24-02-2019, 03:19 PM
While there is probably no confusion about the meaning of 'corrections' , it is worth considering what is really meant with 'mistakes'.
For me, this depends a lot on the scenario one has in mind for how the MS was created.
In the past, the perceived lack of corrections has been considered an argument that the text in the MS is perhaps meaningless. It is of course not that simple.
A 'mistake' implies that something should have been done one way, which is correct, but was done in other way, which is not correct. For spelling of words, this is a modern problem. Typical mistakes in medieval manuscripts are copying mistakes. This would apply to the Voynich MS only if the text were a copy of some other text. This is possible, but whether this is how the MS was created remains one of the unanswered questions.
The fact that there are emendations does not even necessarily mean that there was a mistake. It could also mean that something did not come out clearly on the first writing. Correction of mistakes was usually done by scraping, and I can't remember right now if there is any evidence of this in the MS.
There is plenty of evidence of a 'second pass', both in the text (as forum member Wladimir has demonstrated beyond all doubt) and in the illustrations (pointed out especially by Nick Pelling), but I think this could also be for the reason I just mentioned.
One of many possible scenarios for the creation of the Voynich MS is that there was a draft created by its 'master mind', which was copied on parchment by a paid scribe. In this scenario, the scribe might or might not understand what he was copying, but it could be that he was paid for making a correct copy.
He might make corrections in order to convince his client to pay him, and the text might still be meaningless...
For me, this depends a lot on the scenario one has in mind for how the MS was created.
In the past, the perceived lack of corrections has been considered an argument that the text in the MS is perhaps meaningless. It is of course not that simple.
A 'mistake' implies that something should have been done one way, which is correct, but was done in other way, which is not correct. For spelling of words, this is a modern problem. Typical mistakes in medieval manuscripts are copying mistakes. This would apply to the Voynich MS only if the text were a copy of some other text. This is possible, but whether this is how the MS was created remains one of the unanswered questions.
The fact that there are emendations does not even necessarily mean that there was a mistake. It could also mean that something did not come out clearly on the first writing. Correction of mistakes was usually done by scraping, and I can't remember right now if there is any evidence of this in the MS.
There is plenty of evidence of a 'second pass', both in the text (as forum member Wladimir has demonstrated beyond all doubt) and in the illustrations (pointed out especially by Nick Pelling), but I think this could also be for the reason I just mentioned.
One of many possible scenarios for the creation of the Voynich MS is that there was a draft created by its 'master mind', which was copied on parchment by a paid scribe. In this scenario, the scribe might or might not understand what he was copying, but it could be that he was paid for making a correct copy.
He might make corrections in order to convince his client to pay him, and the text might still be meaningless...