• Options
• Login
• Desktop Style

Period of Original Use

• Index

  • The Voynich Ninja
  • Voynich Research
  • Provenance & history
  • Period of Original Use
• Period of Original Use

• RE: Period of Original Use

  Helmut Winkler > 13-03-2019, 04:46 PM

  @ Linda
  
  I think you are right in saying tnat the ms.  was kept for some time in 
  'packets'
  
  I don't think ther was an intended order before the ms. was started, I think the ms.is a composite ms., a Sammelhandschrift of the assorted 'files' of the author

• RE: Period of Original Use

  Linda > 13-03-2019, 05:23 PM

  (13-03-2019, 04:46 PM)Helmut Winkler Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.@ Linda
  
  I think you are right in saying tnat the ms.  was kept for some time in 
  'packets'
  
  I don't think ther was an intended order before the ms. was started, I think the ms.is a composite ms., a Sammelhandschrift of the assorted 'files' of the author

  
  I meant that quire 14 was its own thing, quire 13 was its own thing, etc. By packet i just mean folded pages. Some of the quires were probably combined, like the zodiac with the other circle drawings.

• RE: Period of Original Use

  bi3mw > 13-03-2019, 05:34 PM

  (13-03-2019, 04:46 PM)Helmut Winkler Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.....
  , I think the ms.is a composite ms., a Sammelhandschrift of the assorted 'files' of the author

  
  Yes, that's one of my few assumptions about the VMS. A pet theory if you like. A "Iatroastrologische Sammelhandschrift".

• RE: Period of Original Use

  Helmut Winkler > 13-03-2019, 05:34 PM

  (13-03-2019, 05:23 PM)Linda Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  (13-03-2019, 04:46 PM)Helmut Winkler Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.@ Linda
  
  I think you are right in saying tnat the ms.  was kept for some time in 
  'packets'
  
  I don't think ther was an intended order before the ms. was started, I think the ms.is a composite ms., a Sammelhandschrift of the assorted 'files' of the author

  
  I meant that quire 14 was its own thing, quire 13 was its own thing, etc. By packet i just mean folded pages. Some of the quires were probably combined, like the zodiac with the other circle drawings.

  
  yes, I think so too

• RE: Period of Original Use

  Linda > 13-03-2019, 06:15 PM

  (13-03-2019, 05:34 PM)Helmut Winkler Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  (13-03-2019, 05:23 PM)Linda Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  (13-03-2019, 04:46 PM)Helmut Winkler Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.@ Linda
  
  I think you are right in saying tnat the ms.  was kept for some time in 
  'packets'
  
  I don't think ther was an intended order before the ms. was started, I think the ms.is a composite ms., a Sammelhandschrift of the assorted 'files' of the author

  
  I meant that quire 14 was its own thing, quire 13 was its own thing, etc. By packet i just mean folded pages. Some of the quires were probably combined, like the zodiac with the other circle drawings.

  
  yes, I think so too

  
  Actually quire 13 might have been kept with quire 14, i think they inform each other. 
  
  When i said order, i meant within packets, for instance i think both quire 14 and 13 when folded originally had only text on their cover pages.
  
  It is also pretty clear that some quires are really parts of others.
  
  I think you are right, that it was various files by the author. the botanical pages, for instance, may be completely separate from the rest.

• RE: Period of Original Use

  nickpelling > 13-03-2019, 11:37 PM

  There is good codicological evidence (that I presented at Frascati in 2012) that the bifolios had already been misordered / shuffled by the time that the quire numbers were added (certainly from Q13, but I think elsewhere too). This would run counter to the suggestion that the quire-adding owner was able to read (or even parse) the manuscript in any way.
  
  The quire numbering style (abbreviated longhand Roman ordinals) is extremely unusual, and so far we have found examples (as I recall) only from circa 1470 or so in Switzerland / Lake Constance. My inference is that the manuscript had by this time probably entered some kind of Swiss monastic library: but I see no sign that anyone had the faintest idea what it was saying.

• RE: Period of Original Use

  -JKP- > 14-03-2019, 02:20 AM

  (13-03-2019, 11:37 PM)nickpelling Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There is good codicological evidence (that I presented at Frascati in 2012) that the bifolios had already been misordered / shuffled by the time that the quire numbers were added (certainly from Q13, but I think elsewhere too). This would run counter to the suggestion that the quire-adding owner was able to read (or even parse) the manuscript in any way.
  
  The quire numbering style (abbreviated longhand Roman ordinals) is extremely unusual, and so far we have found examples (as I recall) only from circa 1470 or so in Switzerland / Lake Constance. My inference is that the manuscript had by this time probably entered some kind of Swiss monastic library: but I see no sign that anyone had the faintest idea what it was saying.

  
  Quire numbers, in and of themselves, are unusual. They are either trimmed off or hidden inside the binding. Those from the 14th century are usually Roman numerals. Those from the 16th century are usually the early modern numbers.
  
  I've been collecting palaeographic samples since about 2008.
  

  • So far I've collected more than 1,000 that bear a reasonable resemblance to the 116v text (the parts that look like they are the same hand).
    
  • I've located about 300 that bear some resemblance to the main text—a daunting task since we can only trust the "o" and the tails to be somewhat similar to the scribes' hands. The backleaning is artificial, I believe, part of the way the glyphs were designed.
    
  • I have a couple of hundred that somewhat resemble the column text on 1r.
    
  • I have about 400 that resemble the folio numbers, with about a dozen that are very close.
    

  But when it comes to quire numbers, it's a whole different ballgame. Despite countless YEARS of searching, I only have a dozen samples and not all of them were quire numbers, some were ordinals in other positions in the manuscripts. One set is half-trimmed off.
  
  Of the samples I have so far, three are in the same basic style as the VMS quire numbers. One is from Switzerland, two from other locations. Of the two that are most similar, one is from c. 1400, the other c. 1435 (the other is c. 1440 but it's only partly similar).
  
  Yes, I will write them up with samples when I can.

• RE: Period of Original Use

  Helmut Winkler > 14-03-2019, 09:00 AM

  @ nickpelling
  
  Even if the bifolios had been misordered, it does not follow that the quire-number-adding person could not read the ms.
  
  I am quite sure  the quire numbers are Arabic numbers and I don't see what is unusual about them

• RE: Period of Original Use

  MarcoP > 14-03-2019, 09:40 AM

  I believe that month names in the zodiac section were likely added by someone who couldn't read the text: the fact that the only clearly readable labels are paired with the only clearly recognizable images looks like a significant coincidence.
  
  On the other hand, the three sets of marginalia in which the Latin alphabet is used together with Voynichese appear to be signs of actual usage of the manuscript by someone who could read and write Voynichese: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. . Two of the three (66r and 116v) include illustrations with figures similar to Voynich "nymphs". You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. doesn't seem to be much later than the carbon dating of the ms. Overall, it is not clear if these marginalia were produced by the same person (or one of the persons) who produced the main body of the manuscript.

• RE: Period of Original Use

  nickpelling > 14-03-2019, 10:07 AM

  (14-03-2019, 09:00 AM)Helmut Winkler Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.@ nickpelling
  
  Even if the bifolios had been misordered, it does not follow that the quire-number-adding person could not read the ms.
  
  I am quite sure  the quire numbers are Arabic numbers and I don't see what is unusual about them

  
  Hi Helmut,
  
  Back in The Curse of the Voynich (2006), I reconstructed the original gathering nesting for part of what is now Q13. It seems certain that the central bifolio included the double page spread where the water runs across the central fold from one side to the other (f78v-f81r). Moreover, the overwhelming probability (look at the symmetric design and the pair of 'pineapples' at the top of the pair) is that You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. originally faced f84v. The central four folios of that quire were therefore originally (what are now) f84 - f78 - f81 - f75. Unfortunately this is inconsistent with the final quire numbering (which is on f84v). If you have a counterargument, I'd be very interested to hear it. Hence the gatherings had been nested in completely the wrong order by the time the Q13 quire number was added: which I believe implies that the person adding the quire numbers was unable to read the content.
  
  The quire numbers use a very specific (and very transitional) (and indeed rather ugly) numbering style: abbreviated longhand Roman ordinals. Very few documents use this in any context.
  
  Cheers, Nick
• Next Oldest Next Newest