28-08-2025, 10:37 AM
I have been wondering if all marginalia could have been created by the VM artist, but not the scribe(s). Is there anything that fundamentally rules out this hypothesis?
Koen noted You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. that the human marginalia figure on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. strongly resembles the drawing style of f57v. Both pages are also on the same bifolio which is evidence of their common origin. It would also mean that You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. marginalia were produced at the same time as You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and long before 116v.
The nymph on 116v is probably the most advanced in the entire manuscript, yet also shows key elements of VM imagery. So does the sheepgoat. I'd find it unlikely that the marginalia drawings were created by an unrelated later owner. Still there is a noticeable gap in artistic development between the best VM nymphs and this one on the last page. Either we are missing some parts of the VM with better imagery, or the artist later tried to 'improve' it (showercaps in zodiac?). Overall I currently see little evidence for several VM artists, it looks more like a continuous development.
As for the text, I'm not qualified to judge if it comes from the same person. But it does bear some resemblance to the color annotations.
My main points are:
.) all marginalia are odd and devoid of straightforward meaning
.) not just in words but also (due to) ambiguous letter shapes which are clumsy or appear to have been changed mid-way
.) there are VM glyphs intermixed with ordinary letters
As with the imagery, while we cannot rule it out, I'd find it unlikely that several people produce extremely similar text, which at least appears to have some connection with the marginalia images.
If we follow the hypothesis that the VM artist wrote all the marginalia, perhaps in chunks and at different times as suggested, this paints the picture of someone who apparently has trouble writing for whatever reason. Be it lack of literacy, unfamiliarity with the script or language or some physical/mental issue. It would also explain why he hired one or several scribes to produce the text.
If we reject this hypothesis, we must either accept that someone drew surprisingly matching imagery while the VM was still loose bifolios or that marginalia imagery and text are unrelated.
If we reject a different authorship for overall VM text and imagery, we must also explain why marginalia are so clumsy in comparison to Voynichese. I think most people rule out that marginalia and the bulk Voynichese text were produced by the same person.
I see problems with all those approaches, maybe you have a better explanation. I do think it points to a quite complex and non-linear history of the VM.
Koen noted You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. that the human marginalia figure on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. strongly resembles the drawing style of f57v. Both pages are also on the same bifolio which is evidence of their common origin. It would also mean that You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. marginalia were produced at the same time as You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and long before 116v.
The nymph on 116v is probably the most advanced in the entire manuscript, yet also shows key elements of VM imagery. So does the sheepgoat. I'd find it unlikely that the marginalia drawings were created by an unrelated later owner. Still there is a noticeable gap in artistic development between the best VM nymphs and this one on the last page. Either we are missing some parts of the VM with better imagery, or the artist later tried to 'improve' it (showercaps in zodiac?). Overall I currently see little evidence for several VM artists, it looks more like a continuous development.
As for the text, I'm not qualified to judge if it comes from the same person. But it does bear some resemblance to the color annotations.
My main points are:
.) all marginalia are odd and devoid of straightforward meaning
.) not just in words but also (due to) ambiguous letter shapes which are clumsy or appear to have been changed mid-way
.) there are VM glyphs intermixed with ordinary letters
As with the imagery, while we cannot rule it out, I'd find it unlikely that several people produce extremely similar text, which at least appears to have some connection with the marginalia images.
If we follow the hypothesis that the VM artist wrote all the marginalia, perhaps in chunks and at different times as suggested, this paints the picture of someone who apparently has trouble writing for whatever reason. Be it lack of literacy, unfamiliarity with the script or language or some physical/mental issue. It would also explain why he hired one or several scribes to produce the text.
If we reject this hypothesis, we must either accept that someone drew surprisingly matching imagery while the VM was still loose bifolios or that marginalia imagery and text are unrelated.
If we reject a different authorship for overall VM text and imagery, we must also explain why marginalia are so clumsy in comparison to Voynichese. I think most people rule out that marginalia and the bulk Voynichese text were produced by the same person.
I see problems with all those approaches, maybe you have a better explanation. I do think it points to a quite complex and non-linear history of the VM.