| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 298 online users.
» 15 Member(s) | 281 Guest(s)
Bing, Google, Aga Tentakulus, Bluetoes101, cvetkakocj@rogers.com, Gregor, Lissu, Mark Knowles, petervank, Pirou, stenog, stormwarden
|
|
|
| The missing folios 59-64 |
|
Posted by: ReneZ - 24-02-2016, 08:14 PM - Forum: Physical material
- Replies (39)
|
 |
Sometime after Voynich's death Theodore Petersen got a set of photostats of the Voynich MS to work with. In 1935 he wrote to E.L.Voynich (ELV) that there seemed to be some folios missing in his copy, and could he please get copies of folios 59r to 66v.
She answered that this was not entirely possible, because folios 59 to 64 were actually missing in the MS.
Petersen then pointed out that in Newbold's book there was a list of missing folios which did *not* include this range.
This prompted ELV and Anne Nill to search, and they reported that somewhere in Voynich's correspondence there was a collation of the MS that equally did not include these folios.
The same discrepancy was noted again in one of the modern Voynich MS fora, and again the conclusion was that Newbold had probably made a mistake. The correspondence of the 1930's isn't accessible online, so largely unknown.
The case is really settled by a codicological observation made by conservators looking at the MS in November 2014, namely that it would have been impossible to remove such a stack of bifolios from the MS without compromising the stability of the book. The present stitching (which is centuries old) was certainly made with the folios already missing.
So, one point settled, Newbold's table was wrong.
But it still leaves some interesting questions.
Note that the folio numbers have been written on the MS with the foldouts completely folded in, which causes them to appear in several cases on the verso side of the folios. It looks as if this foliation was added to the bound codex. (But this is not necessarily so).
Whoever added the folio numbers must have known that there was a gap of exacly 3 bifolios between 58 and 65. The number 3 is not at all logical, as it makes it the first quire in the MS that does not have 4 but 5 bifolios.
It could not have been a guess. (Most of the other missing folio numbers could have been guesses).
There is really no other option than that the now missing folios were there for him to see (and probably add his foliation).
All of this means that the folio numbers were added *before* the MS was bound in its present form.
Now onto speculation.....
Were the numbers added to a bound codex, or to a loose pile of leaves? That second option doesn't seem sensible for several reasons, for example the above-mentioned point that the numbers were added on the foldouts when they were folded in.
Now if the MS was already bound before, while the presently missing pages were still there, in this earlier binding the folios were equally in the wrong order, as far as we can tell from all the evidence.
That would mean that the MS could have been (re-)bound even three times....
If we don't like that idea, an alternative is that the foliation was added right at the time of the first binding of the MS, while the correct page order was already unknown, and several of the folios were removed at the last minute.
While that seems a bit contrived, this largely fits the description of one of the books in Rudolf's Kunstkammer catalogue, which says in my tentative translation:
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]
Like I said, this is speculation. What is certain is that the foliator must have known that folios 59-64 (and 109-110) existed, and the foliation was added before the present binding.
|
|
|
| First Glyph Words |
|
Posted by: don of tallahassee - 20-02-2016, 05:09 PM - Forum: Analysis of the text
- No Replies
|
 |
Hello folks.
I thought I'd offer something different...a glyph word story.
It may not mean anything to you. Maybe it will. You decide. Maybe it is just a story.
First Glyph Words
Here's how to read your first words in the Voynich Manuscript in the glyph text.
Not deconstruct - read.
There aren't many that read rather than deconstruct.
Turn to folio 16r. Look at the second line of text.
The EVA = ychykchy glyphs at the start of the line, do you see them?
Good.
They read, in English, hshesh (with a long e). That's how hashish is still, after a thousand years, sounded in some areas of the world.
Look at the plant image on the page.
That's a pot plant.
And there aren't many likelier repeated words to be expected on a page with an image of a pot plant with the same glyph/letter/sound at both ends and in the middle - and another glyph/letter/sound, the EVA = ch, sounded as s, in exactly the two expected places.
Okay, you say, you don't believe it.
Wait a minute...repeated?
Go to the last glyphs at the end of the third line from the end in the third paragraph on the page.
They're the same glyphs in line 2 of the first paragraph.
It's hshesh, again.
Now you have read your second word in the VMS.
Those of you that can do such things with your magic computer gizmos report back how many times this combination of glyphs in this order are repeated in the VMS, please.
I don't know, but don't think it is very many.
Look at the plant image again. Go find or email anyone you know that has ever grown pot and ask that person what the image of the plant on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is.
They'll tell you,
"That's a pot plant."
Now you've read the word twice and you've looked at the plant image twice or thrice and you say, no, you're still not convinced.
Okay.
On the next to last line on the page, the first glyphs read EVA = dychokchy shcthy.
This is where I ask you to bear with me for a bit. I think the EVA = o glyph should have a downstroke to make it into an EVA = y glyph. This is possibly because the downstroke was omitted through scribal error or because the author didn't want the same obvious progression of glyphs found at three places on such a brief page.
Whatever.
If you will allow me this small addition, the text reads ahshesh i(ng)h (with a long e). (I think the EVA = y at the end of the second word makes the glyph before it have a long sound so maybe the EVA = shcthy is sounded as ieen rather than the normal i(ng)h).
This word may be a Fifteenth Century phonetic equivalent of ahashishieen (assassins in modern English) - the fanatic followers of The Old Man of the Mountain in Syria from the early Crusader stories brought back by returning Crusaders and also later in Marco Polo's travelogue in the Thirteenth Century. They reportedly (and arguably) got their name from being hashish eaters, the meaning of ahashisheen.
That's your third word.
That's enough. I've strained your credulity enough for one day.
Go read two or three of the Old Man of the Mountain stories. Some go way, way back. Read Marco Polo's account. And/or the Bishop of Acre's.
You have read your first glyph words.
That's the end of my little story for today.
I hope you liked it.
It's a true story.
Thank you.
Don of Tallahassee
|
|
|
|
| Proof for [i] and [n] equivalence? |
|
Posted by: Emma May Smith - 18-02-2016, 11:20 PM - Forum: Analysis of the text
- Replies (7)
|
 |
Many people who have studied the text of the Voynich Manuscript have come to see the character [n] as not different or independent from [i]. Either it they see it as simply a final variant or they see [in], [iin], and [iiin] as single characters. I'm slowly believing that one of these is likely to be true.
But how can we prove that this is the case? The three bits of evidence I would put forward are:
1) the strong link between [i] sequences and [n]: over 90% of [i] are followed by another [i] or [n], and something like 97% of [n] are preceded by [i]; and
2) [i] and [n] have complementary distribution at the end of words: [i] is practically never word final while [n] is practically always word final; and
2) both [i] and [n] greatly prefer following [a] than [o]: the ratio is 20:1 and 25:1 respectively.
What else could we say to strengthen the case, and what would prove it?
|
|
|
|
| The Golden Key |
|
Posted by: R. Sale - 17-02-2016, 08:31 PM - Forum: Analysis of the text
- Replies (1)
|
|
The Golden Key is a text segment located in the outer text ring of White Aries. If the investigation of correspondence between traditional heraldic patterns and the designs of the tubs in the VMs Zodiac continues to its historical grounding, then it is clear that the pope has two keys and this is the one that is golden. The pair of Stolfi's markers, in the textual bands, have essentially been given a sort of sacred validation.
So in addition to being highly recommended by the internal workings of the Zodiac illustrations, the text found in the segment has some unusual characteristics. In a way, keeping with the multiple examples of pairing in the astrological medallions of the first five houses, and with numerous paired, heraldic examples, this text also has multiple examples of double and triple word repetition. Something that is unique in all VMs Zodiac text segments.
Secondly, there is a decided preference in this segment for words that start with the EVA letter "o". And this is the same letter generally conceded to be first in the seventeen symbol sequence from f57v.
And third, the words from the Golden Key text segment use a very limited selection of symbols that come from the seventeen symbol sequence almost exclusively.
Positional confirmation is found in VMs heraldry. It is used in the seventeen symbol sequence. Positional confirmation is objective, where illustrative interpretations are subjective. So I expect position to be significant in the process of interpretation for this VMs text segment.
|
|
|
|
|
![[Image: water-lilly-folio-2v1.jpg?w=1020]](https://voynichlatin.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/water-lilly-folio-2v1.jpg?w=1020)
![[Image: 164662.jpg]](https://stephenbax.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/164662.jpg)
![[Image: 164648.jpg]](https://stephenbax.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/164648.jpg)
