The five samples by a single scribe are derived from You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. (1387-1458) that Rene linked a while ago.
7 1402 You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
2 1415 You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
6 1420ca You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
8 1420ca You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
3 1435ca You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
The other samples:
0 You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. (a humanistic ms from Lombardy, 1438... see bag-pipe sleeves)
1 You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. (a work by Poggio Bracciolini, another humanist from Tuscany mentioned by Ceccherini; I am not sure this is Poggio's handwriting)
4 You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. (a late XV Century young student's notebook)
5 You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. (a humanist from Veneto mentioned by Ceccherini)
9 You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. (another XV Century ms from Tuscany; the author of the text is Poggio again)
Some comments about Sozomeno's scripts based on Ceccherini's analysis.
[
attachment=2577]
She describes the 1402 script (from a school notebook) as
"a simplified littera testualis; the script is unsure and irregular, typical of a not-yet perfectly trained hand". Some of the gothic elements are the uncial "d" with an ascender slanting to the left ("det" line 3) and the 2-shaped "r" before a rounded character ("colligere" line 2, "Fercula" line 3). Since this sample doesn't belong to Sozomeno's adult production, I consider it much less interesting than the others. Still it is indicative of the influence of age on a person's handwriting.
[
attachment=2578]
After writing in a style totally compatible with Bracciolini's (mentioned by Ceccherini but for which I couldn't find any image), the 1415 manuscript is a witness of Sozomeno's new approach to a humanistic script, in which he re-introduces some of the gothic elements of his earlier handwriting. With respect to the previous sample, the ascenders of 'b', 'd', 'l' are now straight. 'r' has the shape it has in the Arial font. 's' is always of the long variant (a frequent feature in humanistic scripts): 's' has no descender but a foot at the base (another humanistic detail) as well as a small line on the left, making it look somehow like an 'f' ("videas sum[m]o" line 3).
[
attachment=2579]
1420s: 'g', which had a closed loop in 1415, now is open again (as it was in 1402). This letter is different in the two 1420s samples ("longe" BNF line 4, "pugnavit" Harley line 1). 's' is always long, now also with a descender as well as an ascender. The whole writing is thinner than in previous samples, and (in particular in the Harley script) it shows a minimal hint of 'cursive' slanting. Ceccherini writes:
"The gothic influence gets stronger and stronger. Even in formal works (like Harley 6510) Sozomeno offers his personal style of 'littera antiqua', quite different from Florentine handwriting of that time and closer to the works of Venetian humanists (Guarino Veronese above all)".
[
attachment=2580]
At least since 1427, Sozomeno's handwriting
"went through one more transformation; it became quick, informal and rich of ligatures. When Sozomeno glosses his books or writes commentaries about classical works, at the end of the 1420s and later, his XIV-Century-like gothic cursive fully re-emerges". The 1435 sample illustrates this phase. Lines are inclined, rising towards the right; characters also are visibly (if not much) slanted. A new feature with respect to the other samples is the 6-shaped initial and final 's' ('sam[ni]tos' line 1). 'g' is extremely simplified, with a drop-shaped descender. As an example of ligature, compare 'll' in 'gallos' (line 1) with 'illi' (BNF 18528 line 3).
Voynich-wise, my personal opinion is that the continuous evolution of Sozomeno's handwriting in the 1415-35 samples is definitely very important. I am grateful to Ceccherini for her accurate analysis and to Rene for bringing her work to our attention. The handwriting of a single person can be traced in its evolution, if one has enough samples in the right chronological order. On the other hand, the 1415 and 1435 samples (2 and 3) look quite different, without the intermediate 1420s step. What seems clear is that it is very difficult to tell with any certainty that two samples are by different scribes. Currier thought of
"a total of something like five or six to seven or eight different identifiable hands in the manuscript." The high number of different "hands" suggests that we could instead be observing some kind of evolution like Sozomeno's handwriting. But this is clearly a subject that requires much more study.
