02-03-2017, 10:56 PM
Edit KG: this thread was split from another one in the news section, for the original thread see here: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Hello Koen,
I guess that your point is that experts are sometimes wrong and can disagree with each other. I certainly can agree with that.
I find the way you present your argument worth commenting.
First of all, you didn't quote, not even mention, the researchers you are talking about. Secondly, you give the impression of not really having read what they wrote: you seem to be discussing what you grabbed from what “the regulars” wrote about these ideas.
The "facsimile edition" reference seems unambiguous: Jennifer M.Rampling, who, in her essay “Alchemical Traditions” states that “the content of this manuscript [the VMS] is almost certainly not alchemical in nature.” Since, you are talking about the plants, it should be mentioned that her analysis is only limited to “the so-called biological or balneological section.”
Given the reference to alchemy, the “certain herbal traditions” you mention must include the so-called Alchemical herbals (which are the other traditions you allude to?). The expert who you think fell into the “pitfall”, whose views "don't stand the test upon closer scrutiny", must be Sergio Toresella, who associated the Voynich ms with that tradition in 1996 (“Gli Erbari degli Alchimisti”) and, as far as I know, was the first to systematically study that tradition. The name “alchemical herbals” (erbari degli alchimisti) is a tribute to Ulisse Aldrovandi (1522-1605) -who had collected a certain number of these herbals binding them together with the label “Plants of the alchemists”; lacking a better definition I will use this word too.- One could argue that the name chosen by Toresella is not optimal: it certainly can mislead paleography newbies like myself.
Toresella made clear that the references to alchemy are “only incidental,” mostly textual and connected to the various types of “Lunaria”. He notes that the VMS contains “tens of plants similar to those of the alchemists, but that do not belong to the same iconographic tradition.” A similar opinion has been recently put forward by Alain Touwaide: “Several plant illustrations in the Voynich Manuscript present a similarity with botanical illustrations from the XIV and XV Century, in particular -but not only- with the so-called alchemical herbals.”
The fact that the alchemical herbals are now an “easy to pick” tradition is due to the fact that Toresella has done the hard work for us all, studying hundreds of manuscripts on the field for decades. This tradition was not “easy to pick” for him twenty years ago, it now is an excellent pick for Voynich researchers.
The points of view of Rampling and Toresella/Touwaide are perfectly compatible. Of course, at the moment one cannot be certain that the VMS has no alchemical content, nor that it is related with the so-called alchemical herbals: but both opinions have been expressed in a well documented way and I think they are likely both right.
I think that, if our hobby has anything to do with understanding the VMS, a real pitfall is believing that any amount of googling is somehow better than a formal training in ancient languages, art history and paleography: years (sometimes decades) of experience in actually reading and understanding true medieval manuscripts. How many complete pages of ancient manuscript text have I read? In how many languages? How many times have I held in my hands a medieval manuscript? I believe there are many more pitfalls for myself than for Rampling, Touwaide, Toresella or the young Marraccini.
(02-03-2017, 09:14 AM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I mostly expect her not to be aware of a number of pitfalls us "regulars" know all too well. One of those pitfalls is that certain herbal traditions make for easy pickings, but don't stand the test upon closer scrutiny. Case in point is when one of the experts who wrote an essay for the facsimile edition concluded that there was probably no significant link with the alchemical tradition.
Hello Koen,
I guess that your point is that experts are sometimes wrong and can disagree with each other. I certainly can agree with that.
I find the way you present your argument worth commenting.
First of all, you didn't quote, not even mention, the researchers you are talking about. Secondly, you give the impression of not really having read what they wrote: you seem to be discussing what you grabbed from what “the regulars” wrote about these ideas.
The "facsimile edition" reference seems unambiguous: Jennifer M.Rampling, who, in her essay “Alchemical Traditions” states that “the content of this manuscript [the VMS] is almost certainly not alchemical in nature.” Since, you are talking about the plants, it should be mentioned that her analysis is only limited to “the so-called biological or balneological section.”
Given the reference to alchemy, the “certain herbal traditions” you mention must include the so-called Alchemical herbals (which are the other traditions you allude to?). The expert who you think fell into the “pitfall”, whose views "don't stand the test upon closer scrutiny", must be Sergio Toresella, who associated the Voynich ms with that tradition in 1996 (“Gli Erbari degli Alchimisti”) and, as far as I know, was the first to systematically study that tradition. The name “alchemical herbals” (erbari degli alchimisti) is a tribute to Ulisse Aldrovandi (1522-1605) -who had collected a certain number of these herbals binding them together with the label “Plants of the alchemists”; lacking a better definition I will use this word too.- One could argue that the name chosen by Toresella is not optimal: it certainly can mislead paleography newbies like myself.
Toresella made clear that the references to alchemy are “only incidental,” mostly textual and connected to the various types of “Lunaria”. He notes that the VMS contains “tens of plants similar to those of the alchemists, but that do not belong to the same iconographic tradition.” A similar opinion has been recently put forward by Alain Touwaide: “Several plant illustrations in the Voynich Manuscript present a similarity with botanical illustrations from the XIV and XV Century, in particular -but not only- with the so-called alchemical herbals.”
The fact that the alchemical herbals are now an “easy to pick” tradition is due to the fact that Toresella has done the hard work for us all, studying hundreds of manuscripts on the field for decades. This tradition was not “easy to pick” for him twenty years ago, it now is an excellent pick for Voynich researchers.
The points of view of Rampling and Toresella/Touwaide are perfectly compatible. Of course, at the moment one cannot be certain that the VMS has no alchemical content, nor that it is related with the so-called alchemical herbals: but both opinions have been expressed in a well documented way and I think they are likely both right.
I think that, if our hobby has anything to do with understanding the VMS, a real pitfall is believing that any amount of googling is somehow better than a formal training in ancient languages, art history and paleography: years (sometimes decades) of experience in actually reading and understanding true medieval manuscripts. How many complete pages of ancient manuscript text have I read? In how many languages? How many times have I held in my hands a medieval manuscript? I believe there are many more pitfalls for myself than for Rampling, Touwaide, Toresella or the young Marraccini.