Nick Pelling – Independent Historian nickpelling@nickpelling.com Vellum – radiocarbon dated to...

transcript

Nick Pelling – Independent Historian

nickpelling@nickpelling.com

http://www.ciphermysteries.com/

Vellum – radiocarbon dated to (1404…

Prague – provenance dated to …1612)

Between Vellum & Prague

…what happened?

Different Types of Evidence

• Physical – radiocarbon date, spectroscopy

• Technical – Art History, technique, cladistics

• Textual – close reading, reference analysis

• Analytical – codicology, palaeography

• Social – provenance, mentions, debate

Codicology = “archaeology of the page”

Codicology: separate the layers!

• Support material (vellum)

• Ink + drawings + paint(s)

• Marginalia + annotation + colophon

• Quire / book / folio numbering

• Corrections + emendations + lacunae

• Contact transfers + stains + accidents

Forensic analysis: “CSI: Voynich”!

• Locard’s Exchange Principle– “Every contact leaves a trace”

• Reconstruct the layer deposition order– Like a crime scene! (But with ink, not blood!)

• Events leave marks between layers– This lets us infer intermediate states

So, let’s take a look at…

…the Voynich Manuscript’squire numbers

Similar numbers (#1)

Cod Sang 839 [Thomas Sauvaget]

This also has book numbers in top margins:19, 29, 39, 49, 59

Cod Sang 688 [Philipp Lenz]

Seckau Abbey MS 384 [Thomas Sauvaget]

Žiče Monastery MS 972 [Thomas Sauvaget]

1464: Flores Musicae Cod.poet.et.phil.qt.52

[Thomas Sauvaget]

One other thing to note…

The “chicken scratch” marginalia are onf66v (in Q8) and f86v3 (in Q14)

Voynich Quire Numbers

• Quiration uses C15 number forms– Noted by John Matthews Manly in 1931

• Quire number gaps need explanation!

• A rarely used quire numbering system– pm9, 29, 39, 49, 5t9, 6t9, 7m9, 8u9, 9n9, 10m9 – “Abbreviated longhand Roman ordinals”

Voynich Folio Numbers

• Foliation uses C16 number forms– Probably added not long before Prague

• Folio number gaps need explanation!

• At least some paint was added later– Under microscope, f42r’s “42” is overpainted

• (Rene Zandbergen, 2009)

Quire order ≠ folio order!

• C15 quire numbers vs C16 folio numbers

• Q9 (‘Quire 9’) was restitched between quiration and foliation (John Grove)

• Same for nine-rosette Q14 (Glen Claston)

• Q2’s quire ‘-9’ terminates in Q6 (Pelling)

Quiration and foliation were independent!

Quire order ≠ original quire order!

• Q8 & Q13 – quire number on the wrong page

• Q13 & Q20 – both originally in two half-quires

• Q15 & Q19 – quires are in reverse order

Quire numberer was not the original author!

Many quire number puzzles!

• Multiple quire hands (Pelling 2006)

• Multiple quire hand numbering styles

• Quire sequence gaps (Q16 & Q18 missing)

• Quire order different from original order

• Quire order different from folio order

• Chicken scratch marginalia separated

So… what happened to the quire numbers?

Generally accepted ‘explanation’

‘Q16 & Q18 were probably single bifolios removed by Baresch to send to Kircher’

Problem: fails to explain the various quire hands, nor why quire hand #1 didn’t number all the quires in one go. Unlikely!

Bigger problem: only explanation on offer.

Intellectual History

• Assumes actions done in good faith

• Assumes rationality under trying conditions

• Primarily constrain hypotheses to evidence

• Few accounts normally fit all the evidence

A poor fit for cryptographic puzzles…

But an excellent fit for pure codicology!

Intellectual history of the quires

Two core presumptions:-

• The quire numbers are not deceptive

• The quire numberer(s) followed ‘the rules’:-

1. Number the quires in order

2. No need to number the endmost quire

3. Put number at bottom right of back page

4. Number each separate book individually

So… a tentative reconstruction

This is what I believe happened…

Quire state prior to quiration…

The Voynich Manuscript arrived on Quire Hand #1’s desk as three separate books!

Book A: Q1-Q7,Q17,Q8(Q14),Q9-Q12,Q20

Book B: Q13

Book C: Q19,Q15

Step #1: origin of Q19…

• Q19 was the 1st quire of Book C, and was numbered ‘19’ (‘primus’) by someone else!

• Q15 was the 2nd (and last) quire of Book C, so needed no quire number

• An owner rationalized Book A and Book B into a single Book AB1

• AB1: Q1-Q7,Q17,Q8(Q14),Q9-Q13, Q20

Step #3: Q14 falls out…

• First folded page of Q14 was f86v3

• Q14’s binding damaged, so had fallen out

• Q14 was reinserted immediately after Q8

• AB2: Q1-Q7,Q17,Q8,Q14,Q9-Q13,Q20

Step #4: ‘chicken scratches’ redux

• f66v is the last page of Q8

• f86v3 is still the first page of Q14

• Chicken scratch marginalia added to f66v and f86v3 - facing pages!

• AB3 = AB2 (but with chicken scratches)

• Nine-rosette Q14 needed rebinding

• Nine-rosette page was removed from after Q8 & reinserted after Q13

• AB4: Q1-Q7,Q17,Q8-Q14,Q20

• The owner wanted to rationalize Book AB4 and Book C into a single book

• Inserted Book C between Q14 and Q20

• Reversed order of Q15 and Q19!

• (Probably added Q20’s quire number)

• ABC1 = Q1-Q7,Q17,Q8-Q15,Q19,Q20

• Q17 was originally ‘7m9’, but contained uncomfortably wide folios. Sat awkwardly.

• The owner concluded that it should sit between the wide Q15 and Q19 quires

• Reordered & changed ‘7m9’ to ’17m9’

• ABC2 = Q1-Q15,Q17,Q19,Q20

Step #8: the missing bifolios

Q: where did Q8’s missing bifolios go?

A: the foliator saw the stubs of Q14’s ripped fold still in place in the centre of Q8, and counted the stubs as missing bifolios.

i.e. the nine-rosette page was literally in two places at once, so was double-counted!

Step #9: origin of Q6/Q7…

• Q6 / Q7 ended up with no quire numbers

• An owner concluded that these should be quirated in the original numbering style

• Final quire order: Q1-Q15,Q17,Q19,Q20

Conclusions (#1)

• Several people worked on the Voynich– At least two during C15

• They sought to give it form and order

• They looked for clues in the marginalia(…even if they didn’t always get it right!)

• Reordered & restitched sympathetically

They were bibliophiles… librarians.

Conclusions (#2)

• C15 hybrid numbering scheme is unusual– One foot in medieval traditions– One foot in contemporary practices– Torn between the two

Not humanists, but monks!

Two Speculative Hypotheses

1. “The Monastic Library Hypothesis”– “The Voynich Manuscript was given to Rudolf II by a

representative or inheritor of an abbey, monastery or friary.”

2. “The Franciscan Library Hypothesis”– “The Voynich Manuscript was given to Rudolf II by a

representative or inheritor of a Franciscan abbey, monastery or friary.”

(Roger Bacon was a Franciscan monk)

PS: enciphered quire numbers?

That’s All!

Thank you for your attention!

Any questions?

Nick Pelling – nickpelling@nickpelling.com

Nick Pelling – Independent Historian nickpelling@nickpelling.com Vellum – radiocarbon dated to...

Documents