29-05-2022, 11:34 AM
Yes, but my question is:
What in the VM would make Kircher assume it was a hidden text and not a foreign alphabet? He explicitly refers to a secret chest of a sort he is familiar with.
multas huius scrinae scripturas variis occasionibus me dissolvisse memini, imo et iam circa hanc quoque molientur ingenii
It's the psychological setup. Somebody sends you a text and says "I can't read this".
You either assume it's a code or it's an unknown alphabet. You come to this observation after examining it. Kircher assumes it's a code or cipher of some sort.
Kircher actually goes on in the same letter to refer to an unknown alphabet, in a completely different way
Alterum denique folium quem ipsi ignoti characteris genere scriptum....
Finally the other leaf upon which are written types of unknown characters....
and continues to explain that it's Galgolithic. Because he's recognised the script.
Now, Helmut's suggestion seems to be that Kircher recognised it as tachygraphy. Entirely possible. We've recognised plenty of similarities to Latin shorthand.
If so, and we assume this is indeed the VM, then Kircher's response is an important one for ourselves, if we assume he's not just bragging when he claims he could easily read it if he only had the time to study the text. It means he's recognised it as an artefact he is familiar with.
OK, I'm floundering now, but it's because I'm still not clear in my own head about it
What in the VM would make Kircher assume it was a hidden text and not a foreign alphabet? He explicitly refers to a secret chest of a sort he is familiar with.
multas huius scrinae scripturas variis occasionibus me dissolvisse memini, imo et iam circa hanc quoque molientur ingenii
Quote:André Szelp: opinions that “shrines” refers to the concealment of text by encryption which has to be cracked, i.e. opened like a shrine/cabinet? In particular, in Latin “scrinium (neuter)” means ‘case, chest for a book’, so has a connotation with knowledge and writing which I agree with. Kirchner uses a non-standard gender form (feminine) “scrina”. The idea here seems to be that there is a chest of knowledge – ie, plain text hiding a secret message.
It's the psychological setup. Somebody sends you a text and says "I can't read this".
You either assume it's a code or it's an unknown alphabet. You come to this observation after examining it. Kircher assumes it's a code or cipher of some sort.
Kircher actually goes on in the same letter to refer to an unknown alphabet, in a completely different way
Alterum denique folium quem ipsi ignoti characteris genere scriptum....
Finally the other leaf upon which are written types of unknown characters....
and continues to explain that it's Galgolithic. Because he's recognised the script.
Now, Helmut's suggestion seems to be that Kircher recognised it as tachygraphy. Entirely possible. We've recognised plenty of similarities to Latin shorthand.
If so, and we assume this is indeed the VM, then Kircher's response is an important one for ourselves, if we assume he's not just bragging when he claims he could easily read it if he only had the time to study the text. It means he's recognised it as an artefact he is familiar with.
OK, I'm floundering now, but it's because I'm still not clear in my own head about it