+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: Provenance & history (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-44.html)
+--- Thread: Why I think that the copyist(s)/scribe(s) did not fully understand the material (/thread-4853.html)
RE: Why I think that the copyist(s)/scribe(s) did not fully understand the material - Jorge_Stolfi - 07-08-2025
PS. As for encryption implying that more than one person could read the text, that is not true. The Rohonc codex is an example of an encrypted book that (for all we know) was meant to be read only by its author. And that survey of encrypted manuscripts (that was cited recently on this forum) listed several personal diaries, which of course had the same "target readership".
All the best, --jorge
RE: Why I think that the copyist(s)/scribe(s) did not fully understand the material - Koen G - 07-08-2025
How on earth do we know that the Rohonc codex was meant to be read only by its author? There's a lot of projections of modern expectations going on here.
How many pre-1450 books do we know of that were not meant to be shared?
RE: Why I think that the copyist(s)/scribe(s) did not fully understand the material - ReneZ - 07-08-2025
(07-08-2025, 09:29 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.How many pre-1450 books do we know of that were not meant to be shared?
But at the same time, how many are there, that we still don't have the first idea how to read?
And this is not for a lack of testing and trying...
RE: Why I think that the copyist(s)/scribe(s) did not fully understand the material - Jorge_Stolfi - 07-08-2025
(07-08-2025, 09:29 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.How on earth do we know that the Rohonc codex was meant to be read only by its author?
You are right, we don't know that. It is only my most likely alternative, considering its contents and the nature of the encoding.
Some people who have original ideas that they are unable or unwilling to share will feel compelled to write them down anyway. If the ideas could get them embarrassed or in trouble, they will use some sort of code.
Quote:How many pre-1450 books do we know of that were not meant to be shared
The paper cited in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. says
Quote:40 books on our list are encrypted diaries, which makes this category the largest. By diary, we mean
something that had a single author, and was written chronologically with an entry for almost every day.
Diaries are usually only intended for reading by the creator.
Granted, the VMS is not a diary. But you know my theory, and what it implies about the intended reader...
All the best, --jorge
RE: Why I think that the copyist(s)/scribe(s) did not fully understand the material - Koen G - 07-08-2025
That paper is rather misleading if you ask me. Not intentionally so - they are clear about their data. But from a historical perspective it makes little sense to compare modern books with a 15th century manuscript written on animal skin. Their list only includes 5 MSS from the 15th century, 3 of which were Fontana.
Did Fontana write without an audience in mind?
The vast majority of their collection is 18th, 19th, 20th and even 21st century.
You cannot draw any conclusion about what a 15th century book should be by looking at what people in the 19th century were doing. It was a different time, with a different idea of what writing can and should be, a different material culture, different social structures, different social norms and so forth.
RE: Why I think that the copyist(s)/scribe(s) did not fully understand the material - Koen G - 07-08-2025
(07-08-2025, 09:35 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But at the same time, how many are there, that we still don't have the first idea how to read?
And this is not for a lack of testing and trying...
It certainly is unique
RE: Why I think that the copyist(s)/scribe(s) did not fully understand the material - Aga Tentakulus - 08-08-2025
But Quire 13 tells me something else.
If you look at the pictures, something changes in the process. The handwriting also changes here.
I don't need Lisa to confirm this, I can see it with my own eyes.
This tells me that there were two people there. Each probably a specialist in their field. The same starting point in the process, but different products.
Each of them certainly worked for themselves and wrote it down themselves, using the same encryption system.
That's how I see it.
RE: Why I think that the copyist(s)/scribe(s) did not fully understand the material - Jorge_Stolfi - 08-08-2025
(07-08-2025, 05:02 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.That paper is rather misleading if you ask me. Not intentionally so - they are clear about their data. But from a historical perspective it makes little sense to compare modern books with a 15th century manuscript written on animal skin. [...] You cannot draw any conclusion about what a 15th century book should be by looking at what people in the 19th century were doing. It was a different time, with a different idea of what writing can and should be, a different material culture, different social structures, different social norms and so forth.
It is true that society in some places changed quite a bit between the 15th and 19th centuries. But the human mind has changed very little in the past 5000 years. The inner needs that led people to write diaries or treatises of bizarre elucubrations have existed all along that time. And the tools for expressing those needs -- pen and paper -- have been available and largely unchanged from the 15th and 19th centuries.
IIRC John Dee's diary was not meant to be read by others. IIRC, the report of his conversations with "angels" through Kelley was hidden under the false bottom of a chest, almost got destroyed, and was found by chance after his death. So "manuscripts without intended readers" have been produced at least since the 1600s.
Moreover, the changes in social context were not simultaneous everywhere. While the context of Paris of the 1800s was different from that of Paris of the 1400s, there were many places in Europe where the context in the 1800s was still like that of Paris in the 1500s.
I myself kept a manuscript diary for a year or so, some 50 years ago. I used a bunch of shorthand and symbols for common activities, so the result was effectively encrypted. I did not get this idea from the "social context"; it was just an obvious choice for saving time and paper, and for a minimum of privacy.
All the best, --jorge
RE: Why I think that the copyist(s)/scribe(s) did not fully understand the material - Koen G - 08-08-2025
If we're looking for things that changed in Europe after 1450, I'd place book culture on top of that list.
I agree that there are certain human universals. But "the need to keep handwritten secrets" does not feel like one of those universal human desires. Even the concept of privacy as we know it, was foreign to the Middle Ages.
RE: Why I think that the copyist(s)/scribe(s) did not fully understand the material - Jorge_Stolfi - 08-08-2025
(08-08-2025, 05:40 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If we're looking for things that changed in Europe after 1450, I'd place book culture on top of that list.
Again, cultural models and people's attitudes are not at all monolithic things that change all at the same time everywhere. There have always been (and there still are) places with peculiar "cultural micro-climates" where all sorts of weird, non-standard "intellectual species" thrive. There is no such thing as a "European Middle Ages mind set". There was an international community of scholars and philosophers, and most of the books we know from that time come from them; but it would be a mistake to assume that every literate person was part of that community, shared their attitudes and motivations.
I have been a fan of ancient history and archaeology since my teens; but before I became interested in the VMS, I had no interest in the history of Europe after the Roman Empire. I thought it was mostly about rotten nobles and kings, senseless wars, misery, ignorance, and religious fanaticism. Bleargh. But then, as a side effect of studying Voynichology, I learned how amazingly diverse was humanity and human thought in those times, since well before Enlightenment. All those bleargh topics were only a backdrop to the real fun parts...
All the best, --jorge
PS. By the way, are you aware of Giovanni da Pian del Carpine, Willem van Ruysbroeck, Gaspar da Gama, Nicolò di Conti, Hieronimo di Santo Stefano, Ludovico di Varthema, Cæsar Fredericke, Ralph Fitch...