Because of the lack of satisfactory evidence to work with, there are two basic Voynich research methodologies:
- concrete (which focus on those miserably few things we know about the VMs); and
- speculative (which try to determine which of the quadrillion possible explanations for the VMs are most inherently plausible).
In line with the first of the two, I’ve spent a long time hacking away at the VMs’ marginalia in a concrete attempt to work out from whence they came, so as to make the provenance leap a century or more backwards from 1600 to some point closer to the Voynich Manuscript’s actual origin. It’s been a hard slog, but I think I’ve now landed on the right doorstep: Savoy (specifically the post-1416 Duchy of Savoy).
When I saw this page (from Archives Départementales de la Côte-d’Or, B 6768, dated 1345), there’s just something about the handwriting that rings a bell for me. OK, it’s not by the same person (in fact, they’re probably close to a century apart) but look at its “nichil” with f116v’s “michiton”:-
Is this just some palaeographic coincidence? I really think not: in fact, I predict that if a multispectral infrared scan of f116v was carried out, you’d see (at just the right wavelength) the top part of the “t” of “michiton” mysteriously morph into a looped “l”, as per the 1345 document. Basically, I’m pretty sure that “+ michiton” originally read “+ nichil” (or possibly “+ nichilum“), as the Ecclesiastical Latin “nichil” seems to pop up mainly in the context of late medieval French Latin texts, by monks allegedly influenced by the Florentine humanist Leonardo Bruni’s (1369-1444) practice of using “ch” for “h”. Perhaps an experienced Savoy palaeographer would be the right person to ask about this? I suspect that there’s much more we could tell…
Interestingly, here’s a map of Savoy in the 15th century: hmmm, not far from Milan at all. So, is that some kind of coincidence as well? 🙂
P.S.: I should add that it could indeed just as well be “michi” written in basically the same hand, except that I suspect that the “o” and the initial “m” of “michiton” were both emended by a later owner, and that this doesn’t help explain what is going on with the whole word.
Pingback: Tweets that mention Voynich-Manuscript: Savoy palaeography: was michiton originally nichil? #voynich #vms -- Topsy.com
I haven’t understood why you are ignoring (or not mentioning) the terminal -on, nor why you think that the o is emended? Also, if the word is indeed nichil, what is its significance?
I must say that, to me, it seems unlikely that the top loop of the postulated “l” would have disappeared and yet the nearby top of the “h” is still clear and dark. It’s not like the vellum is stained or inhomogeneous in this vicinity.
Julian: conversely, the problem with “michiton” / “anchiton” is that it is not a real word. The front and back pages get the most wear, so the scenario I argue for (that the ink was faded if not completely lost but then miscorrected) is pretty reasonable: the question then becomes one of codicology informed by palaeography – what did it originally look like (and what did it originally say)?
If the word is indeed “nichil”, its significance is that (a) it’s Ecclesiastical Latin, probably written in Southern France or Northern Italy, and (b) it helps us sharply reduce the number of possible words following it. For example, one might reasonably hypothesize that the line may have originally commenced “nichil obstat” (a sign that a Church censor had examined it for doctrinal problems)… but that’s a story for another post. 🙂
Nick: Somewhere on the Milanese side of the border of Milan and Savoy is a distinct possibility I think.
@ Nick: michiton o la da ba — olid — to have a bad smell — suspicious….. ?
ps: miche — is spelled with a cedilla on the letter ‘c’
My reference is from my five-inch-thick “Webster’s New Twentieth Century Unabridged Dictionary. Probably nowhere near the michiton or nichil — .
Anybody up for another possible clue to the mystery ?
bd
bd
FWIW (via http://www.wordorigins.org/index.php/forums/viewthread/5224/)
[…]As it turns out, Nicolas de Lyre (1270-1349) used the word “anchiton” instead of “amianton”[…]
[…]To the note – from the commentaries to the “Historia de praeliis”:
[the fabric, which resists fire and iron, which he (Alexander the Great) overmold the iron gates : antichiton and anchiton. The true spelling of this word is uncertain . Muller believes that asbestos is meant.] […]
Höchstwahrscheinlich heisst es ” anchiron “.
Leitsatz:
“me anchiron a chiros q. e. manus vel chimos q. e.”
Dann folgt die Beschreibung einer Krankheit: vermutlich “Cholera”
(cf. v. 1360). cf. Plat. ex opilatione superioris vel inferioris pori
cistis fellis. de splene cf. v. 1360 | is splenis 1· uberioris b ||
1332 infect9 (-tus)
Gefunden Harvard College Library
Heute würde man eher bei “griechisch Cheiron” oder ” latein. Chiron” suchen.
der griechische Gott der sich selber heilt.
Weitere beschreibungen in der römisch kaiserlichen Akademie.
ich bin mir ziemlich sicher in f116 handelt es sich um die schwarze Cholera. Im Mittelalter auch bekannt unter Leberverstopfung.
Mehr wenn ich meine Abhandlung fertig geschrieben habe.
It’s an interesting idea, Peter.
I only had a moment to glance at the source, but I believe that “me anchiron” probably is intended to be “melanchiron” (vielleicht “me anchiron” ist ein OCR Fehler?).
I don’t have time to look through manuscripts right now, but I think I’ve seen melanchiron refer to jaundice rather than cholera.
@JKP
You speak of jaundice, so the yellow cholera.
The black cholera are the gallstones.
Exactly he writes “sed me anchiron a chiros”.
In the Roman imperial academy the black cholera is spoken mainly in the area “Chiron”.
Since the liver is mentioned in the VM at the top, I assume that it is the black cholera, or even liver constipation.
Therefore, I think in f116 is about cholera, whether yellow or black.
There write more.
incendens, succensa micans urina. notatur
indicio simili colerae rubeae dominantis
ubertas nimiaque siti maioque suprema,
exoso gustu linguae capitisque dolore,
auris tinnitu, pigris afi’ectibus escae,
egestis colerae signum portantibus atque
consimili vomitu. si porus cistis amaram
transmittens coleram stomacho constringitur, ima
plus in parte sedet color aemulus et nichilum tunc
aut modicum capiet pars aegri corporis altas
verticis attingens partes, egestio chymi
signa. gerit. cistis fellis si clauditur alter
porus quo colera petit intestina, suprema
but definitely an interesting approach
It is also interesting that in the academy as a medicinal herb the “Gunderman” mentioned, that would be the plant of F49r.
On the top of the last page, it is possible to read :
“Pox haben nomen putrifer” (which makes sense)
We can also understand “anchiron oladabad” as “anchiron gave off a unpleasant smell” (“oladare” as a neologism : “to give off an unmpleasant smell”. Indeed, many words work with the add of “dare” as prefix : “accomo-dare”, “accor-dare”, etc., we could imagine something like “ola-dare”, from “olax”, “oleo”, “oleum”. Oladare would be not far from another form “olacitas” )
Last thing (but it’s very unlikely; it seems to me that is just a funny coincidence) “michiton” can be understood as “micheton”, an argotic word for “a prostitute’s client”, but the first referrenced occurrence was in the XVIIth century).