I'm recommending it: like some government reports it's significant enough to make it necessary to wade through the bureaucrat speak. Why paradoxes? Dignum identifies two ways we can think about paradoxes (oddly I wrote about paradoxes recently , but with three definitions): a logical paradox such as 'this statement is false', or a paradoxical truth such as 'less is more' - the second of which seems a better to fit to the use here.  We are then presented with eight paradoxes, each of which gives some insights into aspects of t...
Post a Comment
Read more

Einstein's Fridge - Paul Sen ****

In Einstein's Fridge (interesting factoid: this is at least the third popular science book to be named after Einstein's not particularly exciting refrigerator), Paul Sen has taken on a scary challenge. As Jim Al-Khalili made clear in his excellent The World According to Physics , our physical understanding of reality rests on three pillars: relativity, quantum theory and thermodynamics. But there is no doubt that the third of these, the topic of Sen's book, is a hard sell. While it's true that these are the three pillars of physics, from the point of view of making interesting popular science, the first two might be considered pillars of gold and platinum, while the third is a pillar of salt. Relativity and quantum theory are very much of the twentieth century. They are exciting and sometimes downright weird and wonderful. Thermodynamics, by contrast, has a very Victorian feel and, well, is uninspiring. Luckily, though, thermodynamics is important enough, lying behind ...
Post a Comment
Read more