The Voynich Ninja

Quote:Marci's 'l' basically *never* connects to the previous letter

Well, here we have not even the previous letter, but the second-to-previous letter, with something afterwards inserted in between.

I don't know if much of Marci's handwriting is preserved in original form, maybe it makes sense to look at the corpus and see if the like sequence is repeated elsewhere.

In the beginning of the fifth line counting from the line with the date, one finds "li" in "literarum" looking very similar to what we find in "Sili". Even more similar is "li" in "literis" in the preceding line (no curvature at all).

In contrast to that, "li" in "heliotrope" looks different (significant curvature present).

Quote:Marci's 'l' basically *never* connects to the previous letter, and always starts at the top. Sometimes with a small loop.
The only case when it connects to the left seems to be when it is the second 'l' in a pair, e.g. 'illud'.

There seem to be exceptions.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.  "moleste" - line 10 from the bottom
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.  "influxus" - line 7, addressee line exluded

(19-08-2017, 06:12 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Hmmm,

the difference of meaning between sch(a)edula and schaedata doesn't seem fundamental to me.
Barschius submitted *something* and it would have been something drawn or written on paper.

I certainly wouldn't claim that there are any earth-shattering disclosures involved here. However, the schaedata reading poses a problem precisely because it is not a real Latin word. If Marci wrote an unknown word like schaedata in this connection then we would want to know why; and the nature of the attachment would always be open to question.

If the correct reading is schedula - a perfectly normal Latin word, with a dictionary definition - then a perceived element of strangeness vanishes. It also means we can rule out anything sizeable (like a multi-paged booklet, etc.) as the attachment.

Of course, *if* the word schaedata did not exist, this would overrule all other considerations, and the reading should be some other one. Now I don't know if that's the case, and one cannot use a classical Latin dictionary to decide this, since the Latin used in the 17th century differs considerably from classical Latin.
(When I first asked for the translation of the Barschius letter from a Latinist, she provided it  with exactly this disclaimer).

Fletcher didn't seem to have a problem with it, but that's just for what it's worth, and we can't ask him - he died years ago.
If you can confirm that this word was not used in late Renaissance Latin, then I agree that this is a serious objection.

Let's also keep in mind that this/these schaedula/schaedata are the third of four different items of Barschius that were submitted to Kircher (beside the MS itself) , and the only one of which we can't really be sure that it relates to the Voynich MS.

The first was sent with the (now lost) letter from Moretus, and we know a bit about it from the response of Kircher: it had at least two items: some copied elements or even cut-out pages of the MS , and a sheet of Glagolitic text which Barschius and/or Moretus thought of interest for comparison.

The second was sent with the 1639 letter of Barschius, and we just know from Barschius that it was copied from the MS by someone else (based on P.Neal's translation).

The third is the schaedula/schaedata discussed here, and we don't know much of the form it took, and its subject matter.

The fourth is a set of notes of Barschius that Marci sent together with the MS itself. This I think is likely to be a booklet of some volume. Really too bad it got lost....

Beside the Voynich MS, discussions with Kircher also concerned the general topic of alchemy. Marci at first was not a 'believer' of this, but Barschius convinced him of its usefulness. Together they also managed to convince the Jesuit Santini of this. Several people also tried to convince Kircher, but this did not work. He was firmly against it.
This *could* have been the topic of the third submission, but this is speculation.


As a bit of trivia related to the evolution of Latin, my Latin teacher used a story to object against the use of the term 'dead language' for Latin. He was traveling somewhere in Eastern Europe and got into a conversation with a priest. It turned out that the only language they had in common was Latin, so they had a conversation in Latin.
Later, during my first marriage I could make the same experience. Since this involved three different countries, several forms had to be filled in, which were all in Latin.

Anyway, @Kestrel, don't get me wrong - I really appreciate your contribution, as it keeps us thinking about details that  could be important. Don't hesistate to bring more.

...  one cannot use a classical Latin dictionary ...

Well, we can look up the Medeval and Neo-Latin dictionaries and I dont see anything there but classical scheda,-ae and schedula  as diminuitive and nothing like the pseudo-Greek schedata. There is a science called philology and much of Historical research is based on it and it has its own quite stringent rules and I do think exact transcriptions matter

That 'word' schaedata' is puzzling if, and only if, it is an accurate transcription from the image of the letter.

I studied this about, I think, a week ago.  Throughout the letter, letter 'd' is most commonly written in a plain form.  I thought, and still think, that only two readings make sense: either schifrata or schismata

An aside.
Helmut: I agree with your comment above, but when dictionaries began to be written for general use they were written by scholars of classical Latin.  To read medieval Latin in its full contexts one must assume both local variations of spelling and grammar and scribal variations in the same.

The words schism and cipher are derived from Latin and have their counterparts in romance languages.

After narrowing down to these two choices I found something in the archives which supports the 'schismata' transcription.

Quote:The evidence is staring us in the face :-)

Marci sent a letter to Kircher in 1640 with the
question whether Kircher could interpret the attached
'schaedata' (which could mean drawings).
What if these were pages of the MS? Kircher would
have kept them, and whoever organised his
correspondence, could have later placed them back
together with the VMs. And what do we see?
There is evidence of the VMs being rebound between
1700 and 1900 (source: Yale catalogue entry).
There are odd stubs near f73 and near f94/95.

Quite possibly, the bits Baresch sent were sewn
back into the MS in the 18th C.
Speculating even further, there are a few pages
which have small 'a' 'b' 'c' in the corner, which
are written in pencil, much like used in the
index of Kircher's correspondence. This could be
further indication that these pages may have been
detached from the MS at some time during its stay
with the Jesuits after Kircher.

Cheers, Rene

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

[url=http://voynich.net/Arch/2004/08/msg00191.html][/url]

Rene Zandbergen, 2004.

As for the 'sphi-':


The Sph*nx will understand from the attached sheet what my friend Mr Georg Barschius wanted to have written by me.

Sphi modo quae Amicus meus M. Georg Barschius per me scribi uoluerit, et schaedata hic adiuncta intelliget.

Remembering that the writer was likely not intending classical Latin:-


sphinges modo quae ... Barschius per me scribi voluerit.
puzzling manner whereby ... Barschius for me chose to write
'for' meaning 'for my benefit'

... et schaedata hic adiuncta intelliget.

... et schifrata hic adiuncta intelliget.   ciphers.

... et schismata hic adiuncta intelliget.    things cut out.



image source -
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

I look forward to seeing comments.  The software has determined that I am discipulus, so please be kind and gentle.   

I decided to take a crack at a transliteration (I need the practice). I know one exists by Neal but I haven't really looked at it. I have sampled some of the alphabet in the original letter to record the script style.

So... I don't know how much this diverges from Neal's transliteration and I am not strong at Latin, but my script-interpretation skills (ability to read old letter styles) is reasonably good, so take it for what it's worth:

Transliteration:

R[evere]nde/R[everen]d[ißim]e in Chr[ist]o P[ate]r D[omi]ne et Amice observandissime


Scripsi R[evere]ndae P[ate]r[ni]t[a]ti V[est]ra Ratisboná ea, que mihi á R[everenda] P[aternitas] V[est]rá fuerant commissa, apud Caes[eream]
Maiestatem ex voto transegisse. Confido meas literas ab Illustriss[imis] Comitibus de Martinitz,
ad quos Ego direxi, recepisse. Et cum sex hebdomade praeterierint, responsum cum vesiverio/desiderio [1]
expecto. Scripsit mihi R.P. Gans RP. V' nescio quas persecutiones habere. quod cum
nimis generite dicatur, me valde solicitum reddidit. Et cum quidam ex his s?i?e [scire??] intersis,
transcripsi partem Epistole. Illustriss[imus] Comes Bernardus dolenter mihi fuit questas
nihil responsi ad suas literas obtinuisse. Ego cum multis beneficiis/beneficÿs ab eo sim affectus,
sciamq[ue] studiosissimum esse Rev[eren]dae P. V[est]rae, neq[ue] parum fecisse apud Caesaream Maiestatem, quod
e re nostra sit futurum, optarem gaudere de aliquali benevolentiae et mutui affectus declaratione.
Sili modo que Amicus meus M. Georgius Barschius per me scribi voluerit, et sch?dala/schzdala/schgdala/schyvalá [2]
hie/hic adiuncta intelliget. Est certe vir optimus et rerum chymicarum peritissimus, verum
desideratum finem necdum assecutus; quem non auri sed Medicinae gratia tam solicite quaerit
Caesarea Maiestas admodum curiose de illo heliotropo et me quaerebat, an illud nossem,
vel saltem effectum effectum vidissem. negavi utrumq[ue] : Mirantiq[ue] dixi abuti?/abate? non faisse ausum [3]
incipiente tum primum Amicitia, atq[ue] illud petere quod pro secreto maximo haberet. [4]
Si in aegre non ferat, et in specie dici non[ ]expedit [5], rogarem in genere duntaxat rescire
resne sit naalis[6] an factitia, mineralis an vegetabilis, et an in nostra Patria repertibilis.
Quidquid dictum fuerit, servabo sub eodem sigillo [7], quo fuero obligatus. Praeterea
peto descriptionem illius atramenti variegati et succulabo, utramq[ue] Romae mihi promissum.
Si quid praeterea scita utile, addere non gravetur. Sed et illud significare an lexicon
Copto Arabicum cum literis Arabicis sit excudendum. Ursi proximis literis matrices illas
oreontalium [8] literaru[m] quam primum exculpendas: ut si forte hic quid sile esset edendum,
nobis non desint necessaria instrumenta. Hisce precor R. P V[estr]am quam felicissime valere
et quam citissime nos invisere. Dignetar Salutare R P. Ferrariu[m] et signi praeterea
novo[ ]er[un]t [9] suum servum Joannem Marci.
Pragae 12 Septemb. anno 1640


Notes:

[1] I would like to read this as desiderio, which is a more common word, but the scribe doesn't typically write "d" like this except for the words "illud" and sometimes "quid", the d usually has a long straight stem. Vesiverio is also a Latin word, just older and less common. It seems odd that the scribe would use a completely different shape for "d" here. The letter "v" at the beginnings of words was quite often written like this, with a long back-swooping tail, but not usually so rounded. If it's "d", it's an odd departure from style but in this context desiderio seems more likely.

[2] I can't make sense of this, but that second-to-last letter isn't written like the usual "t", it's longer and has no cross-stem. It's also hard to tell if the line over the last a is an accent or an abbreviation symbol (the scribe uses the mark both ways). If this were an English scribe, the 4th letter would be "y" (the curved-right tail is commonly found in Anglicana) but it doesn't appear to be an English hand in any other way, so I'm not sure what letter it is, surely not g or q, maybe z.

[3] non faisse is used in Latin, and the scribe has written the letter "a", but this particular expression is more commonly written non fuisse ausum

[4] The z at the end would indicate an ending like -um or -rum but this phrase is usually written "maximo haberet", so I'm not sure why the z is there.

[5] This appears to be written as expedix but I'm sure expedit was meant.

[6] I don't know what naalis is and there's no abbreviation mark, but when naturalis and factitia are combined, the writer is usually referring to something that might be real or fictitious, so perhaps it is na[tur]alis.

[7] I can't tell if this is written as silligu[m], sigillo, or silliga (plural) as it looks more like a "u" but the difference isn't significant since they all mean "seal".

[8] This looks like it's written oreontalium, but I assume it means orientalium.

[9] This is hard to read, but I think it's possibly meant as novo erunt except that it's written as one word (and abbreviated). Not sure, though.

It's a weird sentation to read one's own wild speculation from 13 years ago  

I don't think it should be used to support any particularly view.

@ Patrick
...
An aside.
Helmut: I agree with your comment above, but when dictionaries began to be written for general use they were written by scholars of classical Latin. ...

That's not correct

...
 To read medieval Latin in its full contexts one must assume both local variations of spelling and grammar and scribal variations in the same. ...


It's nice that someone tries to teach me my business, but I've got a degree lying around somewhere in Medieval Latin.