23-01-2018, 08:23 PM
A thread which J.K.Petersen has just started informs us of a paper published a day or so ago by J. Michael Herrmann, entitled, 'The Cannabis Page of the Voynich Manuscript'.
(by 'Cannabis page' he means folio 16v.)
In that paper the author says:
And this makes me interested in the history of that 'Manichaean' idea in Voynich studies. When it started, whose bright idea it was and so on.
Setting aside the textual problems caused by Latin Christianity's calling any sort of dualist belief 'Manichaean', where modern scholarship distinguishes Manichaeism from Catharism and Bogomilism etc., I'll accept any sort of 'Manichee' , though I use Manichaean only in the stricter sense, myself.
The first person I've found with any kind of 'Manichaean-ish' theory is Dr. Leo Levitov. He was only talking about the western European 'Cathars' though. Pelling, mentioning Levitov, refers readers to You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. of Levitov (October 10, 1998) -and a jolly good refutation it is too.
Pelling later reviewed a novel by Emery Borka (ciphermysteries.com, 23 November , 2011) where Cathars get a look in, but that doesn't count.
In the interests of the historical record, the earliest (of 30) posts mentioning Manichaeism at voynichimagery is dated Sunday, July 22nd, 2012. The post of September 8th, 2012 speaks about Manichaeism in detail, includes a map of the region near Ghazni where (as I'd already said) Mani's Picture Book is said to have been preserved until the 11thC and so forth. None of the 30 posts was about Cathars, or Bogomils; only Manichaeism in the strict sense, and only the '5 elements' diagram on f.77 is said certainly to embody documented Manichaean beliefs. The most recent of the Manichaeism-related posts was published on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..
so, while those posts were going up between 2012 and 1016..
On July 27, 2013, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.reviewed the ideas of Morten St George - but once more, it was all about Cathars, not about Manichaeans as such. M.St.George (realising the anachronism of 'Cathar' theory) linked it as component A to the O'Neill-Brumbaugh 'New World' theory as component B, and had all the Cathars go west in the literal sense.
(Voynich studies consistently shows a quirky preference for anachonism over having to enter any region, culture or period not monotheistic).
On Feb 12, 2014 , a new blog 'You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.' began, carrying the slug, 'Voynich and Manichaean Studies', though not so much about studying Manichaeism, or studying Beinecke MS 408 as about another 'bee in the bonnet' theory - linguistic as well as other. Could prove a good 'bee in the bonnet' - who knows? The author's ideas are very close to those just published by J. Michael Herrmann, and the parallel extends to the list of references cited, which omit all 30 of my historical-cultural-iconographic discussions, of course. Since Herrmann's paper is supposed to be about the written part of the text and its possible translation, though, I find it odd that he makes no mention of Agnostic Voynich, or of Anton's papers or any other solid non-theory based study of the written text.
On October 30th, 2014 (10 PM) Darren Worley offered a long comment to Stephen Bax' site, summarising information (mostly from wiki articles) about various non-mainstream groups, from Essenes and Mandaeans to Bogomils and Cathars, merchants and others. A lot of it had been said before, but Worley puts it all into one neat outline, which is helpful.
23rd January 2018, Mr. Herrmann publishes his chapter online, speaking of a 'fascinating speculation... if Manichaean...'. I don't know how Herrmann decides what is 'fascinating speculation' and what is 'a theory' or just fantasy and kite-flying, or what is a conclusion reached in the normal way by presenting analysis of the material and then the informed conclusion... but I suppose we'll find out.
That's as far as I've got mapping the history of a 'Manichaean' element in Voynich studies. Anyone able to add more?
(by 'Cannabis page' he means folio 16v.)
In that paper the author says:
Quote:Another fascinating speculation could arise, if it turns out the the VM is of Manichaean origin
And this makes me interested in the history of that 'Manichaean' idea in Voynich studies. When it started, whose bright idea it was and so on.
Setting aside the textual problems caused by Latin Christianity's calling any sort of dualist belief 'Manichaean', where modern scholarship distinguishes Manichaeism from Catharism and Bogomilism etc., I'll accept any sort of 'Manichee' , though I use Manichaean only in the stricter sense, myself.
The first person I've found with any kind of 'Manichaean-ish' theory is Dr. Leo Levitov. He was only talking about the western European 'Cathars' though. Pelling, mentioning Levitov, refers readers to You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. of Levitov (October 10, 1998) -and a jolly good refutation it is too.
Pelling later reviewed a novel by Emery Borka (ciphermysteries.com, 23 November , 2011) where Cathars get a look in, but that doesn't count.
In the interests of the historical record, the earliest (of 30) posts mentioning Manichaeism at voynichimagery is dated Sunday, July 22nd, 2012. The post of September 8th, 2012 speaks about Manichaeism in detail, includes a map of the region near Ghazni where (as I'd already said) Mani's Picture Book is said to have been preserved until the 11thC and so forth. None of the 30 posts was about Cathars, or Bogomils; only Manichaeism in the strict sense, and only the '5 elements' diagram on f.77 is said certainly to embody documented Manichaean beliefs. The most recent of the Manichaeism-related posts was published on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..
so, while those posts were going up between 2012 and 1016..
On July 27, 2013, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.reviewed the ideas of Morten St George - but once more, it was all about Cathars, not about Manichaeans as such. M.St.George (realising the anachronism of 'Cathar' theory) linked it as component A to the O'Neill-Brumbaugh 'New World' theory as component B, and had all the Cathars go west in the literal sense.
(Voynich studies consistently shows a quirky preference for anachonism over having to enter any region, culture or period not monotheistic).
On Feb 12, 2014 , a new blog 'You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.' began, carrying the slug, 'Voynich and Manichaean Studies', though not so much about studying Manichaeism, or studying Beinecke MS 408 as about another 'bee in the bonnet' theory - linguistic as well as other. Could prove a good 'bee in the bonnet' - who knows? The author's ideas are very close to those just published by J. Michael Herrmann, and the parallel extends to the list of references cited, which omit all 30 of my historical-cultural-iconographic discussions, of course. Since Herrmann's paper is supposed to be about the written part of the text and its possible translation, though, I find it odd that he makes no mention of Agnostic Voynich, or of Anton's papers or any other solid non-theory based study of the written text.
On October 30th, 2014 (10 PM) Darren Worley offered a long comment to Stephen Bax' site, summarising information (mostly from wiki articles) about various non-mainstream groups, from Essenes and Mandaeans to Bogomils and Cathars, merchants and others. A lot of it had been said before, but Worley puts it all into one neat outline, which is helpful.
23rd January 2018, Mr. Herrmann publishes his chapter online, speaking of a 'fascinating speculation... if Manichaean...'. I don't know how Herrmann decides what is 'fascinating speculation' and what is 'a theory' or just fantasy and kite-flying, or what is a conclusion reached in the normal way by presenting analysis of the material and then the informed conclusion... but I suppose we'll find out.
That's as far as I've got mapping the history of a 'Manichaean' element in Voynich studies. Anyone able to add more?