The late Stephen Bax suggested, on several occasions in his writing, that the script we find in the Voynich manuscript may not be unique to it. He suggests that it might be an historical accident that the script has only survived in this work. He offers few arguments for this, but he rightly says that we cannot be sure the script is peculiar to the Voynich. This is contrary to the widespread assumption that the script is unique to the work and may even have been designed specifically for the purpose.
Here I want to rehearse some arguments for and against:
*The relevant period saw considerable experimentation in scripts, especially the so-called humanist scripts. The Voynich script may well have been part of a broader experimentalism rather than being made specifically for the Voynich.
*The several scribes who worked on the Voynich seem perfectly familiar and comfortable with the script as if they have used it before. This suggests there may have been other works written in it.
*The script itself contains enough glyphs to constitute a fully functioning alphabet. It seems to be an all-purpose glyph set that could easily be used for any type of text. By design it seems general-purpose.
*The fact that a team of scribes can be identified working on the Voynich counts against the script being idiosyncratic or a private folly. (It may have been an “in-house” script in a manuscript workshop or even a training script for scribes.)
*A reason the script is not found anywhere else may be that it was not very successful and so was discontinued. (Like other scripts, it disappeared with the introduction of printing.)
*The fact the script is only found in the Voynich is not evidence that it was designed for the manuscript or that it was not used anywhere else. We have lost a huge amount of material from the relevant period; it may not be surprising only one sample has survived.
Against these points:
*The script is easy and fluent. It is easy to write. Anyone can become proficient in it in an afternoon. Trained scribes could acquire it and master it effortlessly. We don’t need to suppose they had used it before or often. It’s not hard.
*Even in a period that saw the development of new scripts, and experimentalism, it is unprecedented. Not only have we not found another sample of it, we have not found anything like it as an ensemble of glyphs.
*Although much has been lost, the relevant period is very well documented. Yet not a single instance of the script – not one – has ever been found beyond the Voynich manuscript. It is not for lack of looking. We can safely say there has now been a comprehensive search of the documents of the period and nothing has been found.
*It cannot be said the script was unsuccessful: we have 240 pages of it. It seemed to have served its purpose in the Voynich very well.
*It is debatable how many scribes were involved, but even in the widest estimates there were probably one or two main scribes, while others (assistants) did selected sections or added the labels. There is no reason a unique script could not have been introduced in such a scenario. We might suppose: a small team of scribes have been employed by someone to produce a one-off manuscript in a unique script. We don’t need to conjecture about in-house scripts or such.
*Most importantly, the script appears to be carefully designed. So too does the text written in it. Both the script and the text written in it seem to be designed within rigid constraints. Arguably, they go together. The systematic artificiality of the script reflects the very systematic and artificial nature of the text itself. The script does not seem to be an ad hoc adaption: it seems designed for the job with glyphs seemingly having very specific, carefully designed functions.
*While the Voynich glyph set might constitute an alphabet, it is most unlike other alphabets and does not seem like a simple, generic general-purpose alphabet. Most obviously, the so-called gallows glyphs have very peculiar, complex properties that would not be easily deployed. In general, the glyphs display peculiar behavior under artificial rules entirely unlike that of letters in a simple alphabet made for general purposes. It might look like a generic alphabet, but it doesn't behave like one.
Here I want to rehearse some arguments for and against:
*The relevant period saw considerable experimentation in scripts, especially the so-called humanist scripts. The Voynich script may well have been part of a broader experimentalism rather than being made specifically for the Voynich.
*The several scribes who worked on the Voynich seem perfectly familiar and comfortable with the script as if they have used it before. This suggests there may have been other works written in it.
*The script itself contains enough glyphs to constitute a fully functioning alphabet. It seems to be an all-purpose glyph set that could easily be used for any type of text. By design it seems general-purpose.
*The fact that a team of scribes can be identified working on the Voynich counts against the script being idiosyncratic or a private folly. (It may have been an “in-house” script in a manuscript workshop or even a training script for scribes.)
*A reason the script is not found anywhere else may be that it was not very successful and so was discontinued. (Like other scripts, it disappeared with the introduction of printing.)
*The fact the script is only found in the Voynich is not evidence that it was designed for the manuscript or that it was not used anywhere else. We have lost a huge amount of material from the relevant period; it may not be surprising only one sample has survived.
Against these points:
*The script is easy and fluent. It is easy to write. Anyone can become proficient in it in an afternoon. Trained scribes could acquire it and master it effortlessly. We don’t need to suppose they had used it before or often. It’s not hard.
*Even in a period that saw the development of new scripts, and experimentalism, it is unprecedented. Not only have we not found another sample of it, we have not found anything like it as an ensemble of glyphs.
*Although much has been lost, the relevant period is very well documented. Yet not a single instance of the script – not one – has ever been found beyond the Voynich manuscript. It is not for lack of looking. We can safely say there has now been a comprehensive search of the documents of the period and nothing has been found.
*It cannot be said the script was unsuccessful: we have 240 pages of it. It seemed to have served its purpose in the Voynich very well.
*It is debatable how many scribes were involved, but even in the widest estimates there were probably one or two main scribes, while others (assistants) did selected sections or added the labels. There is no reason a unique script could not have been introduced in such a scenario. We might suppose: a small team of scribes have been employed by someone to produce a one-off manuscript in a unique script. We don’t need to conjecture about in-house scripts or such.
*Most importantly, the script appears to be carefully designed. So too does the text written in it. Both the script and the text written in it seem to be designed within rigid constraints. Arguably, they go together. The systematic artificiality of the script reflects the very systematic and artificial nature of the text itself. The script does not seem to be an ad hoc adaption: it seems designed for the job with glyphs seemingly having very specific, carefully designed functions.
*While the Voynich glyph set might constitute an alphabet, it is most unlike other alphabets and does not seem like a simple, generic general-purpose alphabet. Most obviously, the so-called gallows glyphs have very peculiar, complex properties that would not be easily deployed. In general, the glyphs display peculiar behavior under artificial rules entirely unlike that of letters in a simple alphabet made for general purposes. It might look like a generic alphabet, but it doesn't behave like one.
* * *
Stephen Bax contributed many sensible observations to these studies. His open approach was very valuable. His position was: we don't know, so we consider all reasonable possibilities. He made especially valuable comments on the idea that scripts were created when oral languages made the transition into writing: he cites Armenian as an obvious historical example. He rightly notes that the period of the Voynich manuscript was an era when formal vernacular languages and national identities were forming.
No, we cannot be certain that the Voynich manuscript was the only work written in this script, and yes, we must depend upon arguments from silence, which is weak evidence. But on the whole I think the evidence, such as it is, favors the view that the script is unique to the codex. The complete lack of any other example is not proof but it is strongly suggestive in such a well-documented period. Unless, or until, we find but one other example of the script in any manuscript anywhere, we must suspect it was created for the Voynich project.
Moreover, the peculiar nature of the script seems apiece with the peculiar nature of the text itself. Both display tight design principles applied with quite rigid system. It seems likely that they are the products of the same mind. This leads me to conclude: the mind that composed the text also designed the script.
No, we cannot be certain that the Voynich manuscript was the only work written in this script, and yes, we must depend upon arguments from silence, which is weak evidence. But on the whole I think the evidence, such as it is, favors the view that the script is unique to the codex. The complete lack of any other example is not proof but it is strongly suggestive in such a well-documented period. Unless, or until, we find but one other example of the script in any manuscript anywhere, we must suspect it was created for the Voynich project.
Moreover, the peculiar nature of the script seems apiece with the peculiar nature of the text itself. Both display tight design principles applied with quite rigid system. It seems likely that they are the products of the same mind. This leads me to conclude: the mind that composed the text also designed the script.
R. B.
No comments:
Post a Comment