2 hours ago
Hello,
Your quotation comes from the beginning of Plut. 30.29. The Ars notaria/notoria, however, only begins on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and deals with stenographic shorthand, not with the geomancy found at the beginning of the manuscript. And yes, your last post means the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (the translation could be good, or not. My AI says, the translation is not good?!). But you need to have a look at 86v and 87r. This tables are much different. That's why your last point is important:
You also have to be careful when distinguishing between the different versions of the Ars notaria. John Haines, for example, describes the London version of the Ars notaria, which differs considerably from the Florentine Ars notaria. D'Imperio also probably used an excerpt from the London Ars notaria – NOT the Florentine one.
What I find particularly interesting is Valentin Rose. He studied the Florentine Ars, but at the time (1874) he could only make handwritten copies. He had already noticed that Tironian notes were partly represented there, but in a modified or further developed form.
Rose also explains that the author mentions three books (1: basics, 2: rules for construction, 3: practical list of signs), but these are not known or have not been found (as far as we currently know).
So what makes this interesting is the actual principle behind the tables. It's not entirely clear whether Rose was describing these exact tables. However, based on his description, four possible construction principles can be derived:
Because the tables might suggest exactly this kind of development. And when you then see the similarities to Voynich in the third table (at least some of the signs), you immediately think of:
Gallows – their unusual shape, their seemingly important position, possible additions that could indicate functions or sign values, represented by strokes, loops, etc.
Basic principle – a system consisting of basic signs, additions and rules for their arrangement.
I'm not trying to say, "Hey, look – this is how Voynich was created!" Rather, what I'm saying is: "The principle behind these tables might have similarities to Voynich and could possibly point to a common origin in how the scripts were constructed."
Your quotation comes from the beginning of Plut. 30.29. The Ars notaria/notoria, however, only begins on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and deals with stenographic shorthand, not with the geomancy found at the beginning of the manuscript. And yes, your last post means the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (the translation could be good, or not. My AI says, the translation is not good?!). But you need to have a look at 86v and 87r. This tables are much different. That's why your last point is important:
(4 hours ago)gerrydelasel wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You don't need to guess at the meaning, it's written in Latin, just translate it! Ai is good at that. It seems to be a technical manuscript on geomancy. The first page reads
"Incipit liber geomantie nove magistri Ugonis Satiliensis, editus ab Alantrabuluci [translatione]. Estimaverunt Indi quod quando lineantur venie absque numero..."
You also have to be careful when distinguishing between the different versions of the Ars notaria. John Haines, for example, describes the London version of the Ars notaria, which differs considerably from the Florentine Ars notaria. D'Imperio also probably used an excerpt from the London Ars notaria – NOT the Florentine one.
What I find particularly interesting is Valentin Rose. He studied the Florentine Ars, but at the time (1874) he could only make handwritten copies. He had already noticed that Tironian notes were partly represented there, but in a modified or further developed form.
Rose also explains that the author mentions three books (1: basics, 2: rules for construction, 3: practical list of signs), but these are not known or have not been found (as far as we currently know).
So what makes this interesting is the actual principle behind the tables. It's not entirely clear whether Rose was describing these exact tables. However, based on his description, four possible construction principles can be derived:
- A limited set of basic signs.
- Modifications using dots, strokes, curves and similar additions.
- Different functions depending on the position of the individual parts of a sign.
- A combined meaning or value resulting from the basic sign, its additions and their arrangement.
Because the tables might suggest exactly this kind of development. And when you then see the similarities to Voynich in the third table (at least some of the signs), you immediately think of:
Gallows – their unusual shape, their seemingly important position, possible additions that could indicate functions or sign values, represented by strokes, loops, etc.
Basic principle – a system consisting of basic signs, additions and rules for their arrangement.
I'm not trying to say, "Hey, look – this is how Voynich was created!" Rather, what I'm saying is: "The principle behind these tables might have similarities to Voynich and could possibly point to a common origin in how the scripts were constructed."