+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: Imagery (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-43.html)
+--- Thread: [split] Could the manuscript be a copy of older documents? (/thread-1503.html)
RE: Medieval nymph tendencies - davidjackson - 06-02-2017
Well, yes Koen. That's sort of the point - elaborately illuminated manuscripts were labour intensive and commissioned by rich clients. Much the same today with expensive coffee books and the like - they're more expensive and get looked after more than the latest Jefferey Archer.
But the VMS is hardly in that sort of category.
RE: [split] Could the manuscript be a copy of older documents? - Koen G - 06-02-2017
David: that is actually an interesting line of thought. Damn it maybe I'll have to split this thread again soon
We all know what expensive medieval manuscripts look like.
We know what all-text manuscripts look like.
But what other manuscripts does the VM look like if we have to discount expensive ones and ones with few illustration? Keep in mind that the VM has a massive amount of space dedicated to drawings, both planty and nymphy.
RE: [split] Could the manuscript be a copy of older documents? - Anton - 06-02-2017
There are known manuscripts preserved in only one copy. There also have been manuscripts of which no copies remain. More than that, there have been manuscripts prepared in only one copy (i.e. no duplicates) which is now lost. So I do not find this angle of dispute especially valuable.
I would suggest another trail of reasoning here. Suppose the VMS is a copy, a compilation or a compendium of old sources. This would have been perfectly possible, in my opinion, if considered with no regard to other aspects of the Voynich. But there is another aspect. The Voynichese text is highly unlikely to be written in a natural language. (I won't repeat extensive arguments toward that assertion, they are found elsewhere in the forum). So why encipher the contents of a compilation of old sources?
So, defence of the hypothesis of the "old source" would either have to defend the natural language hypothesis in addition, or, as suggested above, to enter into certain complications explaining the necessity to encipher the stuff. The original stuff would then need to be exclusive and restricted-access in itself, so that its copy also is to be made exclusive and restricted-access. But let's recall that this whole discussion starts with the inherent exclusivity of the Voynich - which "is not like any other". So we now arrive to explaining the exclusivity of the Voynich through bringing an exclusive old-source into the bargain, which is just somewhat excessive. Why can't Voynich be exclusive just on its own? Why is it refused originality?
Nonetheless, I would distinguish between this "copy/compilation/compendium" of old sources and an original, though derivative, work based on old sources. The latter, to my opinion, is perfectly possible.
RE: [split] Could the manuscript be a copy of older documents? - Koen G - 06-02-2017
Anton: it is very important to keep in mind that people who reach the "old sources" conclusion are those who focus heavily on the imagery and compare it to a wide range of historical sources.
For me it is perfectly possible that the manuscript is a copy or compendium of various older images, and that for some reason someone later added the text with it that we see now.
I don't think the text can be as early as the fourth century for example, since it shows evidence from much later periods. That's why I decided to keep this thread in imagery. But it is true that the distinction between imagery and text must be made.
All I'm saying is:
* I am not certain what the text is and when it was added, and whether its contents is medieval or not.
* I believe like most people that the script is medieval, though I am not sure if it has to be 15th century. Does it?
* I am certain that most of the images originally came from ancient sources.
* Many of the images are still relatively "original", others have clearly seen updates over the centuries. There is no denying that certain images show medieval influence, which is just normal because the manuscript was manufactured in the 15th century.
But when I'm asked a question like "do the nymphs look medieval or renaissance", I hope it is understandable that I wish to include a little nuance
RE: [split] Could the manuscript be a copy of older documents? - davidjackson - 06-02-2017
Anton, one suggestion which has floated up from the Voynich cauldron in the past is that the book is a compilation of ancient sources that were believed to be unique.
For example, retrieved ancient works from Arabic sources via Al-Andalus or similar transmission method. This would explain the need to encipher the retrieved text - to keep it secret in Europe.
All supposition, of course. Although it would explain both Koen's ancient theory and my own observations on medieval art influences.
RE: [split] Could the manuscript be a copy of older documents? - Anton - 06-02-2017
Quote:For me it is perfectly possible that the manuscript is a copy or compendium of various older images, and that for some reason someone later added the text with it that we see now.
When one undertakes to defend a proposal, then theses such as "for some reason someone" are not good in terms of substantiation. When one proposes a trip to Mars and is asked how he is gonna to get there, the answer "somehow" would not add credibility to the business plan; one needs to be more specific.
The labeling of graphical objects disproves the idea that the text is not related to imagery; and if the text is related to imagery, then I see no reason why its being added later would be more probable than its being added at the same time. Let alone that it would be a strange old source indeed with so many images and without any text.
Quote:I believe like most people that the script is medieval, though I am not sure if it has to be 15th century. Does it?
When JKP visits the thread he will comment upon this, I suppose, but offhand, I think, two things should be indicative - the l-like sign of four somewhere in the quire numbering, along with the plain text letter shapes in the last line of f116v. The former would set the upper margin for the range, the latter would also suggest the range.
David:
Well maybe... but those "popes" and heraldry patterns? The T-O maps (were they as old as the beginning of CE?)? The surprising success of matching botanical plant identifications to folk plant names by way of mnemonics? Did Arabians place Jerusalem into the centre of the world? &c &c.
RE: [split] Could the manuscript be a copy of older documents? - davidjackson - 06-02-2017
Anton, it wouldn't matter because in our hypothetical scenario the scribe is putting together a compendium of facts but in his own fashion. So he interprets them in his own way and adding the cultural references he's used to.
In the same way Alfonso X and his scribes did.
Not that I'm arguing for the theory.
RE: [split] Could the manuscript be a copy of older documents? - Anton - 06-02-2017
Quote:Anton, it wouldn't matter because in our hypothetical scenario the scribe is putting together a compendium of facts but in his own fashion. So he interprets them in his own way and adding the cultural references he's used to.
That's what I call a "derivative work" above, and to that I have no objections.
RE: [split] Could the manuscript be a copy of older documents? - Koen G - 06-02-2017
Anton: the parts of the manuscript with the most medieval additions, alterations or original content are exactly those:
- The nine rosettes foldout. I don't see a reason why it should be pre-medieval.
- The central figures in the Zodiac. They are special, but clearly show medieval elements.
- The clothed figures in the Zodiac, the ones with the thick paint, are problematic in general (see Pelling's heavy painter). I wouldn't be the first one to believe that they do not reflect the original appearance of the figures.
- The round cosmological diagrams like the ones with the "pipes".
- The little dragon/sheep/seahorse/giraffe/alpaca that's nibbling on the one plant
To me this is not hard to combine. Even if most of the imagery has ancient roots somehow, we absolutely must expect medieval input. But I do believe most of the images are still relatively original.
This is something where my insights have evolved. Lately I have contributed to finding visual parallels for various of these items, for example the Gemini (over at Bax' site), the "pipes" diagram and the complex "cloud bands" from the large foldout.
But the other items, like most of the plants and quire 13 show signs of having very old sources, and much less signs of later alterations.
RE: [split] Could the manuscript be a copy of older documents? - Anton - 06-02-2017
Anyway, I think the "manuscript" is what its text is. (Unless it is not argued that the text is unrelated to the imagery).
So if we talk about it being a copy of old sources, this should mean that the text is a copy as well. If only imagery is a copy (and the more so, only part of that), then one cannot say that the "manuscript" is a "copy". It is a derivative work then, - or an encipherment at most, - which hypothesis (the derivative work) I have no problems with.