+- 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: The quest for Anchiton (/thread-2521.html)
RE: The quest for Anchiton - nablator - 24-10-2018
(24-10-2018, 07:41 PM)davidjackson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In Bibliorium sacrorum et glossa ordinaria (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.) there are two index cross references to anchiton where it is described as a tree giving a strong and clean burning fire:This should be "quanto plus arserit, tanto mundius inueniatur" - the more it burns the nicer (or finer or cleaner) it becomes.
Quote:anchiton ligni genus vel ligno simile, quanto plus arserit, tan to mundius inenitur (p.1.col.773.a)
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
RE: The quest for Anchiton - Anton - 24-10-2018
In the IX century manuscript that I referenced above Bede says like this:
Quote:Nec mirum hoc de sanctuario et interioribus templi et altari thymiamatis credere, cum etiam amiton ligni genus est. vel ligni habens inse simulitudinem, quanto plus arserit, tanto mundius inveniatur.
Note that there is a period (not a comma) after "est" and before "vel".
So what would this phrase mean (please help!)?
I think it's the best starting point that we have at the moment. It just appears that all those guys that blindly copied "multa patres" in the middle ages did not have a very clear understanding of what they are talking about, and thus were keen to introduce distortion.
If Bede borrows from Hyeronimus, then one should consult what Hyeronimus said.
About the Alexander's Gate, yes, I'll write about that, just don't have time right now.
RE: The quest for Anchiton - MarcoP - 25-10-2018
(24-10-2018, 10:00 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In the IX century manuscript that I referenced above Bede says like this:
Quote:Nec mirum hoc de sanctuario et interioribus templi et altari thymiamatis credere, cum etiam amiton ligni genus est. vel ligni habens inse simulitudinem, quanto plus arserit, tanto mundius inveniatur.
Note that there is a period (not a comma) after "est" and before "vel".
So what would this phrase mean (please help!)?
I am not a palaeographer but, in my experience, punctuation in medieval manuscripts is neither consistent nor reliable. Punctuation must mostly be inferred from the syntactical structure of a sentence and I don't believe a Latin sentence can start with "vel". Also, Cod.Sang.266 seems to mark the beginning of sentences with upper-case letters and "vel" is lower-case. In general, given the difficulty of transcribing ancient texts, I tend to rely on scholarly editions, when available. As I said above, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. seems OK to me.
1844 Transcription: Nec mirum hoc de sanctuario et interioribus templi, et altari thymiamatis credere, cum etiam ami[an]ton*, [quod] ligni genus est, vel ligni habens [in se] similitudinem, quanto plus arserit, tanto mundius inveniatur.
* corrupted in the Sang manuscript
I would largely confirm my previous translation: It is not strange to believe this about the sanctuary and the interior of the temple and the incense altar, since also asbestos, which is a kind of wood, or something having [in itself] a similarity to wood, the more it burnt, the cleaner it is found.
I am sorry, but I don't believe there is more I can contribute. I see that "De Tabernaculo" has been translated into English by Arthur G. Holder (Liverpool University Press). Unless Helmut feels like sharing his opinion, the best way to get a more reliable translation is visiting a good library.
PS: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (late XII Century, Normandie). It doesn't seem to add anything new, though.
RE: The quest for Anchiton - Anton - 25-10-2018
Thanks Marco,
Yes, I agree about the punctuation. The period sign is somewhat enigmatic in this MS, sometimes used to distinguish one single word. Looks like it is not meant to be the literal period sign.
About the 1844 edition. As I noted above, in the preface they say that they based it on the 1533 printed book which has been collated with four manuscripts. However, it was not collated with four manuscripts at once, but rather with one manuscript at a time. That is to say, one portion of the text was collated with one manuscript, the other portion with another, and so on. And they don't even bother to provide the shelf references to whatever manuscripts they use - for the portion which interests us it was simply a manuscript "found in the public library of Boulogne sur Mer", and there was also another manuscript found in that very library which was used to check another portion of the printed book. This is called "scholarly", but I can but state that this is not a good standard of scholarship.
In the case when there's a complete mess throughout the ages, I would prefer older sources to learn what Bede has really said than newer ones. Of course, one should compare more than one source. But note that in the BNF Latin 5232 it is "amiton" still.
The translation that you made looks more logical to me than what I have thought of the text earlier. Now it is not that "a***ton" is a kind of wood similar to "thymiamantus", or to the tree of paradise, but "a***ton" is in itself the stuff of which the altar is made, being as such a kind of wood or a thing similar to wood. The latter may look promising in respect of asbestos, but then we need to consult the history of asbestos in Europe (and northern Africa perhaps, since St. Jerome was of there) and check whether they could really imagine asbestos to be wood or a thing similar to wood.
Another thought occurring to me is to check early Vulgate manuscripts - if they have it "shittim" or anything else.
I also found a 9th century manuscript of St Jerome's commentaries upon Ezekiel, will check them later.
The enigmatic thing still is that neither the Hebrew text nor the Septuagint do not touch upon the matter of the wodd burning and not consumed by fire. The Septuagint simply tells of the wood that does not rot. So I wonder whence is this new motif, to begin with.
RE: The quest for Anchiton - VViews - 25-10-2018
(25-10-2018, 09:38 AM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Now it is not that "a***ton" is a kind of wood similar to "thymiamantus", or to the tree of paradise, but "a***ton" is in itself the stuff of which the altar is made, being as such a kind of wood or a thing similar to wood. The latter may look promising in respect of asbestos, but then we need to consult the history of asbestos in Europe (and northern Africa perhaps, since St. Jerome was of there) and check whether they could really imagine asbestos to be wood or a thing similar to wood.
Even if we consider the possibility that the appearance of asbestos could lead it to be confused with some sort of wood, there is a problem with assuming that the phrase means the altar was made of asbestos.
While asbestos cloth was known thousands of years ago, I can find no record of objects made of solid asbestos.
It can be mixed into bricks to build something, or made into a cloth or a coating to cover an object, but I can't find anything anywhere about whole objects, let alone large objects like altars or doors, being made of solid asbestos.
Asbestos has a hardness comparable to that of gypsum, alabaster and calcite. Technically, a solid asbestos altar might be possible, since altars made of gypsum and alabaster are found throughout antiquity in the eastern Mediterranean, but again, I haven't found anything suggesting that was ever done.
Perhaps it might be conceivable to have asbestos mixed with mortar to make an altar, but then there's no way you'd confuse it with wood.
RE: The quest for Anchiton - -JKP- - 25-10-2018
From the asbestos information exchange:
"The Romans also appreciated the fire-resistant nature of asbestos and used it for building construction and wove it into cloth used for head dressings, towels, and, like the Greeks, to make napkins and table cloths. Asbestos was especially useful in napkins and table clothes. The Romans would simply toss the soiled napkins or table clothes into the fire where any food scraps or filth would be burned off leaving only the cloth. Typically the fire-cleaned cloth came out whiter than it did when it entered the fire, leading the Romans to call it "amiantus" meaning "unpolluted."
...
Other uses during the medieval era included insulation for armor; but, the most fascinating use of asbestos during the period was as a magical cross sold by traveling merchants. The crosses, cut from asbestos, looked like very old, worn wood and were advertised by merchants as "true crosses" made directly from the wood of the cross upon which Jesus Christ of Nazareth died. To illustrate the magical cross's powers, the merchants would throw the wood into a fire where it would remain undamaged. "
RE: The quest for Anchiton - Searcher - 25-10-2018
Probably, I need to insert my quote from the thread Anchiton or Amianton.
Quote:Hebrew and Aramaic "cheton" (also "keton", "kheton") originally implies flax or linen, or linen clothes.You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. ...
As it was mentioned, asbestos frequently was called "flax", "stone-flax", "mountain flax", "linum vivum" (Pliny the Elder), etc. So, I see here a strong possibility.
"Asbestos and Fire: Technological Tradeoffs and the Body at Risk" (read a very detailed and interesting history You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.)
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
I suppose that the original word was "antichiton", indeed, afterwards it was shortened to "anchiton". This word, on my opinion, is a connection of the Greek preposition You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and the Hebrew root "cheton" (linen), which means "instead of linen" or "as a substitute for linen cloth". Perhaps, it implies rather asbestine (linen) cloth, then flax or asbestos itself. Supposedly, it has more connections with Hebrew or near-Hebrew sources.
Conclusions:
1) Anchiton can be a shortened version of the word antichiton, which can mean a substance, similar to / replacing linen cloth ("anti cheton"). It seems that it has very ancient roots
RE: The quest for Anchiton - Searcher - 25-10-2018
P. S.
If "antichiton" must be the two words "anti chiton" is really can mean "instead of linen" " or "as a substitute for flax", then the word combination in Latin "lino simile" is quite close to it.
RE: The quest for Anchiton - Searcher - 25-10-2018
I always thought that "an-" looks oddly in the word. So, it is or distorted or "anchi-" is a root. If it is a root of the word, it must mean something related to hook(s) as in "anchor". In this case, it seems to have no sense. If it is a prefix (a-, an-), there, possibly, a vowel after it was lost (for example, anichiton or anikiton - invincible). But if it is really from Hebrew or Aramaic, or Arabic sources, where "cheton" (or "kheton", etc.) means "flax" or "linen", "an-" may mean something else.
There is an example of "akheton" - a kind of armor.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
RE: The quest for Anchiton - Koen G - 25-10-2018
I agree, Searcher. If the word is "anchiton", then odds are it's a corrupted version of "anti-chiton/cheton...". Still, both words anchiton and antichiton are excessively rare, so it would be weird to see one lost in the VM. But on the other hand, probably lots of weird things wandered into the VM.
(It's funny that one of the few google hits for "antichiton" are on some other forum by one Yulia
)I'd say that "anti" could also mean "against something harmful", as I explained in the other thread - that is one way it is used in original Greek words. But the exact way "anti" is used makes little difference for our purpose.