The Voynich Ninja

(03-12-2025, 12:16 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I'm not looking for guesses but for historical information.

While we wait for that, here is an example of a You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. from the 1400s.

The catalog entry says that it includes "an early version of the A text of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.", a Medieval English poem. But it is still not a draft of the same, I suppose.

All the best, --stolfi

And here is another You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. from the Germany, 1400s, "Medical and astronomical texts (MS B.27)", 139 folios.  "Some of the tracts in the volume appear to be entirely unknown"

All the best, --stolfi

(03-12-2025, 12:08 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Again, writing directly to vellum would cost more than writing a draft first; because big mistakes and changes of mind are unavoidable when writing a new book, and mistakes on vellum are hard to fix.  Possibly requiring discarding a half-filled bifolio.  Thus the fact that he was not rich only makes it more likely that he wrote a draft first.

If he was educated, but had no money, maybe he also didn't have a lot of common sense? I'm not sure what an obviously educated and maybe even well travelled, but poor person in the Middle Ages would be. No matter what the manuscript was for, there was considerable effort put into making it by the author, even if the scribe was someone else. This educated and willing to devote considerable time to this project person didn't even have money for vellum, but did have a lot of time and vigor.

According to your observations, there are various mistakes in the manuscript, like mismatched lines and miscalculated drawings, and no-one discarded these folios. Also, for what I know fixing mistakes on vellum is not very hard at all, you just have to scrape them off with a knife or pumice and write over. It appears, this was never done in the Voynich Manuscript though, why? Maybe just no-one really cared? Maybe to the original author the mistakes weren't a huge concern?

Overall, a lot of your arguments appear to common sense and efficiency, but I don't know why one would assume common sense and efficiency based approach for the author of the Voynich MS.

(03-12-2025, 12:08 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.No, I did not need "Author different from Scribe" for that.  In my "Chinese Theory", the Author was probably European, or at least not "Chinese" -- because he invented the alphabetic Voynichese script to record the "Chinese" source texts.   The draft was in Voynichese.  Therefore, even if he scribed the vellum himself, the fact that the styles and decoration are European still does not imply that the language and source material are European.

Your argument, if I remember it correctly, was that the Author did witness a lot of oriental imagery and designs, but couldn't properly explain/sketch it for the scribe, because the author was not able to sketch well enough. As the result the scribe, who could draw, replaced all the imagery with European stock designs. If the Author was the Scribe, then obviously the Author could draw reasonably well, at least inanimate objects, and could then draw original oriental designs and leave unambiguous evidence of the oriental origin in the manuscript. Wasn't your argument something like this?

(03-12-2025, 12:08 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I recall a quote that, adjusting by estimated cost of living, vellum would cost the equivalent of US$2 per folio.  But I don't know how that varies with size and quality. 

I assume $2 was for normal quality vellum, not for poor quality scraps or leftovers?

(03-12-2025, 09:57 AM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Your argument, if I remember it correctly, was that the Author did witness a lot of oriental imagery and designs, but couldn't properly explain/sketch it for the scribe, because the author was not able to sketch well enough.

Nonono, it's not like that, not at all.

The Chinese Origin Theory says that the Author was an "European" who lived for several years in "China".  Enough to have some command of the spoken language.  But he never cared or managed to learn their writing system.  He found out that they had many books about medicine, herbal remedies, and astronomy/astrology, very different from those that circulated in Europe.  He decided to take them with him at the end of his stay.   But he could not read the books, and copying the native script would have been pointless.  So he asked the local scholars which were the most important books on each subject, and paid someone to read them aloud, while he wrote them down in an alphabetic script that he devised for the purpose. 

Surely there were many terms and expressions that he did not understand, but he wrote them as they were dictated, hoping that, back home, he (or some doctor who might buy those transcripts) would eventually decipher their meaning.

As for the figures, he must have copied freehand the diagrams of Cosmo and Zodiac, and the organs and ducts of Bio; probably omitting any details that he recognized as decoration.   The illustrations of Pharma should be clean copies of his sketches, which he may have copied from the source book for that section, or obtained in some other way.  For the Herbal, he had only the text, not the illustrations; either because the source book did not have them, or he did not have time to copy them.

Back in Europe, he organized those notes and had them transcribed to vellum, either by himself or by a hired Scribe (I believe the latter, but it does not matter).  All the decorative elements, including nymphs hats pools canopies etc. were added at that time.

I put "European" in quotes because he may have been Arab, Jew, Turkish, Amenian, etc -- anything but "Chinese"; but was in Europe when the scribing to vellum took place.

And I put "China" in quotes because it could have been any place where they spoke a monosyllabic language.

So, the COT as per above is independent of the "The Scribe Was Not the Author" Theory.  And independent also from the Massive Retracing  Theory.

All the best, --stolfi

I just saw the title of this thread. "Cerebellum to vellum" would be a great title for an autocopying paper 

(03-12-2025, 03:06 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Back in Europe, he organized those notes and had them transcribed to vellum, either by himself or by a hired Scribe (I believe the latter, but it does not matter).  All the decorative elements, including nymphs hats pools canopies etc. were added at that time.

Looks like I keep forgetting the sequence of events here. Each time I think about this I find it absolutely improbable that no specifically oriental images or designs would have ended up in the manuscript if made this way, so I feel the need to fabricate some additional explanation for this, but we already had this discussion and to you there is nothing strange about this at all.

(03-12-2025, 03:53 PM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Looks like I keep forgetting the sequence of events here. Each time I think about this I find it absolutely improbable that no specifically oriental images or designs would have ended up in the manuscript if made this way, so I feel the need to fabricate some additional explanation for this, but we already had this discussion and to you there is nothing strange about this at all.

We can discuss the Chinese Origin Theory (and whether there are any "oriental images") elsewhere if you will.  But the point here is that the COT is completely independent of the The Scribe Was Not The Author Theory, as well as of the There Was A Draft Theory (and its opposite, the Brain To Vellum Theory).  Neither needs the other or is made significantly more likely or unlikely by the other.

And, again, the COT is also independent of the Massive Retracing Theory.


All the best, --stolfi

(03-12-2025, 04:20 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But the point here is that the COT is completely independent of the The Scribe Was Not The Author Theory, as well as of the There Was A Draft Theory (and its opposite, the Brain To Vellum Theory).  Neither needs the other or is made significantly more likely or unlikely by the other.

And, again, the COT is also independent of the Massive Retracing Theory.

I find all these highly related, observations you make in one certainly can affect the other, after all we are talking about a single final object. As far as I understand, you are fine with at least some brain to vellum items, like the designs and embellishments that the scribe added in COT, is this correct? At the same time you consider the mistakes and mishaps a sign of MRT, which also could be alternatively explained as brain to vellum mishaps. Also, there are some items in the original layout of the manuscript, like visible misalignment of certain lines, that you consider mistakes, but that weren't fixed, so maybe fixing mistakes wasn't a priority for the author (regardless of whether the author was the scribe or not). I think all of this could be just as easily explained by a person creating the manuscript directly on the vellum and not caring at all about possible mistakes and bad outcomes. In this case the choice of bad quality vellum could be deliberate, if all this was intended more as an experimental pet project and not something that the author intended to use in the future. And the choice of vellum over paper was just to keep the draft durable, if the project was expected to take a long time. Maybe the Voynich manuscript that we have is the draft of the Voynich manuscript that the author envisioned.

(03-12-2025, 04:40 PM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.you are fine with at least some brain to vellum items, like the designs and embellishments that the scribe added in COT

Yes, but independently of COT.  Even if the contents turns out to be strictly a product of European culture, in Latin or some other European language, I still believe that the the nymphs etc in Bio and Zodiac, and most of each plant in the Herbal, were decoration with no semantic contents, added by the Scribe.

Quote:At the same time you consider the mistakes and mishaps a sign of MRT, which also could be alternatively explained as brain to vellum mishaps.

The original scribe (whether he was the Author or not) had to know the Voynichese alphabet, and knew what he wanted to draw in each figure.  I take as evidence for MRT certain mistakes and mishaps that imply ignorance of the alphabet by whoever traced those glyphs.  Or ignorance of the intended figures, e.g. mistaking a nymphs leg for a barrel, or an illogical half-island in a Bio pond.  I don't see how these mistakes could be explained by the Brain-To-Vellum Theory.

Quote:Also, there are some items in the original layout of the manuscript, like visible misalignment of certain lines, that you consider mistakes, but that weren't fixed.

I know of one such case, namely f34r.  I think that case is strong evidence against both Brain-To-Vellum and Scribe-Was-Author.  Independently of the COT and the MRT.

Why wasn't that mistake corrected?  

First, perhaps the Author did not notice it until after the Scribe was paid and gone.  

Anyway, correcting that error would be messy: it would require scraping away the last 6 lines of either half, and re-writing them over the damaged vellum, with spacing that matched the other half.   The result surely would have looked awful.

And anyway the mistake was not that serious.  Anyone who could read Voynichese would know that lines continued across figures, and thus he would still be able to read that text, maybe with only a tad of confusion near the bottom.  So the Author probably chose to put up with that mistake.

Quote:I think all of this could be just as easily explained by a person creating the manuscript directly on the vellum and not caring at all about possible mistakes and bad outcomes.

I can't make sense of this.   Unless you mean that the contents is gibberish, is that your take?  

Given that the Author decided to put the text to vellum, as nicely formatted as possible, he must have cared about mistakes.  At least gross ones, like forgetting a word or sentence, prescribing the herb for the wrong disease, etc.  I take absence of such major corrections as evidence against Brain-To-Vellum.  Namely, as evidence that that the Author first wrote a draft, corrected all such errors on it, and then just had the draft copied to vellum (by himself or by someone else, it does not matter).

(03-12-2025, 04:40 PM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In this case the choice of bad quality vellum could be deliberate, if all this was intended more as an experimental pet project and

I don't understand what you mean by "experimental pet project".  My estimate is that just the writing itself -- excluding research and thinking -- took ~1 hour per page, or at least ~250 hours.  If the Author himself was the Scribe, and he wrote nonstop 2 hours each day, 5 days per week, that would be about 6 months.  If he worked 8 hours per day, it would be more than one month of full-time work.   Can we call that a "pet project"?  Was Newton's Principia an "experimental pet project"? 

Quote:not something that the author intended to use in the future. And the choice of vellum over paper was just to keep the draft durable, if the project was expected to take a long time.

Isn't that a contradiction? 

Paper can last decades or centuries, as long as it is kept dry.  See those two manuscript paper books from the 1400s that I posted recently to another thread.   Marci's letter was on paper and it is still fine after ~400 years, even though it is supposed to have been attached to the VMS for all that time.

Quote:Maybe the Voynich manuscript that we have is the draft of the Voynich manuscript that the author envisioned.

It is not an unreasonable theory, if one considers the quality of the scribing and illustrations.  

But, again, it would make no sense to write a draft on vellum. 

And, if it was a draft, it is not clear what was the point of adding the decoration to every page.  

I could understand if the Scribe (Author or not) would have wanted to draw first a "galley proof" (not just a draft) of a Zodiac diagram, with all the nymphs and stars, to plan the placement of the nymphs so that they would all fit inside the two bands, equally spaced.   But the current VMS is not that: the spacing is all crooked, and on a few pages the last 4-5 nymphs had to be drawn atop the diagram.  

Another possibility is the Scribe (distinct from Author) creating a few pages with the nymphs and other decoration, for the Author to approve before proceeding with the rest.  But not a whole book...

Finally, I insist that it would be insane for any author to write any book of that size directly from brain to vellum, without first writing a draft and heavily editing and rewriting it.  That is not how we do things -- even today, even for short papers or presentations.

All the best, --stolfi

(03-12-2025, 09:39 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The original scribe (whether he was the Author or not) had to know the Voynichese alphabet, and knew what he wanted to draw in each figure.  I take as evidence for MRT certain mistakes and mishaps that imply ignorance of the alphabet by whoever traced those glyphs.  Or ignorance of the intended figures, e.g. mistaking a nymphs leg for a barrel, or an illogical half-island in a Bio pond.  I don't see how these mistakes could be explained by the Brain-To-Vellum Theory.

Note that "imply ignorance" is your interpretation, not some universal truth.

(03-12-2025, 09:39 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Quote:I think all of this could be just as easily explained by a person creating the manuscript directly on the vellum and not caring at all about possible mistakes and bad outcomes.

I can't make sense of this.   Unless you mean that the contents is gibberish, is that your take?  

Given that the Author decided to put the text to vellum, as nicely formatted as possible, he must have cared about mistakes.  At least gross ones, like forgetting a word or sentence, prescribing the herb for the wrong disease, etc.  I take absence of such major corrections as evidence against Brain-To-Vellum.  Namely, as evidence that that the Author first wrote a draft, corrected all such errors on it, and then just had the draft copied to vellum (by himself or by someone else, it does not matter).

My take here is that the Voynich Manuscript, as we know it, could be a draft. Written on cheap vellum for some reason. And since we have no idea about the text, maybe the mistakes in the text are corrected or highlighted. The fact that we can't see corrections doesn't mean there are no corrections. Maybe each Sh means "ignore this piece and skip to next ch", who knows.

(03-12-2025, 09:39 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I don't understand what you mean by "experimental pet project".  My estimate is that just the writing itself -- excluding research and thinking -- took ~1 hour per page, or at least ~250 hours.  If the Author himself was the Scribe, and he wrote nonstop 2 hours each day, 5 days per week, that would be about 6 months.  If he worked 8 hours per day, it would be more than one month of full-time work.   Can we call that a "pet project"?  Was Newton's Principia an "experimental pet project"?

Studying the Voynich Manuscript is a perfect example of an experimental pet project. Some people have full sites and blogs dedicated to the Voynich Manuscript and spend years or decades maintaining these sites. I don't think many of them would call this their profession though? And I think by the very nature it's experimental.

(03-12-2025, 09:39 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Quote:not something that the author intended to use in the future. And the choice of vellum over paper was just to keep the draft durable, if the project was expected to take a long time.

Isn't that a contradiction? 

Not necessarily. Suppose, the author was traveling and keeping this draft with her/him and working on it. In the future after finishing the work and then maybe hiring professional scribes and artists to create the final book, the draft would no longer be of use, other than memorabilia.

(03-12-2025, 09:39 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Paper can last decades or centuries, as long as it is kept dry.  See those two manuscript paper books from the 1400s that I posted recently to another thread.   Marci's letter was on paper and it is still fine after ~400 years, even though it is supposed to have been attached to the VMS for all that time.

Well, if the Author was traveling the world, maybe keeping it dry was not an option. Maybe a bit weathered appearance of the Voynich Manuscript is not from later neglect, but its original state from the time it was being created.

Suppose you started writing a book on paper while traveling and it got soaked during a dangerous river crossing and you lost two months worth of work. What would you do?