RE: VMs: Re: Cicco Simonetta / Sartirana / library...?

["GC" <glenclaston@xxxxxxxxx>]

Nick wrote:
> According to Sergio Toresella, the circles for the
> astrological diagrams
> were hand-traced, not mechanically drawn. This would
> make no sense unless
> they were copies, not originals.


I suppose there were various ways to draw circles, but one common
method was to use a circinus to mechanically scribe a circle on
the vellum, and then fill in this circle with ink in freehand
style.  I'm not the greatest tracer in the world myself, and even
if I have a mechanically drawn circle to follow, it is nothing
like using a compass to draw the circle. If I may draw:-) your
attention to the circle on f86v3, this appears to have been
scribed by a circinus (no ink) and has filled in over the years
with grime.  (Not too evident in the copyflow, but obvious in a
photo I passed on to Jim Gillogly, that was taken in the 30's.
Big image to compare with copyflow at
http://www.baconbooks.net/Voynich/images/foldout1.jpg)

As to there being more than one hand involved in the writing, I've
tried in vain to find evidence of this.  After overlaying
thousands of glyphs and looking for angle/width/stroke
discrepencies that would indicate another hand, I just can't find
this evidence.  Certain groups of pages appear to have been
written around the same time and under the same conditions, while
other groups display other conditions/time spacing, but even the
cramped handwriting of some of the 'later' sections cannot be
distinguished in any real way from the 'earlier' handwriting.
This is backed up by the fact that diagrams and drawings are all
done in the same ink and colors, and all in the same style,
indicating a single illustrator.  I'd need someone pointing me to
more compelling physical evidence if I were to seriously consider
the "multiple scribes" theory.


>I have some idea about how I can provide evidence for this - I
certainly
>believe that the herbal and the balneological sections are copies
from
>quite separate manuscripts, and that the cosmo section is from a
different
>source... but "smoking gun" proofs are hard. :-(

If you're speaking strictly about "source", I'd tend to agree.
One uses several separate textbooks during a course of study, and
each may be focused on a single portion of that larger discipline.
If we take the most logical course and assume that the herbal is
indeed an herbal, the balneological is indeed that, the
astrological is astrological, the astronomical is astronomical,
and the pharmaceutical is indeed an antidotary, it cannot be
successfully argued on this physical evidence that these many
parts do NOT belong to a single overall discipline, mainly that of
a medieval physician.  It may not be simple coincidence therefore,
that each section is placed in the order of instruction necessary
to properly prepare the student, i.e., textbook order.

I lack any physical evidence that would indicate that more than
one person was involved in illuminating the manuscript, or that
more than one person was involved in writing/transcribing the
manuscript.  I also lack any external reference to copies floating
around anywhere else.  There is nothing I've learned to date that
causes me to question the simplest of explanations, that this was
a unique work by a relatively unknown author which was never
publicized or copied, and which stayed with the author probably
until his death.  I say 'until his death' because there is
evidence that the manuscript was constructed over an extended
period of time by the author, and that some reorganization of
pages was done by the author and not by someone else.

A year or so ago, when we were discussing the "4o" symbol, I
remember mentioning a manuscript where I found this to represent
something on the order of "the Sun in Jupiter".  For the life of
me I still can't find that manuscript again, but I'm still
searching.  A symbol very close to this is also associated with
English physicians, although I'm not aware of its significance.
More importantly, I hope the focus on a single glyph is not the
cornerstone of your theory.

If we look for our cornerstones in shorthand, we build a more
solid base.  D'Imperio starts out with an impressive list of
glyphs drawing from medieval Latin and Greek.  To that list we can
add the RED astrological symbols found on f1r, a set of single
occurence glyphs throughout the herbal section that are also
discovered in shorthand, and the glyphs on f57v which hold a very
special place in my heart of hearts.  These special glyphs are
ONLY found in English shorthand, and have occurred nowhere else in
the recorded history we have available to us.  In toto, we have 33
glyphs directly associated with shorthand systems, a number I'd
say is a bit more than coincidence?

England was not alone in its use of shorthand, but it must be
noted again that ALL (I repeat - ALL) early shorthand books
published in England were written by Physicians.  We know
physicians commonly used shorthand, and we know also that
apothecaries had a shorthand system as well.  Shorthand therefore
had to be a part of their training.  It's also important to note
that shorthand was used as much for secrecy as for speed of
writing.

We agree that this is strictly cipher, not shorthand, but the
simplest of explanations, that which incorporates all the physical
evidence without contradiction, is that the the author was a
relative unknown who probably had no access to diplomatic codes
and therefore could not have known about the code use for "4o".
Rather, he was heavily engaged in the study of the virtues and
medinical uses of plants for the purpose of healing and treating
disease, and for one reason or another felt that his work on the
subject was important enough to conceal.  He learned at least one
shorthand system, and if he was a member of the clergy, would have
had access to at least one more 'proprietary' system.  He clearly
viewed more than one system before constructing the Voynich, but
given the fact that this book is in keeping with a university
setting, the availability of this type of information would have
been optimal for the formation of the VMS script.

If this fellow were of an 'artistic' temperament (as opposed to
being able to actually draw), this would go far in explaining why
the common VMS glyphs break down into groups of four variations
each.  Look at the images in Porta's DeFurtivus or breeze through
Trithemius or Selenus, and you'll see that each alphabet contains
variations on a theme, much like the VMS glyph construction.  As
I've opinionated time and again, this in itself should be
considered a glimpse at the 'key' to the VMS.

Nick, I know you well enough I hope, that you will take my
criticisms as constructive, and I look forward to your future
proofs.  In considering any theory, I look for cornerstones of the
argument, and I hope your larger presentation fills in a few more
stones than you've presented in this very abbreviated
presentation. I personally hope that you can point me to something
that agrees physically with your theory, and turns some of my
views on their head.  You don't stand a pepperoni's chance in
Domino's, but I do hope you try! :-)

GC







______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list