The Voynich Ninja

A new book about the Voynich manuscript is set to be released in August:

The Voynich Manuscript: The Complete Edition of the World' Most Mysterious and Esoteric Codex 
Hardcover – August 15, 2017



Amazon link: 
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Dr. Stephen Skinner (Foreword)
And introductions by Dr Rafal Prinke and Dr René Zandbergen


Apart from these introductions, the press release also mentions that the book "reproduces every single page of the Voynich in full-colour photography." Is this the same as the recent Yale edition?
Additionally, and perhaps most interestingly, an e-mail sent out from the publisher reveals that it also contins "a fascinating new theory about the identity of the author. Based on careful study of the images depicted, the plants portrayed, and the lack of any Christian imagery, the authors conclude that it was a Jewish person residing in Italy who must have written the manuscript."




Rene?

"I know nothing"

There you go Koen, you'll have to buy a copy to find out!

The world's most mysterious book about the world's most mysterious manuscript.

(18-06-2017, 06:54 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....
Additionally, and perhaps most interestingly, an e-mail sent out from the publisher reveals that it also contins "a fascinating new theory about the identity of the author. Based on careful study of the images depicted, the plants portrayed, and the lack of any Christian imagery, the authors conclude that it was a Jewish person residing in Italy who must have written the manuscript."

I don't think one can conclude from the lack of Christian imagery that it was a Jew.

The lack of Christian imagery in the VMS is singular for a manuscript of this style and time period, as is the lack of imagery related to warfare, but the creator could be a Jew, a shamanist (e.g., Cuman), an Arian, a Pagan, a Neopagan (a not-very-good name for some of the old Norse beliefs), a Moslem (less likely, but one shouldn't discount the possibility), an adherent of an Egyptian-African-pagan religion still practiced by the Berbers in the middle ages, or an atheist.


I think it's entirely possible it was created by a Jew for the simple reason that there were quite a few Jewish translators, scribes and illustrators, but Jewish imagery is every bit as sparse in the VMS as is Christian imagery, so the logic alluded to by the publisher of this book is questionable.


I prefer to keep an open mind and not assume anything about the religion of the creator unless it's based on clues within the manuscript itself and I'm skeptical that the plants, as mentioned in the publisher's note, point to a Jewish origin.

JKP: keep in mind that we don't know yet to what extent this summary by the publisher really represents the view of the authors, nor to what extent it is supported by additional argumentation in the book...

It was Stephen Skinner's Foreword to this upcoming book that floated (not for the first time, and it would seem not for the last) the notion of authorship by a Jewish person in some Northern Italian town such as Pisa. Perhaps his claim was built on something more substantial than a hopeful finger in the wind: but so far I haven't yet seen it.

Personally, I don't see the point of this book at all: the point must be rapidly approaching where we have more sort-of-facsimile Voynich editions than genuinely tenable Voynich hypotheses. For all the technical precision of Rafal and Rene's introduction section, what does this whole exercise gain us?

(18-06-2017, 09:50 PM)nickpelling Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....

Personally, I don't see the point of this book at all: the point must be rapidly approaching where we have more sort-of-facsimile Voynich editions than genuinely tenable Voynich hypotheses. For all the technical precision of Rafal and Rene's introduction section, what does this whole exercise gain us?

When I saw that it included a reproduction of the entire manuscript and saw no author's name on the cover, it gave me the feeling it was just another way to package a facsimile.

Has anyone actually seen the contents (other than the VMS part)? Rene's cryptic response has me perplexed. Rene, you did see the contents before your introduction was included?

Perhaps I should put up a post, annotating Skinner's introduction?.

That would make an easy way to link readers to the numerous posts which contain the evidene, comparative matter, historical context and so forth which I've presented and which led me to the opinion that while the imagery originated, for the most part, in Hellenistic works, it had been maintained by eastern Jews until a period which I judge to be mid-thirteenth to mid-fourteenth century, and that it then came not into Latin culture, but into the Jewish culture of the south, comparisons being made especially to the Jewish cartographic school in Mallorca, and to the Genoese.  I had been about to explain further the connection between the two and why certain Black Sea sites are of particular importance in the matter of transfer.
That series of posts is now halted.

Some readers may recall the comments which I sought, and partly offered online, from one of the chief experts in ancient and medieval semitic scripts.  That person said very plainly that the current manuscript was not written by someone trained to write Hebrew, but that a small string of micrographic letters (micrography being a speciality of the Karaite) looked as if a person untrained in writing Hebrew had tried to do so.

That judgement agrees with the conclusions that I have already stated online, and for which I have adduced codicological and other matter as informing my view:  viz. that the manuscript we have is a close copy of precedents which appear to me to have taken their final form(s) between the mid-thirteenth and mid-fourteenth centuries, having earlier been retained by Jews and recently gained by Latins - at around the time the Venetian state absorbed that of Padua, which region was soon to be invaded and devastated by the Germans. I have also said - and explained - why I date the ms to c.1427-8.

As I have recently said at Voynich ninja, I had been cautious about stating exactly where I thought the manuscript made, but in fact I had come to the opinion some time ago that it was most likely made in Padua, at St.Giustina or the adjacent university.

I have published so much of the research online, and indicated so much of the direction it takes, while remaining apparently entirely alone with Panofsky in my conclusions that it comes as something of a surprise to hear that Skinner's essay is termed either "new" or "a theory".  I do not offer theories but evidence, historical context for the evidence,  and my conclusions. 

Given that Zandbergen was associated with the publication and has known Dr. Skinner for some time, I wonder that he didn't save Dr. Skinner the inevitable embarrassment of seeming to re-invent an old and pretty solid wheel.
Still, perhaps an annotation of the article will help - my blog is called '... and scholia', after all.

(18-06-2017, 10:01 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Has anyone actually seen the contents (other than the VMS part)? Rene's cryptic response has me perplexed. Rene, you did see the contents before your introduction was included?

My not very serious response was to Koen's not very serious suggestion that the Jewish authorship was my idea.

It's a famous line in a well known (older) British comedy series, where the context is: I know but I'm not telling.
Maybe I should have added a smiley too .

Jokes aside, the publisher of this book is known in the esoteric world, and this is the market that is being targeted, also primarily people who don't know much about the MS.
The pictures are of course from the same source.
The purpose of the Yale volume was to take the MS out of its mystery world, and treat it as regular medieval MS.
Here, it's the mystery that matters.