+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: Marginalia (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-45.html)
+--- Thread: 116v (/thread-437.html)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
RE: 116v: summarium - Davidsch - 06-04-2016
Reading this paper
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
showed me that it is also possible that the 116v is some sort of "summarium".
However, it seems that always applies to the bible. In this case i see no reference at all to that.
On the other hand, these words could reference other things.
Keywords to other books, or to specific pages.
There are 13 + signs in this text.
So 14 pieces of text around them.
How many separated words are there? 30, 31 ?
RE: 116v - Anton - 06-04-2016
Detection of separated words is problematic. "Gas mich" written without a space suggests that the scribe was not particularly careful about spaces. So we cannot be sure if it is "michiton oladabas" or "michi ton ola dabas". And so foth.
RE: 116v - Davidsch - 06-04-2016
Quote:So we cannot be sure..
Who is "we" ?
I already know nothing is sure. I was just adding new information.
RE: 116v - Anton - 06-04-2016
(06-04-2016, 08:08 PM)Davidsch Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Quote:So we cannot be sure..
Who is "we" ?
I already know nothing is sure. I was just adding new information.
You seem to have posted a question, as tentatively indicated by the question mark. So I was addressing that question.
The word "we" here refers to people considering the question that is being put forward - just as usually when this kind of phrase is used (e.g. "we will see", let us consider, and so on)
RE: 116v - Davidsch - 06-04-2016
Thanks, i was suddenly worried that i was posting stuff to a panel of people.
The question mark was there not really to ask that question to be answered,
but to make people think about the posting and question itself.
RE: 116v - Diane - 14-04-2016
......
RE: 116v - Diane - 14-04-2016
David and al.,
First, I'd agree with Rene that the whole folio has to be considered; since it contains nothing else but its materials and some drawings, the drawings become critical to any argument about the relationship which may be proposed between the inscriber and the material in the rest of the manuscript.
I wouldn't dispute that he might have been one of the fifteenth-century copyists, but see nothing which could be considered evidence of ownership, or of 'authorship' and a great deal in the manuscript to stand against either idea.
btw - To have the folio-by-folio project underway will help enormously because the many other suggested translations - among which may be the correct one - can fall from public notice as one or more is taken up.
Sorry what follows is so long, but if we are considering both that written passage and the imagery (leaving out materials), then this is what it seems to me that we have here.
The short written passage on f.116v expresses Christian culture, or perhaps magical practice, either within or without the world of western or eastern Christian lands. We know this because of the text-embedded crosses which are common in Christian religious texts, whether these are from Coptic Egypt, Byzantium or Latin Europe.
Normally they indicate a point at which the reader-and-speaker is to "make the sign of the cross" - that is, to bless him/herself or a ritual object such as the sacred bread, or a person such as one in extremis.
Such equal-armed crosses may also bracket the name of a holy person or of a similar being, though this occurs less often in Latin Christian texts, where the name may instead be written in red ink.
Since most of the Christian texts which use embedded crosses are ones connected with prayer and ritual, some crosses mark a point that might also see a bell rung, but the blessing and not the bell-ringing was the reason for the mark in the text.
Magical texts - those I've seen - may use the cross to bracket a Name, and this practice occurs in other pre-Christian contexts too.
So the written inscription on f.116v implies some religious or magical purpose, and most probably a Christian cultural practice and environment - in which features it is markedly different in character not only from the drawings on f.116v, but from the style of the imagery throughout the entire manuscript.
I could explain the hallmarks of Christian imagery but this is not the place for it, though it is chiefly to the absence of those conventions and referents that we may ascribe the very general and very natural bewilderment felt by any European or American viewer on seeing these images.
On folio 116v, the drawings depict a fat-tailed sheep, and a figure given a deformed foot and a head-dress which (pace ..) is definitely *not* the papal tiara.
The animal is not a goat - the horns are not goat horns and there is no fat-tailed goat of which I'm aware.
I looked into where, and when, fat tailed sheep were bred, or even known - including the archaeological record - and found that apart from some late Byzantine imagery of sheep with uncropped tails (which is not the same thing), the answer was plainly that fat-tailed sheep were not bred in Latin Europe until well after our manuscript was made. Even now, they are not often bred: the weather and soggy soil of Europe does not see them flourish.
In Muslim Spain, there is some possibility that the fat-tailed sheep of North Africa might have been imported, as later were the merinos which did rather better in northern conditions, but otherwise the line along which the fat-tailed sheep breeds occur are along the transit route from inner Asia to North Africa, but including the Yemen and near east. Some islands such as Chios, which had a multi-cultural population including Christians, did have a tradition of raising that sort of sheep, but it was to be found almost exclusively by the fourteenth century in lands that were or had been Islamic.
So the culture and region implied by this drawing stand in opposition to those implied by the presence of embedded crosses in the marginal text.
So again with the figure set below that sheep.
That headwear is of a type long known in the Yemen, where it remains a traditional item of women's wear, now only seen on brides. It is also seen directly opposite, in certain traditions of southern India, but there recorded in sculpture as the headdress of the ancient kings of that region.
Thus, the drawings are a reflection of non-Latin and non-Christian regions in the main. It is true that Christians were treated more graciously under Islamic government than were Muslims in Latin Christendom, and that an argument could be made for associating this folio with Christians in the near east and the Indo-Persian regions.
However, this again makes it highly unlikely that we can attribute the imagery and text on f.116v to the invention of any imagined 'author' in Latin Europe.
In any case, I am more inclined to one of the other translations than to the 'goat-liver' one, and since no-one has ever suggested that the underlying language of the Voynich text is German, I think that by default we must suppose the marginal inscription an afterthought by some person other than those who first created, or later maintained the content now in the manuscript.
Whatever the marginalia may say, it most likely to refer to Christian thought and practice, or to magic. No evidence of either has been noticed by any qualfiied commentator on the manuscript's imagery or text, so again this would appear to make the marginalia on f.116v a somewhat discordant and late addition - perhaps no later than the fifteenth century copying, but late for all that.
I have not seen any reason, myself, to suppose that writers of marginalia first purchased the volume in which they added their notes, and none that the writer of this marginalia had done so - perhaps the inscription itself will one day resolve that problem.
For the many instances of marginalia in medieval manuscripts, the range of their matter and of their inscribers, an easy introduction is Eric Kwakkel's popular blog.
In any case, some marginal notes are scholia; others little more than graffiti. Some are students' 'mem. to self' notes. Others again the exasperated or exhausted notes of the copyist/s. Some others, too, are censor's notes, or even notes of who had originally commissioned the copy made, or who had previously owned the work.
RE: 116v - Wladimir D - 17-04-2016
The first character of with a long leg has in the root of on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. page. This is some kind of reduction?
RE: 116v - Anton - 17-04-2016
Hi Wladimir,
This is not related to 116v, please keep the discussion on-topic.
RE: 116v - david - 17-04-2016
Quote:In any case, some marginal notes are scholia; others little more than graffiti. Some are students' 'mem. to self' notes. Others again the exasperated or exhausted notes of the copyist/s. Some others, too, are censor's notes, or even notes of who had originally commissioned the copy made, or who had previously owned the work.An excellent summary Diane.
But I would add that I have seen these types of crosses on book protection spells, or curses, where the book owner writes a small inscription on the flyleaf or back page cursing any would be thief.