The Voynich Ninja

The Voynich manuscript was made some time in the first half of the 1400s. Yet the manuscript appears in the historical record around 1600 when bought by Rudolf II. There is no record of the manuscript for 150+ years. What can we say about this period?

This "prehistoric" period of the manuscript must be split into two parts between those who understood the manuscript and those who didn't. The manuscript must have had at least one owner (the maker or who it was made for) who could read the text (or at least knew that the text was unreadable). And probably one owner who sold the manuscript to Rudolf as a "mystery" (although we can't assume that the text was unreadable to this seller, however unlikely). But where does the line between these two parts fall?

I understand that quire and page numbering was added to the manuscript at different times, and that some of the painting was redone at one point. This suggests at least one owner between the first and the seller, as the quire and page numbers are different and the final seller would have had no reason to add either set them (regardless of whether the handwriting matches the timeframe). Yet would this owner be among those who understood the text or not? I can't see how we would judge, except that by adding numbering they showed a certain level of care and interest in the manuscript.

Against this we can question whether any Voynich text is not original to its creation. Surely were there a chain of owners who understood the text then we would have more additions or annotations in the Voynich script? Yet if people were adding things in Latin/German/Occitan/French, what was their purpose if they didn't understand the text?

What evidence can we bring forward to bring structure to this 150+ gap to show how long the manuscript was understood or in use and how long a curiosity? Is there any? What things which we do know might fall either side of this divide?

(13-03-2019, 02:51 AM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
...

I understand that quire and page numbering was added to the manuscript at different times, and that some of the painting was redone at one point. This suggest at one owner to between the first and the seller, as the quire and page numbers are different and the final seller would have had no reason to add either set them (regardless of whether the handwriting matches the timeframe). Yet would this owner be among those who understood the text or not? I can't see how we would judge, except that by adding numbering they showed a certain level of care and interest in the manuscript.

...

There was often quite a lag between the creation of a manuscript and when it was bound (sometimes a century or two). In the case of the VMS, the quire numbers are in the style that started to fade out in the 15th century and was mostly gone by the 16th century (a few people still used it, probably the older ones who had learned the 14th-century numeric styles, but most had adapted the early modern styles by about 1490 to about 1540)

The folio numbers are in a style that became popular after the beginning of the 15th century, so the VMS may have been bound closer to the time of creation than many other manuscripts. It's speculation on my part, but perhaps this was because it was small and portable and intended to be carried? (to have a practical purpose)?

.
I have collected hundreds of paleographic samples over the last decade, to try to date and locate the quire and folio numbers more precisely.

I don't have time to write this up in full yet (I might not be able to do it before autumn), but I can summarize some of the findings...

The quire numbers are in the earlier style popular in the late 14th century and early 15th century which was gradually superseded by the early modern numbers.

• The closest matches so far are in manuscripts from Germany, many of them. There are a few that are possibly from northern Italy (Lombardy?), one is possibly from England.
  
• The dates of the closest matches range from about 1327 to about 1510, with most of them ranging about 1420 to about 1465.
  

The folio numbers are in the later style that started to become popular around the middle of the 15th century and which is essentially similar to our modern numbers.

• The closest matches to the folio numbers are in manuscripts from Bavaria, England, the Netherlands, France, and one that is from Italy and England, but might have been foliated and bound in England. The almost-close matches have a similar distribution.
  
• The date range of the closest matches is c. 1420 to c. 1541. I will create a map to show the clusters when I find time to write this up with paleographic examples.
  

Note that foliation and quire numbers are difficult to date because they are frequently added some time after a manuscript was created—it must be done paleographically. To overcome this challenge, whenever possible, I tried to find comparison numbers WITHIN THE MAIN TEXT, since these can be more reliably dated than foliation that may have been added later.


Some observations:

• The date range suggested by the samples is consistent with paleographic expectations (no surprises so far).
  
• It might be significant that the style of the quire numbers is not particularly widespread.
  
• The style of the folio numbers is of interest because their geographical distribution turned out to be consistent with the style of the VMS zodiac figures, almost entirely from the Holy Roman Empire and the area around Paris/Belgium/Netherlands, with maybe one or two uncertain ones from northern Italy.
  

Note that this is ongoing research. By the time I can find time to write it up, I will probably have more samples, which may shift things slightly, but what is coming out is pretty consistent so far.

The VMs shows signs of use (which means of course the user did understand the text) far into the second half of the 15th c. (quire numbering, marginalia, 'non-Voynichese' script and other things).In my opinion this period ends with the wider use of printed books, which helps us in having an idea what the VMs was. There seems to be a gap in  the 16th c., if not some of f. 1r belongs to this c. I think the foliation belongs to the 17th c., either to Prague after the reappearence of the ms. or even to Rome and Kircher
-

(13-03-2019, 08:40 AM)Helmut Winkler Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The VMs shows signs of use (which means of course the user did understand the text)

With pictures like those, I'm sure they were just reading it "for the articles".

Seriously though, the imagery is extensive enough to permit use without understanding the text, so I don't think this is a necessary conclusion (though certainly an option).

I would like to ask about these signs of use.
From what I know, the most worn page of the Voynich is f1r, which makes sense just from handling/opening the book.
Are there other pages within the Voynich that show more wear than others?
If the book was owned by someone who understood the text and used it, I might expect certain inner pages to be more worn out than others, especially around the edges where fingers may have held it open : regularly used "recipes", perhaps, or regularly consulted periods of the zodiac section, or even significant spiritual/metaphysical passages a reader may have lingered over.
You can check this with any book you've really read and used: some pages show more wear than others, and this is even visible from the edges when the book is closed. 
If You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is the only page that shows a lot of wear, and the rest shows evenly low/no levels of wear, this would on the contrary suggest later owners who did not understand the text, or did not use the book.
Of course, if the edges have been trimmed, this would perhaps cancel out the effects I have just mentioned.

Evidently the Rosettes were refolded to avoid the worn edge of the previous fold getting more deteriorated.

For illustration purposes: Beinecke's images of the head, tail and fore-edge of Ms 408:




The foldouts and their refoldings/rebindings do make these sections more difficult to evaluate from the edge view.
Based on these images it seems to me that the traces of use are consistent with what can be seen in a book that has been used. The fore-edge shows darker marks which could be caused by oils from fingers holding it open.
Also in used books the beginning half is typically more worn than the end one. The initial section (big plants) appears more worn that the last section (Q20), but that may just be an impression.

You Emma completely right. There was one teacher which shared his teachings with the three apprentices...well that's mean book was rewritten.So must be few more books,several knowledge keepers and some folovers in our days. To proof that just read first four pages )))
Thanks for your post!

@ Koen

I don't think we really understand a single part of the ms. from the imagery, there are only parallels to contemporary imagery, which show that it fits into contemporary culture_I mean we have a zodiac, but I don't think there is a understanding of the what and why and something like the bathing part is not intellegible at all 

@ VViews

The main sign of use are the marginalia, which should have been written in the generation after the Voynich author-
Parchment is quite robust, signs of physical use are not so common (there ae exceptions like the German Krönungsevangeliar, where you can see where the Emperors kissed the Gospels), the Voynich exceptions are 1r and 116v, which could mean it was not bound for a long time and some stains and there are trimmings (I don't think someone has ever made a list of the obvious trimmings on the lower margins)

(13-03-2019, 03:54 PM)Helmut Winkler Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.@ Koen

I don't think we really understand a single part of the ms. from the imagery, there are only parallels to contemporary imagery, which show that it fits into contemporary culture_I mean we have a zodiac, but I don't think there is a understanding of the what and why and something like the bathing part is not intellegible at all 

@ VViews

The main sign of use are the marginalia, which should have been written in the generation after the Voynich author-
Parchment is quite robust, signs of physical use are not so common (there ae exceptions like the German Krönungsevangeliar, where you can see where the Emperors kissed the Gospels), the Voynich exceptions are 1r and 116v, which could mean it was not bound for a long time and some stains and there are trimmings (I don't think someone has ever made a list of the obvious trimmings on the lower margins)

Although we may not agree on what the imagery shows, i think it can be assumed that those who put it together would know and therefore would possibly be able to make use of the visuals without decoding the text.

I think the vms was likely kept looseleaf for awhile, in separate packets. There current binding appears to be different than the intended ordering in more than one place.