The Voynich Ninja

(08-04-2024, 11:04 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Here, we just need to remember the famous 10% (it that's the right number) of manuscripts that have survived and come down to us, combined with the famous parable of the guy looking for his lost keys under a street lantern.

It's a bit of a pessimistic train of thought, but then again there are still many items that are not yet publicly available, so something may still turn up some day.

That 10% was actually 90% lost and it came from the August 2023 Hyperallergic article You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. for which I posted You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. last year. The percentage quoted in the article originally came from the August 2022 Hyperallergic article You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. that quoted the study You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. published in February 2022 in Science (abstract only, subscription required to read the study). I haven't tried finding a free copy of the study elsewhere yet.

(08-04-2024, 11:41 AM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.From Koen's list on his website there are many possibly relevant manuscripts that have not been digitised and so not studied by Voynich researchers. I have been contemplating whether it would be worth me putting in the time and effort to track down these and other relevant manuscripts to see if I can find better matches. This is a daunting task, so I am not sure if will explore it, but it could potentially by very useful.

It feels like ages ago now, when in fact it has been less than a year, but I did start a thread to list online manuscripts and manuscript repositories and then stopped it when I realized I wasn't going to be able to edit as I went. It is still my intention to replace that long ago post with two new ones, one for manuscripts and incunabula broken out by related VM sections (about 100 so far) and one for manuscript repositories (14 so far with about twice as many more to add), both of which I have currently saved as drafts. To create both lists, I have been doing my own internet research plus also adding in ones previously shared on this site as well as those shared in the VM blogs (including Koen's). But it's a daunting task and I have a long way to go in completing them and I have SO many distractions here, not the least of which is VM Day prep. But I promise I will get them posted someday. In the meantime, I'd be happy to private message what I have so far to anyone who is interested.

(08-04-2024, 04:15 PM)merrimacga Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.That 10% was actually 90% lost and it came from the August 2023 Hyperallergic article You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. for which I posted You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. last year.

I'm glad that I remembered correctly. Thanks!

While it would be wrong to speculate on what exactly could be found in those lost items, it is always good to remember it, and also not make the other incorrect assumption, namely on what could NOT be found in those lost items.

A trivial remark, obviously, but it means that any striking resemblance between an illustration in the Voynich MS and another suriviving MS does not imply a direct or even close relationship between the two.

I've been around long enough to remember the time that we were still searching for the first zodiac emblem including a human with a crossbow. Bradley Schaefer referred to this in his Voynich MS paper published in Sky and Telescope, decades ago now.

And then there were a few years when we had exactly one, found in the course of the Austrian TV documentary.
Well, it wasn't discovered. The historian that showed it to me long knew it existed, but he was not aware that this was a point of interest for the Voynich MS untill he was confronted with that observation.

And now, as a result of ongoing digitisation projects and the searches of Darren Worley, Marco Ponzi and JK Petersen (the latter independently), we have dozens.

With the 'cosmos' illustration found by Ellie Velinska we are essentially still at one (1). There is not enough information to draw very specific conclusions about a relationship.

With the Lauber workshop it is a bit different, and a bit the same.
For that workshop we know that they would (also) use model books.

With Koen's searches for the mutant lobster, fortunately, several examples could be found.
For the Gemini pose, at least some examples were found outside of that workshop, IIRC.

Actually, the original cosmic "discovery" referenced two sources: BNF Fr. 565 and Harley 334, and the second source has more than one cosmic illustration. Harley 334 also has a "mermaid and friends" illustration. Both sources were made in Paris.

Lauber also has two mermaid illustrations: a mermaid with sea monsters, and a mermaid with fish. 

No single source of evidence is definitive on its own, but the collective weight of evidence, each example with its own sphere of relevance, helps to progressively focus the historical investigation of the VMs illustrations.

I have been reading Koen's important and relevant posts relating to the Zodiac illustrations as I am curious as to whether the Voynich zodiac pages were copied wholesale from an astrological manuscript produced by or linked indirectly to Diebold Lauber. If such a source really existed then it would constitute what Nick Pelling has called a block-paradigm and would therefore be invaluable in decipherment, if such a source has survived to the present day, which given how much has been lost may be doubtful. 

Koen says: "Nick prefers a model where the VM images were copied from an unknown Alsatian calendar or similar document." This seems to be the most likely scenario.

As part of reading Koen's research it has also brought me back to the pre-1430 dating claim that Koen has made for the Voynich zodiac drawings with I have been doubtful of.

In Koen's post entitled "Gemini: type, Alsace or Willehalm?"

He says "What this suggests is that the VM painter was trying to faithfully follow an example, even though the required techniques surpassed his skill."

Koen quotes Nick Pelling who says "what I’ve said for more than a decade is that the Voynich’s zodiac roundel drawings appear to me to have been copied (albeit fairly ineptly) en masse from a single (probably German) calendar of the late fourteenth or early fifteenth century."

Koen says "Nick has been early to notice that the Zodiac figures are somewhat different than the other human figures in the manuscript. In my own research as well, they always surfaced as the odd ones out. Hence, it is very, very likely that they were copied from a different source than whatever the rest of the VM is."

He says "compare the VM 'dark Aries' bottom right with Hartlieb’s version. Once again, an indication that the VM painter attempted to imitate a style of shading above his skill level."

He also says "If you want it to have been made after 1430, then this also implies that the Archer figure was copied without much thought, in an extremely specific dress type which would have been obsolete and old fashioned by then."

It seems very likely to me that the Zodiac illustrations were copied without much thought or care. I don't think the author cared greatly for pretty illustrations and was more interested in the practical use of the document. I seems unlikely to me that they cared greatly that the illustrations were consistent with contemporary fashion.

If the VM painter was trying to faithfully follow an example then that would mean that he was copying an earlier illustration. If the Voynich author(s) did that with all the zodiac illustrations then any Voynich dating based on the zodiac clothing could be potentially irrelevant. If we say that the Voynich author(s) copied the zodiac drawings from a source exactly without altering them then we may be able to argue about the date of the source on the basis of clothing, however this tells us nothing about the date at which the illustrations were copied. In addition it is worth noting that if we used the pre-1430 dating of the clothing claim when dating all manuscripts then we would have incorrectly dated the later Lauber manuscripts. So, whilst it may be nice to narrow down the dating range for the illustrations it doesn't seem that we can really do so.

I must say that my views have (luckily) evolved a bit in the six years since I wrote that post. I used to very much think of the VM artists as mindless copying drones, but I no longer think that view is tenable. All parts of the MS reveal creative activity.

Pre-modern artists had a very strong tendency to update clothing to their own expectations. The message of an image was important, not the historical accuracy. And in order to convey that message (e.g. "a rich woman"), using clothing styles of their own time was essential.

I do stand by the idea that the Zodiac icons were likely one set from a pre-Lauber source. There is nothing in the VM indicating post-1430 fashion.

I tend to think it was created at about the same time as or shortly after the Council of Constance 1414-1418, where scribes from myriad regions and countries converged, communicated and copied from one another. I have independent research (fitting data to my theories - not always a bad thing, at least it’s not a contraindication) but I’ve noticed others hone in on this council as well. It’s therefore what I call a “placeholder” hypothesis, subject to overhaul but of special interest to me.

I might have said this before but i still like the date of 1419 because of a nymph on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
From wiki
In 1419, the Grimaldi family purchased Monaco from the Crown of Aragon and became the official and undisputed rulers of "the Rock of Monaco"

Monaco Flag (red and white)


I see the arms of nymphs as telling of their history, this one has no arms per se so I take it as the year it last changed hands. (It obviously did have history though)