+- 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)
RE: Why is the MS not a copy of older, non European sources? - -JKP- - 18-04-2016
(18-04-2016, 11:49 AM)Diane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Hi all,
...
In addition, there are specific items which the "all European" theory never addresses....
...
I've never seen an '"all European" theory' anywhere in my Internet travels. Do you have a link to the specific person(s) who have an "all European" theory?
RE: Why is the MS not a copy of older, non European sources? - Koen G - 18-04-2016
JKP
I think this is again a problem of terminology. Very few people, if any at all, will ban anything that comes from outside of Europe from their analysis.
I think the difference can best be explained by answering the question "where did the creative effort that resulted in MS Beinecke 408 take place?"
What Diane means with "all European" is, I think, that the creative effort has mostly taken place in Europe. Rene, for example, mentions on his site that to him the MS looks like the result of 'one brain', and that this person probably lived in Europe. This does by no means imply that the author banned "foreign" elements from his work! It's clear from Rene's responses that he is open minded about this.
This "all European" way of thinking is the most logical and straight forward one, and the one that should be assumed at first, Occam's razor and all. The MS is European, so its contents was probably created there as well.
What can be contrasted with this, is the hypothesis that MS Beinecke 408 is the result of a copying effort in Europe, without much creative input from the copyists. Almost as if a document that had never been to Europe has been brought there and then multiplied using a "human copy machine".
So that is really the only thing this is about. You are also very open minded and professional, and I know you don't eliminate evidence based on country of origin or anything like that. The question is, whether or not European culture had any direct influence on MS Beinecke 408's creation. In other words, was it a person using the material around him (including, perhaps, foreign books), to compose this work, or was it someone copying documents that came from abroad, with minimal own input?
I think this last view is held by very little people - which is understandable, since it looks more far fetched than the other one.
So basically
All-European: most of the creative effort to make the MS in Europe/by a European.
Not European: most of the creative effort outside of Europe, copied in Europe.
It is because I hold the second view, that I don't demonstrate how an Egyptian snake icon should have been known to a 15th century European. If the document was just copied in Europe, this question is almost irrelevant.
RE: Why is the MS not a copy of older, non European sources? - ReneZ - 19-04-2016
For me, there is a whole range of possibilities how the MS was created.
Some of these possibilities have many precedents, others have few.
The first question could be whether the scribe and the draughtsman were one and the same person.
It would be more 'typical' for them not to be the same person, but precedents for both exist.
The quality of the drawings also isn't such that we see the work of a trained artist (or artists).
Furthermore, both the writing and the drawings are 'unusual'.
This certainly has an impact on how the MS was conceived.
It may have been entirely someone's personal creation. Someone who had never seen any other MS's. I believe that this is extremely unlikely.
It may have been largely based on MS's seen either in the past or the present.
(The scribe most certainly was not illiterate).
It may have been copied from MS's available right there and then.
Such MSs may or may not have been illustrated.
If it was inspired by other MS's, these would have to have been available during the scribe's
lifetime. The many identifiable examples of inspiration and style that have been found even
recently are all from MS's that would be readily available all across Europe.
(Note that there is one intriguing counter-example of this, that requires a closer look. This is the
set of spirals You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..)
Now one can entertain the opinion that the MS was copied from something that
was many centuries old, possibly even more than a 1000 years, which had not
been copied by anyone else in the meantime.
This is not impossible, but it is not the most likely of all scenarios, and would require
quite some solid evidence before it can be called convincing.
RE: Why is the MS not a copy of older, non European sources? - VViews - 19-04-2016
Koen Gh,
I appreciate your explanation, but honestly I think we should keep things as clear as possible. "All" is not synonymous to "mostly" and "not" is not synonymous to "mostly not".
We all come from different places and at times languages and communication can cause enough misunderstandings as it is.
I don't want to validate the use of words for what they don't mean.
If you mean "mostly European" then say mostly European. It's really not that many extra keystrokes.
RE: Why is the MS not a copy of older, non European sources? - Koen G - 19-04-2016
Vviews,
I agree terminology is important, but exactly because of this mixture of languages and background, there will be confusion at times. But you are right that we should strive for clarity and neutrality. That is also why I stronlgly dislike terms like 'pharma vessels' because I think most of them are not - but that's a different question.
Maybe it would be easier to talk about European author vs. European copy of non-medieval-European work.
Rene
Yes, I agree with your paraphrase. It's a less likely scenario. But then again, it's the Voynich.
What makes this possibility a bit more likely is the hypothesis that the work mostly relates to practical matters of navigation and intercontinental trade. This info would have been useful for many centuries, allowing for the material to have been copied a number of times in between.
I think it's important to clarify these things. When I am pointing out parallels with Hellenistic culture, I'm not just freely associating - I know what I'm doing. I'm trying to uncover what I think is the first layer of this section, and I'm triyng to be consistent in that.
But of course I always follow the evidence, which is why recently moved it to Alexandria. They happened to have a decent library there, where books from all kinds of ships were copied, which is a nice bonus. But if I find an unambiguous reference to Christ on the cross, I will adjust again where necessary.
RE: Why is the MS not a copy of older, non European sources? - Diane - 23-09-2016
Quote:Rene said,
"... that the MS was copied from something that was many centuries old, possibly even more than a 1000 years, which had not been copied by anyone else in the meantime. is not impossible... but it is not the most likely of all scenarios..
I wouild say that the opinion that the content in the manuscript originated - as it appears presently - before the current fifteenth century manuscript is not the sort of thing which is reasonably entertained as an "idea" or a "storyline" or any other of those things constantly and wrongly called a "theory", and which are often no more than an initial bit of day-dreaming - for which bits and pieces are then hunted in the hope of lending a flimsy idea the colour of verisimilitude: aka 'plausibility'.
To reach the opinion that there is a strong disparity in the style, form and content of the imagery and that obtaining in fifteenth century Europe - a disparity which requires the conclusion that as much as a thousand years passed between first enunciation of the imagery and its inclusion in our present manuscript - is the sort of conclusion which can only be drawn after the imagery has been studied in detail, its stylistic influences and intent first evaluated by careful analysis.
So if it's not a conclusion from previous study and evidence, then its no more likely than any other of the popular scenarios.
Of course, anyone can ignore any amount of evidence and conclusion. All one can do is present the evidence and then be able as well as willing to discuss it fairly. After all, our common aim is the better understanding of a fifteenth century manuscript, not the "triumph" of a pet storyline - I hope all would agree.
PS - marginalia in a manuscript means only that someone who could write in the marginal language could write in the marginal language. It tells us nothing about the language or content of the principal text. For all we know, it was written as a curse by someone who thought that any language but their own was "foreign muck".
RE: Why is the MS not a copy of older, non European sources? - -JKP- - 23-09-2016
[quote pid='3427' dateline='1461047689']
Koen Gh.Vviews,
I agree terminology is important, but exactly because of this mixture of languages and background, there will be confusion at times. But you are right that we should strive for clarity and neutrality. That is also why I stronlgly dislike terms like 'pharma vessels' because I think most of them are not - but that's a different question.
Maybe it would be easier to talk about European author vs. European copy of non-medieval-European work.
Rene
Yes, I agree with your paraphrase. It's a less likely scenario. But then again, it's the Voynich.
What makes this possibility a bit more likely is the hypothesis that the work mostly relates to practical matters of navigation and intercontinental trade. This info would have been useful for many centuries, allowing for the material to have been copied a number of times in between.
I think it's important to clarify these things. When I am pointing out parallels with Hellenistic culture, I'm not just freely associating - I know what I'm doing. I'm trying to uncover what I think is the first layer of this section, and I'm triyng to be consistent in that.
But of course I always follow the evidence, which is why recently moved it to Alexandria. They happened to have a decent library there, where books from all kinds of ships were copied, which is a nice bonus. But if I find an unambiguous reference to Christ on the cross, I will adjust again where necessary.
[/quote]
They had an extraordinary library in Alexandria. So much so, that precious manuscripts of which there was probably only one copy were entrusted to the library. In modern terms, it would be like burning the U.S. Library of Congress, the Vatican Library, or the British Library.
Scholars debate the various accounts of the most famous burning in the 7th century and are skeptical that it took six months to destroy this invaluable and irreplaceable resource but even if it didn't take six months, it's possible it took some time (days? weeks) because it was a significant collection.
RE: Why is the MS not a copy of older, non European sources? - Koen G - 23-09-2016
Note that my posts in this thread were written when I was still very much looking for my way in Voynich research etc. I was very new to all this.
JKP - yes, and the books of the ships that were copied into the library would have gotten them access to information about exotic plants 15th century Europeans would very happily get their hands on
About Alexandria itself - I've only gotten more certain about Greco-Roman Egypt as one important period in the material's history. Though I don't have any preference for any particular city. The Library is an attractive feature of course, with lots of explanatory power.