03-01-2026, 03:15 AM
The next point I want to raise in this thread has to do with the “does it exist?” question.
What should be the proper unit of analysis of the Voynich manuscript in its research? Does the material pertaining to that unit exist today?
I have seen in the discussions going on in this forum and elsewhere instances where it is stated that this or that information does not exist in the VM manuscript, often without a qualification that the manuscript is incomplete.
It is commonly agreed today that the existing manuscript is incomplete. It is lacking many bifolia and two cut-out bifolia halves, based on quire and page numbers that had been added to it much later than its (vellum) production time, suggesting that at some point, it had included those missing pages when it was produced.
It has recently been posited that the vellum may not have been bound originally, debatable or not in terms of the intention of its binding plans. The existing quire and bifolia/page numbers did not necessarily originate in the original production but were added later when a compiler had decided to put them in order presumably for intended binding of the collection. And based on further arguments made and evidence shown, many agree that the current order of the quires and bifolia is not correct.
If the quire and page numbers were added later than the original production, we cannot really set aside the possibility that there could have been even more quires or bifolia, including even any original cover or title page, that have also gone missing, and we do not even know of their going missing (or being removed).
The missing quires or bifolia (or even original title page) may have included more information we lack today. Anyone who states that the manuscript does not include this or that information cannot be reasonably sure whether the original manuscript had included it (such as the charts of planets; more information about its author(s) or any astrological charts associated with any person; when and how it came about; perhaps even some table or key for reading its texts, also likely unbound and accompanying it, if it was meant to be a private handbook for the use of its author(s)).
Many today argue, reasonably, that scribes (however many they were in earlier 1400s) could not have just started writing and drawing the manuscript from nothing. The calf vellum was too expensive to be an initial experimental draft.
So, reasonably, some of you have argued, that the scribes must have been working on the vellum working from separate drafts.
But how do we know if the draft used was just a page by page rough sketch prepared just for the final work on the vellum, rather than more? Was the “author” living then and just handing each sheet to them on a rough draft to be transferred onto the vellum? Was the vellum completed based on drafts left by a deceased author? Was the “draft” actually a completed manuscript, perhaps on a cheaper paper or other parchment that had faded or needed preservation (perhaps even by the wishes of the author as stated on a will) on the calf vellum for preservation, the drafts destroyed after completion of the original manuscript?
If that was the case, was the draft original in the same form and style as the existing (incomplete) manuscript? Were the texts and the illustrations on separate sheets, and the vellum scribes joined an illustration and its corresponding text together on the same page to save vellum space? Was the text of the existing (incomplete) manuscript devised by the scribes to save space in the vellum production, which was an important consideration those days, or is the text we see today as it had appeared on the author’s original? Were the illustrations exactly as it had been on the draft, or did the scribes add their own additions or styling to the vellum production?
How old could have been such a “complete” manuscript DRAFT that the vellum scribes used for their final vellum production purpose, if that was the case? Based on textual and illustration evidence of the existing (incomplete) manuscript, it seems plausible to argue that such an original draft could not have been too distant in time and place from the likely production place and time of the existing (incomplete) manuscript.
If so, could that original draft have been produced sometime in 1300s in Europe, not going too far back in time from early 1400s?
The carbon dating of the existing (incomplete) manuscript has certainly narrowed down when and generally where it had been produced, but that has little to do with the drafts that could have been used for its production. Did it narrow it too much?
The period 1400-1450, broadly speaking, is for the vellum production, but is the incomplete manuscript we have today the proper unit of analysis of the research being undertaken about the origins of the manuscript?
Should not those “drafts” (perhaps an original manuscript preexisting the vellum version) be included in the unit of analysis of this manuscript, since it will push back its possible date of authorship to an earlier century than what we assume today?
Has the carbon dating inadvertently narrowed down the “solutions space” for studying the origins of the complete manuscript?
What should be the proper unit of analysis of the Voynich manuscript in its research? Does the material pertaining to that unit exist today?
I have seen in the discussions going on in this forum and elsewhere instances where it is stated that this or that information does not exist in the VM manuscript, often without a qualification that the manuscript is incomplete.
It is commonly agreed today that the existing manuscript is incomplete. It is lacking many bifolia and two cut-out bifolia halves, based on quire and page numbers that had been added to it much later than its (vellum) production time, suggesting that at some point, it had included those missing pages when it was produced.
It has recently been posited that the vellum may not have been bound originally, debatable or not in terms of the intention of its binding plans. The existing quire and bifolia/page numbers did not necessarily originate in the original production but were added later when a compiler had decided to put them in order presumably for intended binding of the collection. And based on further arguments made and evidence shown, many agree that the current order of the quires and bifolia is not correct.
If the quire and page numbers were added later than the original production, we cannot really set aside the possibility that there could have been even more quires or bifolia, including even any original cover or title page, that have also gone missing, and we do not even know of their going missing (or being removed).
The missing quires or bifolia (or even original title page) may have included more information we lack today. Anyone who states that the manuscript does not include this or that information cannot be reasonably sure whether the original manuscript had included it (such as the charts of planets; more information about its author(s) or any astrological charts associated with any person; when and how it came about; perhaps even some table or key for reading its texts, also likely unbound and accompanying it, if it was meant to be a private handbook for the use of its author(s)).
Many today argue, reasonably, that scribes (however many they were in earlier 1400s) could not have just started writing and drawing the manuscript from nothing. The calf vellum was too expensive to be an initial experimental draft.
So, reasonably, some of you have argued, that the scribes must have been working on the vellum working from separate drafts.
But how do we know if the draft used was just a page by page rough sketch prepared just for the final work on the vellum, rather than more? Was the “author” living then and just handing each sheet to them on a rough draft to be transferred onto the vellum? Was the vellum completed based on drafts left by a deceased author? Was the “draft” actually a completed manuscript, perhaps on a cheaper paper or other parchment that had faded or needed preservation (perhaps even by the wishes of the author as stated on a will) on the calf vellum for preservation, the drafts destroyed after completion of the original manuscript?
If that was the case, was the draft original in the same form and style as the existing (incomplete) manuscript? Were the texts and the illustrations on separate sheets, and the vellum scribes joined an illustration and its corresponding text together on the same page to save vellum space? Was the text of the existing (incomplete) manuscript devised by the scribes to save space in the vellum production, which was an important consideration those days, or is the text we see today as it had appeared on the author’s original? Were the illustrations exactly as it had been on the draft, or did the scribes add their own additions or styling to the vellum production?
How old could have been such a “complete” manuscript DRAFT that the vellum scribes used for their final vellum production purpose, if that was the case? Based on textual and illustration evidence of the existing (incomplete) manuscript, it seems plausible to argue that such an original draft could not have been too distant in time and place from the likely production place and time of the existing (incomplete) manuscript.
If so, could that original draft have been produced sometime in 1300s in Europe, not going too far back in time from early 1400s?
The carbon dating of the existing (incomplete) manuscript has certainly narrowed down when and generally where it had been produced, but that has little to do with the drafts that could have been used for its production. Did it narrow it too much?
The period 1400-1450, broadly speaking, is for the vellum production, but is the incomplete manuscript we have today the proper unit of analysis of the research being undertaken about the origins of the manuscript?
Should not those “drafts” (perhaps an original manuscript preexisting the vellum version) be included in the unit of analysis of this manuscript, since it will push back its possible date of authorship to an earlier century than what we assume today?
Has the carbon dating inadvertently narrowed down the “solutions space” for studying the origins of the complete manuscript?