At the top of the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. page, there is certainly an inscription (partially corrupted).
At first glance, the first letter in the red box is n (Latin).
The second letter is U / V.
However, it cannot be excluded that the first character is X (10 is Roman). X is often written incessantly without taking the pen from the paper, with the formation of a loop on the right. The tail (red circle) can be directed both to the right, and down, or to the left. But I met (but unfortunately did not copy) when the loop can form at the bottom (my drawing is dots). JKP, do you have a similar example in the collection?
Thereat the inscription in the red square is similar to the Roman number 17.
If,  in the green square written the number 18, then can have serious consequences for the VMS study.    

Could the moderators consider a separate thread devoted to sources for the history of Voynich studies?  Say... 1912- 2012?  

For example, 

At the moment I have two questions which relate to past writings:

1). Anyone know what has happened to Brigadier Tiltman's paper about the manuscript. (  used to be at the NSA website as a pdf). 
 
2) I'm trying to find the point where doubt was first cast on Wilfrid's description of the text as in cipher.   Following through  Jim Reeds' Bibliography (here),  it looks to me as if either Tiltman and Friedman began to have doubts very late in their involvement (though Nick Pelling disputes my reading of that passage), or that perhaps Jorge Stolfi's linguistic and statistical analysis really broke the model of beliefs till then.

Access to primary sources and documents is all that's needed for a thread about the study's history.  A cut-off at 2012 would be neat, and would make clear the line between the history of the study and   current thinking. 
Thanks.

Did you know that Wilfrid Voynich had written a paper on the VMS?
Did you know that O'Neill had written a paper on the sunflower?

Have you read one or both of them?

Dear members

Re-reading the the valuable technical essay in Yale's facsimile edition of the Vms,  I came across one of the inserted editorialised bits, and in this case it said something for which I have never been able to find an historical source.  I'd be glad of help in providing it with some sort of footnote.

The item states that the manuscript was 'known to have been in Rudolf's library'.  


To avoid error, I'll include the passage as an image.




To save waste of time, here are the only two bits of documentary evidence that I know about.  Both are taken from Philip Neal's transcriptions and translations (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.)

First, the letter of Ioannis Marcus Marci (in Prague) to Athanasius Kircher (in Rome), dated 19 August 1665: 

Quote: Doctor Raphael, the Czech language tutor of King Ferdinand III as they both then were, once told me that the said book belonged to Emperor Rudolph and that he presented 600 ducats to the messenger who brought him the book. He, Raphael, thought that the author was Roger Bacon the Englishman. I suspend my judgement on the matter.

Quote:Dominus Marcus has lost his memory of nearly everything but still remembers you. He very officially bids me salute you in his name and he wishes to know through me whether you have yet proved an Oedipus in solving that book which he sent via the Father Provincial last year.

I want to start this thread because the subject doesn't fit any of the present forums, and a library entry doesn't allow cumulative addition by the poster - which I hope to do.   


The theme is really Methodology and  non-Voynich academic works that can help us gauge objectively whether on hypothesis (or 'theory') deserves greater or less weight given it.  A sort of  'reality-checking' bibliography for all the non-cipher and non-linguistic aspects of Voynich studies:


No. 1.  'Reality checking' theories of where the manuscript was  manufactured:  

For 'Italian' theories see the excellent article by Priscilla Anderson from the Journal of the American Institute for Conservation.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

and for the full list of that Journal's articles:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Once again, I'd like to try and raise the fundamental issue of methodology in approaching a fifteenth century manuscript whose place of manufacture remains uncertain, and whose content remains largely unread, after a century and more.

My view is that the chief reason for lack of substantial advance is a general absence of 'reality checking' when treating aspects of the manuscript other than linguistics and cryptography.  Since 1921 we have seen a remarkable absence of such cross-checking  when it comes to ideas that have been, and are, promoted as 'theories' about art, historical exchanges, and cultural practice.  

For example, O'Neill did not bother to present any reasoned argument by considering actual examples of pre-1600 images of the sunflower when urging his highly-imaginative interpretation of one botanical image in the Vms.

My recommending objective tests as 'reality checking' doesn't imply a necessarily negative critique; it could add solid weight to an otherwise hypothetical scenario.   The methodological difference is this: instead of hunting the historical record for support for a theory, and only within parameters defined by the theory, we first check that the theory itself is compatible with the wider bodies of relevant scholarship: codicology, palaeography, historical, technical and cultural studies.  (Had  O'Neill applied such method, his paper would have never seen print, and we should have been spared the lingering consequences).

LAUBER
I this case I'm recommending a paper by Scott (et.al) because it may help add more weight to recent comments about  Lauber's workshop. See e,g.

Koen Gheuens, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., (blogpost dated Sept.12th., 2018) 
Nick Pelling, 'You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.' (blogpost dated 10th September 2018)

The paper I mean is this:

David A. Scott, Narayan Khandekar, (et.al.)., 'Technical Examination of a Fifteenth-Century German Illuminated Manuscript on Paper: A Case Study in the Identification of Materials', Studies in Conservation, Vol. 46, No. 2, (2001), pp. 93-108.  Available through JSTOR

That paper  gives technical and nicely specific information about works which came from Lauber's atelier, and names some of the artisans who worked there.   I'll quote a bit with original footnote numbers retained: 

Quote: Diebolt Lauber is known to have been a book-seller and miniature painter active in Hagenau in the region of Alsace from 1427 to 1467. Known in the art historical literature as a prodigious publisher (as many as 50 manuscripts have been attributed to his atelier), Lauber is thought to have had as many as 16 draughtsmen and five scribes working simultaneously in his studio [7]. In an advertisement that  appears in a manuscript now in the British Library, Lauber declares the versatility of his workshop:

'....

The scribe of our manuscript ends the text with the date 1469. It has been suggested that the illuminator was one of the better-known artists working in Lauber's atelier, Hans Schilling, or an associate of Schilling [8, 10]. A number of compositions can be compared to engravings dating to 1461, 1466 and 1467 by the Master E. S., a Swiss engraver whose work had a far-reaching effect on artists in this period

I found this interesting. It's probably off the mark, but the lack of sources for "marix morix" led me to broaden my search.

If I were copying a faded text, or if my language didn't use the æ ligature (many medieval texts use a different ligature for ae, it looks like an e with a tail),  I might just misread and miscopy these words as "Marix Morix":




Obviously, this is a printed text, but the original is 12th C. This Iohannes was apparently a cardinal who subscribed (signed his support for) a papal bull in 1145. I have no idea what "Mariæ Moriæ" refers to.

With Anton's current focus on "anchiton", I was prompted to look into ways this word could be a transcription from Greek. Even if another reading of the word (like michiton) is preferred, anything ending in "on" is potentially Greek, as it is both a nominative and accusative ending.

In Germanic languages, "ch" would be used to transcribe Greek "x", since it's the same kind of sound. This would result in something like ανχιτον or ανχιτων. 

A "chiton" is a very common word for tunic ( You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. ). So I wondered if it could mean something like "undressed". However, the prefix "an-" is only possible before vowels, otherwise "a-" is used.

Indeed, the word αχιτων does exist, meaning either "without a tunic" or "ill-clad" (my favorite word of the day).
   

If this word is meant with "anchiton", it would contain a grammatical mistake.

Now in a recent You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., JKP argues that the least problematic reading of the word would be "m chiton" and he suggests chυτό/Χυτό being some kind of oil lamp (?). But I think it refers to the material as cast iron, from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., "poured".

If it is indeed "m chiton", then I guess it could also be "m tunic".

This is a branch from the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. thread, just to make the latter more lightweight, since it's apparently overloaded with different subjects by now.

This one is about "anchiton". Below is the quick summary for the start of this new thread, why anchiton is important.

The second line of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. marginalia, after a cross, begins with a word, one of the readings of which is "anchiton". There have been other readings as well, such as "michiton", "nichiton", "michi con" and others - those could be consulted in the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. thread. This new thread presupposes that the reading is "anchiton" and leads a branch of investigation in the light of that hypothesis.

The question is immediately there what this "anchiton" might be, and how it might relate to the no less mysterious "oladabas", and some other tentative readings in the line such as "carcere" or "portas". If "anchiton" is found elsewhere - and the more so, in the context of some "portas" and so on (most preferably with "oladabas"!) then we could draw conclusions not only about the meaning of the respective piece of marginalia, but, more broadly, about the cultural context of the creation of the VMS (since it is quite probable that these marginalia were put down by one of the VMS scribes).

Unfortunately, for a long period of time, noone could suggest what is "anchiton" (if anything), let alone throw any sufficient light upon "oladabas". For now, it is sufficient to say that "oladabas" is still in the dark, but there has been some progress with "anchiton" in the recent years.

First of all, Searcher found the mention of "anchiton" in comments to the Bible by Nicolas de Lyra, as printed in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. in 1549. This Lyra was a Frenchman living in XIII - XIV centuries, and he was a great authority upon the Bible, with his comments widely referred to in the Western world for centuries to come.

In fact, the messy layout of the book makes it difficult to decide whether the comment of interest is by de Lyra or from Glossa Ordinaria, but anyway its comment to Exodus 27 runs as this:

Quote:Nec mirum hoc de sanctuario et interioribus templi et altaris et thymiamatis credere, cuius etiam anchiton ligni genus vel ligno simile, quanto plus arserit tanto mundius inveniatur.

Quote:And thou shalt make an altar of shittim wood...

It is usual to find, in any formal study, a keen discussion of methodology and principles.  HOW does one go about investigating an idea's validity? What sort of factual basis is required to justify the formation of a 'theory' and what is the difference between a passing notion, an 'idea', a self-referential fiction and so on.

We see none of that sort of discussion in the study today - and as a rule any effort to raise questions about methodology or current practice sees a ton-weight of censure-bricks descend on one's head, because it is impossible to discuss where we've gone wrong, or where we are going well, without footnotes and accurately-attributed examples.

Anyway, on the theme of absent, flawed, careless or long-outmoded methods in creating theories about history and the transmission of objects and ideas, I recently mentioned 'Entanglements' and their schematic representation.

Since there are now quite a number of other Voynich authors who have followed the pioneers into the area of eastern Greek culture, medieval Constantinople and the wider Byzantine sphere, and some who argue that the manuscript passed from this or that region to another at thus-and-thus a time in history, may I introduce you to the style of Entanglement diagrams in that context.

The following paper is available through Research Gate and contains a large number of illustrative graphs and diagrams as well as impeccably researched text.  Fully footnoted and with earlier observations and conclusions CORRECTLY attributed to their sources, allowing you to test the value of those sources, as well as testing the later author's integrity.  This sort of testing is a routine part of academic method and it would be odd indeed if scholars were censured for such method  -  or indeed for criticism of others' methodology.
 

See, 

Johannes Preiser-Kapeller, 'Calculating the Synod? New Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches for the Analysis of the Patriarchate and the Synod of Constantinople in the 14thC', Paper presented at the 22nd International Congress of Byzantine Studies: Proceedings of the Round Table "Le Patriarcat Oecuménique de Constantinople et Byzance « hors frontières »" published January 2014.