The claimed Voynich page

[-JKP-]

Unfortunately, I didn't download the image and I didn't bookmark the page, but ReneZ uploaded an interesting mention some months ago of a "Voynich page" which the owner feels is authentic (or authentically old, I can't remember which)—of one of the large-plant drawings.


The instant I saw it, it was obvious to me that it was not drawn by the Voynich illustrator and the person who had copied the text didn't fully understand Voynichese glyph forms, so I basically forgot about it until a few minutes ago when it suddenly hit me why there was something eerily familiar about it. I can't find the original picture anywhere on the Net so I can't compare them to check if I remember it correctly, but it struck me that it is similar to a specific style and so perhaps was done around the same time. Maybe it's one of the drawings that was copied and sent to one of the potential decipherers, since most of the owners of the VMS were reluctant to let the original out of their hands.

If so, then it would definitely form part of the provenance of the manuscript.

Does anyone know if there's still a link to the pic on the Web?

[ReneZ]

Hello JKP,

You may find it here:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

A Google search with "Fabrizio Salani Voynich" will lead you to more information.


Addition: this was previously discussed in the thread:
The missing folios 59-64

[Koen G]

Link for the lazy: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

[-JKP-]

Thanks for the links. I don't know how helpful this will be, but I'll put it out there anyway...


I've just looked up the Augsburg herbal and Cadamosto after looking at the reproduction again and it's not the same hand (clearly not), but this line of herbals was, in a sense, a transitional style (there are traces of contemporary style in the drawings that were not commonly seen in the early 1400s), so perhaps it's worth noting.


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.


To me, nothing about the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. on the left resembles 15th-century works—not the pigments, not their application, not the style of drawing, not the way the pen is used or the ink (it looks more like India ink than gall ink), or the way the hatching is applied, but it hit me out of nowhere (while I was looking at an unrelated 12th-century manuscript) that something about the roots of the claimed VMS page nevertheless reminded me of Spenser MS 65 (middle left), Cadamosto (middle right), and a few of the other illustrators working in the late 15th and 16th centuries. The one on the far right, from Augsburg (BSB Cod.icon.26, c. 1520s), is probably the most similar in terms of the hatching and the light application of pigment to the root.


I would be very surprised if the drawing on the left were earlier than about 1540 and would not be surprised if it turned out to be 17th century (or later) after inks, paint pigments, and drawing styles had significantly changed. Perhaps it was copied from the VMS so it could be sent to someone for decipherment without giving up the original.


So maybe (this is very speculative) ... whoever made a copy of the VMS page was influenced by the drawing style in this branch of herbals since the root does not resemble VMS roots.

[Koen G]

What strikes me is that whoever made this copy was not a bad artist at all. If a person with this skill level wanted to copy the VM plant exactly, he could have.

To me this looks like the work of someone copying a VM plant and altering it enough to make it look like a different one. You may be right that a different kind of historical herbals was used for that.

[-JKP-]

What strikes me is that whoever made this copy was not a bad artist at all. If a person with this skill level wanted to copy the VM plant exactly, he could have.
...

This is a good point and I think you're right, the illustrator was capable of a faithful copy.

It's hard to think of explanations for this, but the one you  proposed seems reasonable. I had considered that maybe constraints in terms of access to the original might be a possibility. Could it have been mostly sketched and then finished elsewhere, maybe with another manuscript as reference?

[Koen G]

It seems clear that someone knowingly blended a Voynich plant with other references. The intentions could be:

1) Creative desire. Make your own page of the most mysterious manuscript in the world as a challenge. I guess this is a possibility if it has been made relatively recently, i.e. within the last century or so.
2) Attempted fraud. Might work if it was made before everybody knew all plants by heart. Or if the target was unsuspecting. 
3) Necessity, like the scenario you describe. This seems weird to me though. Some parts of the VM folio appear to be reproduced relatively well. Why do that decently and leave the rest. Also, why come up with a page full of nonsense-Voynichese?

Also: if you wanted to show the copy to someone, why knowingly contaminate it?

[Witch Mountain]

The instant I saw it, it was obvious to me that it was not drawn by the Voynich illustrator

Dear -JKP-, that is my impression also

[Pepper]

Apologies for bumping such an old thread, but did anything more come of this? Do we have any idea when and where the copy was made, or by whom? I can find hardly anything by Googling.

[ReneZ]

It comes back here from time to time. You can do a forum search for Salani.

Not much is known.