The Voynich Ninja

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

From the few sentences I can read from the transcription it seems like it's instructions on how to behave like a proper gentleman? Which seems to imply that the images aren't entirely related. They are more akin to typical Medieval "doodle" marginal illuminations than to VM style illustrations.

Rene, would you mind if I rename this thread to "Sozomeno da Pistoia" and we start a separate thread for the humanist hand discussion?

I really can't see it well enough to make out more than a word or two, but the one with the guy with his feet in the "cup" or "tub" on the right is different in tone, very solicitous, the kind of tone one finds in a letter or dedication written to someone important.

PS, yes, moving the paleography aspect to another thread, separate from Sozomeno and the content of the page is probably a good idea.

I didn't ask for anyone to change the title of my post.

Can someone finally change the subject of my post back to what it was please!

(29-12-2017, 11:02 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Can someone finally change the subject of my post back to what it was please!

Interesting... Okay, I changed it back, doesn't matter. I had changed it to better distinguish between the discussion about this historical figure on the one hand and the "humanist hand" discussion on the other.

By the way, your input would be more than welcome in the other thread, about the arguments behind the humanist hand theory.

Well, as thread starter, I only had one thread in mind. It deals with the apparent contradictions that are evoked by the suggestion of a humanist hand behind the writing in the MS.

On the one hand, there is the point that humanist writing is an expression of a desire for form, which seems in contradiction with the lack of form in the illustrations.
On the other, there is the point raised by Juan Jose Marcos, and similarly by Helmut here, that humanist writing was used by a limited circle of people, educated in medicine, theology, law, and with an interest in classical philology. This also seems in contradiction with the Voynich MS. ( You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. )

Sozomeno was an early humanist. Toresella specifically referred to humanists from the second half of the Century, but he did not explain why. In any case, while his marginal drawings are of a different execution than the Voynich MS, they are just as crude. Marco already pointed out in an earlier discussion that they do not seem too much related with the topic of the main text of the MS (in this case Marcus Porcius Cato).

(29-12-2017, 09:10 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....

What is unique about him is that his change from a standard gothic handwriting style to a humanist handwriting style is fully document and can be followed in his works. This is explained in detail You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. .
...

I looked very very carefully at these handwriting samples because I'm going to suggest something that contradicts the article, and this is never an easy thing to do.

There are four samples. All except the second are in the Italic/Humanist/Secretary line of scripts that were emerging in the 14th century and which eventually superseded Gothic script by the 16th century. Three of them are essentially a Humanist form, which differs from Gothic (sample 2) in that there are no loops and few connections between letters.

An overview of the samples:

Sample 1: One can see right away that sample 1 is a slightly uncertain hand, that it might be someone learning a new form of script, or possibly a younger writer, but even so, some of the characteristics of the handwriting survive in the other more confident ad practiced hands (sample 3 and 4).

Samples 3 and 4: One can also see in samples 3 4, even without knowing the provenance of the samples, and without seeing the autographs or reading the commentary next to them, that these might be evolutionary examples from the same scribe. It would need more study, of course, but the signs are there. In particular, note the squeezed a, the particular curve in the e, and the forms of the ell, em and ess. That the article states that these are the same scribe does not arouse any doubts.

But sample 2 is something different and I cannot confirm my observations without seeing the original source, but based on what I see, it does NOT look like someone with a Humanist hand experimenting with Gothic handwriting. It looks like someone familiar with and comfortable with Gothic handwriting. It is completely consistent with the many hundreds of Gothic hands that I have collected from practiced scribes and some of the traits particular to Sozomeno's handwriting are not evident.

Overall, Gothic cursive is not a particularly attractive or readable hand, which is part of the reason the Humanists rejected it in favor of the cleaner, more aesthetic earlier styles (some of them tried to resurrect Carolingian handwriting and some took their models from 14th-century Italic styles) but those who habitually used Gothic handwriting acquired a certain fluidity to the way they spaced and joined it that is evident in Sample 2 and seems quite different from the other samples of Sozomeno's handwriting. If Sozomeno was only experimenting with a Gothic hand, it is very doubtful it would be as facile and practiced as this sample.

Another point... when you switch between Gothic and Humanist forms of handwriting, there are certain things that don't necessarily have to be changed, like the vowels, or the letters em and en. Even if the slant or connectivity is adjusted, the basic form can be retained. The main differences between Humanist and Gothic are the spacing, connections, and loops.

It's also not necessary to change the hooks on the s. Many scribes who wrote in Gothic styles did not put a straight hook on the s, but used various curves, which means if they switched between Gothic and Humanist, they didn't need to change the s either.

Now if you look at Samples 1, 3, and 4, you will notice traits that are particular to his handwriting, like the squeezed "a", with a low flat loop (it's not the way most scribes wrote it in Gothic or Humanist hands). In contrast, in sample two, the loop is rounder. His "e" also has a particular curve that is not characteristic in sample 2 (it's subtle, but the difference is there).

Now look in particular at the "s". Note how the ascender tapers in the Gothic hand, but not in any of the other samples.

Look also at the "m". In the Gothic hand, it is a little wider and rounder than is typical of Sozomeno's handwriting.

What I am trying to point out is that shapes that are usually retained when switching between hands, the commonalities in physical movement of the quill, are not evident here.

When switching writing styles, certain aspects of curves and proportion remain the same. Also, using the Greek "s" as was done as a terminal-s in the Gothic sample, is the less common form even in Gothic, so why would Sozomeno switch to an entirely different form of the letter?

As I mentioned, I cannot be certain without seeing the entire page of folio 57 (I tired, without success, to find a scan of the full page), but the second sample does not look like a Humanist scribe experimenting with Gothic. It looks like the handwriting of someone comfortable with Gothic handwriting. Note that this manuscript has quite a number of hands.

If this is the case (that Sample 2 is someone else's handwriting), then this series of samples does not show evolution from Gothic to Humanist. It shows the evolution of a writer who began with an essentially Italic/Humanist style (no loops, wider spacing, disconnected letters, etc.) and continued to refine it throughout his life without changing the essential elements of his handwriting.

ReneZ
On the other, there is the point raised by Juan Jose Marcos, and similarly by Helmut here, that humanist writing was used by a limited circle of people, educated in medicine, theology, law, and with an interest in classical philology. This also seems in contradiction with the Voynich MS. ( You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. )

Hi ReneZ,

I read with great interest the work of M. Marcos.

I don't understand where is the contradiction.
Let's take the example of a doctor or an apothecary.
During the Middle Ages, both of them were familiars with plants, and there is a lot of plants in the Voynich manuscript.
In reality, I'm not 100% certain that these plants were used for drugs, medicines. Who knows ?

(29-12-2017, 09:10 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....

Just a few weeks ago, I received a very interesting tip about this from Michelle Smith. I wanted to write about it earlier, but then other things happened.

One of the early Italian humanists was born as Zomino, but he changed his name to Sozomeno (1387 - 1458). He was born and died in Pistoia, and studied in Padova from 1407-1413. He entered the clergy already at an early age, and met other humanists in Florence (where he knew Poggio).
He did several of the 'usual' humanist things such as composing greek and latin grammars, and commenting on many classical authors. He built up his own library, which he donated to the city of Pistoia in 1423.
Here are some links (all in Italian):
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

...

I find this fact, especially his knowledge of Greek, to be potentially very interesting. If his Greek grammar still exists I would like to know more about it.

Emma, this link provides a bit of background information and references to some of his Greek writings:

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

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Koen G

-JKP-

ReneZ

ReneZ

Koen G

ReneZ

-JKP-

Paris

Emma May Smith

-JKP-