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

It's On You - Nick Chater and George Loewenstein *****

Going on the cover you might think this was a political polemic - and admittedly there's an element of that - but the reason it's so good is quite different. It shows how behavioural economics and social psychology have led us astray by putting the focus way too much on individuals. A particular target is the concept of nudges which (as described in Brainjacking ) have been hugely over-rated. But overall the key problem ties to another psychological concept: framing. Huge kudos to both Nick Chater and George Loewenstein - a behavioural scientist and an economics and psychology professor - for having the guts to take on the flaws in their own earlier work and that of colleagues, because they make clear just how limited and potentially dangerous is the belief that individuals changing their behaviour can solve large-scale problems. The main thesis of the book is that there are two ways to approach the major problems we face - an 'i-frame' where we focus on the individual ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Introducing Artificial Intelligence – Henry Brighton & Howard Selina ****

It is almost impossible to rate these relentlessly hip books – they are pure marmite*. The huge  Introducing  … series (a vast range of books covering everything from Quantum Theory to Islam), previously known as …  for Beginners , puts across the message in a style that owes as much to Terry Gilliam and pop art as it does to popular science. Pretty well every page features large graphics with speech bubbles that are supposed to emphasise the point. Funnily,  Introducing Artificial Intelligence  is both a good and bad example of the series. Let’s get the bad bits out of the way first. The illustrators of these books are very variable, and I didn’t particularly like the pictures here. They did add something – the illustrations in these books always have a lot of information content, rather than being window dressing – but they seemed more detached from the text and rather lacking in the oomph the best versions have. The other real problem is that...
Post a Comment
Read more

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