Why is the MS not a copy of older, non European sources?

Why is the MS not a copy of older, non European sources? - Printable Version

+- 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 is the MS not a copy of older, non European sources? (/thread-545.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Why is the MS not a copy of older, non European sources? - Koen G - 16-04-2016

Edit:
My original question, which can be read below in small text, was apparently full of wrong assumptions. I will rephrase it:

There are a number of people who seem to think the chance that the manuscript was copied with minimal adjustments from older, non-Latin-European sources unlikely. I wonder which concrete evidence these people see for their preferred interpretation.

((original: )Most people seem to think that the content of MS Beinecke 408 was created at the time of its writing in 15th century Europe. The images are peculiar, but this is seen as the result of an individual's quirks, rather than unexpected cultural influences.

So I would like to know why people are convinced of this, and why they seem to be very unlikely to consider any non-medieval-European sources.

I fully understand that certain elements in the nymph sections look very medieval. For eample the clothes in some of the roundels. But these are relatively rare, and often considered later additions or modifications. Either way, it was common practice for copyists to update aspects like clothing.

What I would specifically like to know is which concrete evidence there is against earlier sources.

In other words , why can't it be a lucky surviver -by medieval copy- of a lost type?)

RE: Why is the MS not a copy of older, non European sources? - Anton - 16-04-2016

I would say the most important evidence toward that is the last line of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. marginalia which mixes Voynichese with some Latin European (presumably German) stuff. This suggests that the marginalia author (a 15th century or later guy) possessed knowledge of Voynichese and made use of that.

RE: Why is the MS not a copy of older, non European sources? - -JKP- - 16-04-2016

(16-04-2016, 10:52 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Most people seem to think that the content of MS Beinecke 408 was created at the time of its writing in 15th century Europe. The images are peculiar, but this is seen as the result of an individual's quirks, rather than unexpected cultural influences.

So I would like to know why people are convinced of this, and why they seem to be very unlikely to consider any non-medieval-European sources.

...

You can't assume what other people assume.

For example, I have written that the crossbow appears only in zodiacs in Germanic regions (among many other things). That does NOT mean I'm assuming the VMS is from there. It points to that region, but I have NOT made assumptions about where it is from or where the person(s) who created it was from because there is, as of yet, no smoking gun. In fact, I'm constantly looking farther afield because the journey is interesting and there might be something that has been overlooked.

Pointing out similarities to European influences is simply a piece of data, not an assumption. It's an observation.

I have looked at every corner of the earth, including Antarctica (there were botanical expeditions to Antartica), Patagonia, the Gulf Coast, Japan, Malaysia, Borneo, Madagascar, Ghana, etc. The DATA brings me back to Europe whether I want to go there or not, but the data is incomplete, so one cannot make assumptions or come to conclusions, nor should others assume that presentation of this data is a theory or assumption.

RE: Why is the MS not a copy of older, non European sources? - Sam G - 16-04-2016

What nobody ever seems to consider is the possibility that the illustrations are more recent than the text. Either the text may have been originally unaccompanied by illustrations, or it may have been accompanied by illustrations very different from those we see in the VMS. Everyone seems to assume that the same person who authored the text must have also drawn the illustrations, or at least worked with the person who drew the illustrations, even though I suspect that's rarely the case for illustrated medieval manuscripts.

It seems clear that the illustrations in the VMS have been influenced by images found in other European manuscripts, but at the same time they are never copied exactly and have generally been modified to the point where it's unlikely that they are representing the same thing. What seems most likely to me is that someone wanted to add illustrations to a text which he did not write, and so he turned to the illustrated manuscripts he had available for inspiration.

The main problem with the idea that the text was originally unillustrated would be the presence of labels in the illustrations, which must be accounted for. So these were probably excerpted from texts which were not incorporated into the VMS in intact form. Probably the entire VMS is a redaction of a larger mass of source materials.

As far as the idea that the text is older than early 15th century and of ultimately non-European origin, I obviously agree.

RE: Why is the MS not a copy of older, non European sources? - Koen G - 17-04-2016

(16-04-2016, 11:08 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I would say the most important evidence toward that is the last line of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. marginalia which mixes Voynichese with some Latin European (presumably German) stuff. This suggests that the marginalia author (a 15th century or later guy) possessed knowledge of Voynichese and made use of that.

I see the script as a late addition, which may have been devised by the people copying - or in that case, transcribing - older sources into MS Beinecke 408. So these marginalia point to that conclusion indeed. But if we assume a recent teanscription effort, observations on the script alone are just that. They allow us to date the script, about which I agree with your impressions.

JKP - sorry, I was speaking in very general terms. Your stance is relatively open and mature, and you clearly have a good understanding of how medieval manuscripts often used a number of varying sources.

RE: Why is the MS not a copy of older, non European sources? - ReneZ - 17-04-2016

(16-04-2016, 11:19 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(16-04-2016, 10:52 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Most people seem to think that the content of MS Beinecke 408 was created at the time of its writing in 15th century Europe. The images are peculiar, but this is seen as the result of an individual's quirks, rather than unexpected cultural influences.

You can't assume what other people assume.

This single line from JKP more or less summarises my thoughts as well.

What makes you think peoeple don't consider this possible?
As said many times, both herbal and astronomical/astrological illustrations trace back all the way to the beginning of the 'common era' and before.

This page on my web site here:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
is entirely dedicated to the creation of the MS and does not enter into the question what it contains, what it was based on, or what may have been its sources.

While decades ago, the illustrations were called 'unique', unparalleled and similar other terms, by now it has become very clear that there are plenty of inspirations from other MSs that would have been available at the start of the 15th Century.
Some of these trace back further in time, others don't.

Finally, the meaning of non-European probably isn't the same for everyone.
The original composer of the Latin 'pseudo-Apuleius' herbal is believed to be native from North Africa, but copies of this herbal were circulating all through Europe by the 12th and 13th Century.
There have been plenty of suggestions that the MS was made in (or contains information from) meso-America or the far East, but such suggestions require strong evidence, much stronger than what has been presented so far.

RE: Why is the MS not a copy of older, non European sources? - -JKP- - 17-04-2016

(16-04-2016, 11:40 PM)Sam G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.What nobody ever seems to consider is the possibility that the illustrations are more recent than the text. ...

I've considered it many times but the evidence (text accommodating the imagery rather than the imagery accommodating the text) appears to lean toward the drawings being there first. There are examples pointing in this direction on almost every page.

In fact, in at least one place, the last letter of a vord was left out when it butted up against a picture, a letter that would be expected under most circumstances (just as dain always has the swooped back tail at the end, if you saw it without the tail where it was running into a drawing, the likelihood is that the picture was there first).

RE: Why is the MS not a copy of older, non European sources? - VViews - 17-04-2016

Yeah, I'm onboard with JKP & ReneZ on this one. I can't imagine why you'd think that most people think this...

RE: Why is the MS not a copy of older, non European sources? - Koen G - 17-04-2016

Rene

I agree that non-European is a problematical term. Let me phrase it more unambiguously.

This is a statement I would agree with, while many people won't: "The manuscript's contents is not the product of Latin-European culture, apart from a thin layer of medieval veneer in some places, like in the nymph sections. Instead, it is the result of a series of copies from assembled ancient sources, added in various places and times, only reaching mainland Europe close to the manuscripts' being manufactured.".

Am I wrong in assuming that such statements are met with a large amount of skepticism? Am I really assuming too much?

Want to see this in action? I'll just reproduce two images from my last post here, in which I tried to summarize some possibly Alexandrian imagery on one and the same page: a vessel top adorned with the shape of the Lighthouse (Pharos), and a cobra wearing a symbol of the pharaoh (which was still in use in Greco-Roman Egypt).

The reactions will be one of the following:
- *awkward ignoring*
- "You are crazy as a person!"
- "Yes, but it's a German snake!"
- "The artist drew this cobra, symbol of Egypt, wearing another symbol of Egypt on its head, by accident!"

Let's see which one it is this time Smile

These are found on the same sheet:

[Image: crownofegypt.jpg?w=720]

[Image: snake-and-vulture.jpg?w=396&h=218]

Anyway. Instead of discussing semantics, I would like to know what concrete evidence there is to see the entire manuscript as mainly a Latin-European creation, "the work of one 'brain'" to quote your site, and to dismiss hypotheses that earlier strata still lay at the basis of the manuscript's imagery, indeed still representing the bulk of its contents.

RE: Why is the MS not a copy of older, non European sources? - Sam G - 17-04-2016

(17-04-2016, 08:57 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(16-04-2016, 11:40 PM)Sam G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.What nobody ever seems to consider is the possibility that the illustrations are more recent than the text. ...

I've considered it many times but the evidence (text accommodating the imagery rather than the imagery accommodating the text) appears to lean toward the drawings being there first. There are examples pointing in this direction on almost every page.

But I'm not talking about whether the text or illustrations in the VMS were physically written first on the parchment, I'm talking about which originated first as far as the history of the content is concerned. So what I'm proposing is that at first you had text only (as well as possibly some illustrations significantly different from what we have now), then someone copied this text and added illustrations to it.