The Voynich Ninja

(25-02-2016, 10:27 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I wasn't too worried about the page number myself. The drawing could be part of a set of drawings that had been separately numbered.

Which makes one wonder, how many were there?

Numbering
Having seen some ciphered text and some deliberately badly or otherwise altered handwriting i came to the idea that the page numbering does not tell me much:
Most of the pages in hermetic & cipher manuscripts are numbered with special signs, or in the same hand.  Based on that, i think the numbers are not original. Although it could tell us something about the history of the MS, i do not think this is relevant from the text analysis point of view. 

Italan Page
Is it a bit of a coiincidence that if you google his name, you end up at the photocopy company of salani-fabrizio ?
-> You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Anyway, any Voynich text analyser can see that every aspect of the text is wrong and does not represent the image of all other lines of text, and therefore must be a falsification.

.........................

(24-02-2016, 08:14 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....
In folio, a philosophical old handwritten book (or written in old style) with illustrations, and a copy [font=Times New Roman]written on parchment  of (by?) Mathes Dörrer, unbound, and not fully collated, and of which Mr. Haydn has removed a few leaves by order of his majesty[/font]
...

I think it is a pretty good idea to identify the 'in folio' entry with the VMs.

I think a copy on parchment can only mean a copy before 1500 , the name of the scribe would have been in the colophon

I think the MD copy means that someone in the  15th c. could read  the ms. we call now the VMs, which means it has content, is not a hoax and not a ciphre

I would translate the ' welchs nit gantz beysamen' as 'it is not complete'.

Thanks Helmut. I have the printed transcription of the entry, not the original handwriting. Assuming that it is accurate, I am not sure how to parse the sentence:

Ein philosophisch alt geschriben buch mit figurn und ein copey uff pergamen geschriben vom Mathes Dörrer, ungebunden, welchs nit gantz beysamen und herr Haiden auß bevelch I. Mt: etliche bletter davon genommen.

I have three main uncertainties:

1. Does copey really mean 'copy' in the modern sense of the word? The catalogue clearly indicates one entry, so there should not be two books (original and copy).
2. Is it: (Ein philo..... figurn) und (ein copey.... geschriben) or:
   Ein .... buch mit (figurn und ein copey) uff pergamen ....
3. Does 'vom' specifically refer back to geschriben? This is how I would read it, but it implies that the author is known: Mathes Dörrer. It could also be that he made 'the copy'.

Mr. Haiden is well known, but I found nothing about Mathes Dörrer. It could also be Dürer, Derrer or possibly other versions....

(26-02-2016, 09:36 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Thanks Helmut. I have the printed transcription of the entry, not the original handwriting. Assuming that it is accurate, I am not sure how to parse the sentence:

Ein philosophisch alt geschriben buch mit figurn und ein copey uff pergamen geschriben vom Mathes Dörrer, ungebunden, welchs nit gantz beysamen und herr Haiden auß bevelch I. Mt: etliche bletter davon genommen.

I have three main uncertainties:

1. Does copey really mean 'copy' in the modern sense of the word? The catalogue clearly indicates one entry, so there should not be two books (original and copy).
2. Is it: (Ein philo..... figurn) und (ein copey.... geschriben) or:
   Ein .... buch mit (figurn und ein copey) uff pergamen ....
3. Does 'vom' specifically refer back to geschriben? This is how I would read it, but it implies that the author is known: Mathes Dörrer. It could also be that he made 'the copy'.

Mr. Haiden is well known, but I found nothing about Mathes Dörrer. It could also be Dürer, Derrer or possibly other versions....

Good questions, René.

Even in English, when we say a copy of, it's not always clear whether we mean, "a page of" (an original copy) or "a copied version of" (a later copy) and it's difficult to interpret here as well.

"A philosophical book in old[-style] handwriting, with illustrations" and after that I'm as unsure as you are of exactly what is meant by "copey". It almost sounds as if the whole thing has been copied, by Mathes Dörrer, onto parchment (unbound) and is not completely together (does it mean it's not a complete copy?) and Haiden also has some pages, but it's really not clear... and your point about the entry being for two books rather than one makes sense if there were a full copy included.


One possibility (just brainstorming here)... Could the entry mean that there is one book (the original?) in the catalog and the one by Dörrer is known to exist but is not part of the collection, just as the pages in the possession of Haiden are mentioned but are not included with the original "philosophical" book?

(26-02-2016, 09:36 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Thanks Helmut. I have the printed transcription of the entry, not the original handwriting. Assuming that it is accurate, I am not sure how to parse the sentence:

Ein philosophisch alt geschriben buch mit figurn und ein copey uff pergamen geschriben vom Mathes Dörrer, ungebunden, welchs nit gantz beysamen und herr Haiden auß bevelch I. Mt: etliche bletter davon genommen.

I have three main uncertainties:

1. Does copey really mean 'copy' in the modern sense of the word? The catalogue clearly indicates one entry, so there should not be two books (original and copy).
2. Is it: (Ein philo..... figurn) und (ein copey.... geschriben) or:
   Ein .... buch mit (figurn und ein copey) uff pergamen ....
3. Does 'vom' specifically refer back to geschriben? This is how I would read it, but it implies that the author is known: Mathes Dörrer. It could also be that he made 'the copy'.

Mr. Haiden is well known, but I found nothing about Mathes Dörrer. It could also be Dürer, Derrer or possibly other versions....

My (German) view: 
1) yes, it means copy
2) separate book from copy; note the adjective 'ungebunden' (unbound) referring to the copy ( in my opinion). 
3) i'd read 'vom' as in (written) by and only referring to the copy

(26-02-2016, 09:36 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Thanks Helmut. I have the printed transcription of the entry, not the original handwriting. Assuming that it is accurate, I am not sure how to parse the sentence:

Ein philosophisch alt geschriben buch mit figurn und ein copey uff pergamen geschriben vom Mathes Dörrer, ungebunden, welchs nit gantz beysamen und herr Haiden auß bevelch I. Mt: etliche bletter davon genommen.

I have three main uncertainties:

1. Does copey really mean 'copy' in the modern sense of the word? The catalogue clearly indicates one entry, so there should not be two books (original and copy).
2. Is it: (Ein philo..... figurn) und (ein copey.... geschriben) or:
   Ein .... buch mit (figurn und ein copey) uff pergamen ....
3. Does 'vom' specifically refer back to geschriben? This is how I would read it, but it implies that the author is known: Mathes Dörrer. It could also be that he made 'the copy'.

Mr. Haiden is well known, but I found nothing about Mathes Dörrer. It could also be Dürer, Derrer or possibly other versions....

1) copey means copy in the sense of German Abschrift, cp. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. s.v. Herkunft.  You find original and copy under one entry even in modern archive repertories

2) I would say it is '(Ein philo..... figurn) und (ein copey.... geschriben)', at least  I would read it in this way.
Sentence converted with [] my additions
Ein philosophisch buch, alt geschriben, mit figurn,  ungebunden, welchs nit gantz beysamen und herr Haiden [hat] auß bevelch I. Mt: etliche bletter davon genommen und  [as addition] ein copey uff pergamen geschriben vom Mathes Dörrer

3) I think so too, vom  refers back to geschriben. I think that MD is the scribe of the copy, not the author of the original ms., , the name of the author should come after 'Ein philosophisch buch',  most likely he  named himself in the colophon of the copy or there was a librarians note.

 I don't think the copy was contemporary to the Rudolphine inventory, but older, I really can't see a copy on parchment much after 1500. That means of course one would have to look for MD somewhere else but in the Rudolphine circle, for example in the Hapsburg chanceries or university registers of the late 15th/early 16th c.

(26-02-2016, 09:36 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.... but I found nothing about Mathes Dörrer. It could also be Dürer, Derrer or possibly other versions....

The most obvious idea is the Nuremberg Patrician family  Derrer (Dörrer) von Unterbürg, which seems to have had extensive connections to Bohemia and the Hapsburg possessions in the East (and very likely to Italy), but I can't find a MD in the most obvious places, but that does not mean much in my opinion.

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

Geschlechterbuch Getty Museum Ms. Ludwig XIII 12

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.&
query=YToyOntzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjtzOjY6ImRlcnJlciI7czoxMzoiZGVwYXJ0bWVudC5pZCI7YToxOntpOjA7aTo2O319

online -  Recherche Stadtarchiv Nürnberg

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

Just an idea, I don't think much of it myself

I looked into this thread just to move it (which I did) , and found that it is a very interesting thread!

Strange thing is that early 20th c. fake indeed!

I remember reading somewhere about that issue with Dorrer (was it in Nick's blog?) and even remember myself googling after this Dorrer, with no results.

I agree that the statement describes an "old book with drawings" (not by Dorrer) and a "copy thereof" (by Dorrer).

Now, does the "unbound and not complete" refer only to the copy or to the original book as well?

I do not think that this entry refers to the VMS though. While "alt geschrieben" might indeed have been used to describe anything which they could not understand, "philosophisch" is quite more narrow. Of course, this term had a wider meaning in those times than it has now, but is not the VMS rather "herbal and astrological", at least at a glance? Even if the 15th c. (?) copyist could read and understand the book, as Helmut suggests, - while Kircher (though allegedly) already could not, - then how the guys at Rudolph's knew that the book was philosophical?