![]() ![]() Why should those few extra glyphs matter? And why does it matter how many scribes there are and how they collaborate across the manuscript? Because in order to make any progress understanding what (if anything) this manuscript has to say, linguists, cryptologists, and computational analysts need data, and every bit of data helps. I took hundreds of high-magnification images that will help me further understand the writing system and the distinctive characteristics of the various scribes. These images represent just a few of the outcomes of yesterday’s research trip. My image captures some of the hidden glyphs. 102r (left), where a crease in the parchment has obscured some of the glyphs in the online image. I was able to image a bit more of the hidden text yesterday (detail below right). 71v (detail below left, rotated 90° counter-clockwise). Unfortunately, that strip obscures some of the text in the online image of f. The gutter of the fold-out that comprises folios 71 and 72 (above) is fragile and has been re-enforced by a strip of modern vellum to protect it from tearing (red arrows above). If someone was correcting or editing the text after it was written, that adds to the evidence that there is in fact meaningful text underlying these mysterious glyphs – text that several people (at least five by my count) knew how to read and write – and that one of those people had editorial authority. This, in turn, sheds light on the process of writing the manuscript. After the original glyph was written, someone – probably one of the scribes – amended or corrected the glyph by adding the curving stroke. This tells me something interesting about what’s happening here. Looking at it in person, though, I can tell that the dark curved line was clearly written on top of the vertical line, rather than the other way around. For example, it’s hard to tell for sure the sequence of writing for the complex glyph found on the first line of folio 42 recto (shown at left). But even images like these don’t always capture the paleographic features I’m looking for. The high-resolution images on the Library’s website are also critically important for my work, as they facilitate a detailed examination of this unique writing system. These codicological features can’t always be discerned in digital images hence, my visit to the Library. By exploring the collaborative nature of the crafting and writing of this manuscript, we come one step closer to understanding its origins. I need to study the quire structure, the binding, and the sewing – the three-dimensional components of the manuscript. For the work I’m doing – studying the relationship between the work of each of the five scribes and the codicological features of the manuscript – in-person examination is critical. This is my sixth time studying the Voynich Manuscript in person, and I feel very fortunate to have had those opportunities. That’s why I’ve had to get special permission to see the manuscript each time I’ve studied it in person (and if you want to know why I’m not wearing white cotton gloves, check out this blogpost from the experts at the British Library). And as thrilling as it is to handle such an important and ancient object, there are lots of reasons NOT to, including the need to protect it from over-handling and environmental exposure. For most purposes, the online images are more than sufficient. You might be wondering why I felt I needed to see the Voynich Manuscript in person, since the Beinecke’s website provides hundreds of high-resolution images in an open-access environment. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |