Here an article in the NZZ about a Voynich theory from the beginning of the year. I stumbled over it when I tried to change a Wikipedia entry in the German Wikipedia about the VMS. The authors are Lea Carl-Krüsi and Christoph Eggenberger. Carl-Krüsi is a freelance art historian. Eggenberger was titular professor of art history at the University of Zurich and head of the manuscript department of the Zurich Central Library.
Quote:Wikipedia (VMS)
The two art historians can contribute nothing to the decipherment of the text, but recognize a clear concern in the sequence of the pictures: "It is a plea for the offspring of the nobility, conceived with women from the people, the so-called bastards". Under the guise of botanical symbols, the plight of the disenfranchised and disinherited between the nobility and the people is depicted. "In botany, the most splendid plants - entities sprung from the imagination - are the result of crossbreeding. So the conclusion is obvious: the same rules apply in human biology as well."
Unfortunately, the Google translator does not work with the NZZ page. That's why I have linked the original German language page here.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
I think the theory of Carl-Krüsi and Eggenberger is a bit far-fetched, especially since it is based on nothing but assumptions. There is probably also no comparative picture material that would prove the assumptions somehow. However, one should assume that at least Eggenberger is an expert who knows what he is talking about. What do you think ?
I agree, it comes across as extremely speculative. The idea all rests on the supposition that the plants are hybrids and all refer to human reproduction. I don't really think they will be able to argue much beyond that.
The strangest thing is that someone like Eggenberger, who apparently has a whole list of publications under his belt, lent his name to a wild Voynich theory.
Here the text of the NZZ in english (without pictures):
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
Did these people even look at the book? Statements such as..
The iconography of the images is also unusual: only women are depicted, no men
or
Not a single image shows a building
Are simply false and can be disproven with a quick look.
And the historical side of the theory is nonsense. In the 15th century bastards were still (in most countries) fully recognised and accepted as a fact of life by most noble families. Their very own example, of Jean de Dunois, runs counter to their own theory - he was fully accepted by the royal family and indeed recognised as a blood descendent (albeit through necessity).
Bastards were filius nullius under most laws, they were accepted as family members but were unable to inherit real property (to prevent the dissolution of estates). But there was nothing inherently shameful or second class about them, as there would be in later centuries, they had their place to play in society.
It may be a translation issue, but in one line they suggest it is by gypsies ( they remark often bastards came from gypsy circles) and in the next the bastards stand for the future, for the continuation of the royal houses.
What's the publication date? Is this some sort of obscure, lost in translation April's fool?
(14-12-2021, 07:15 PM)davidjackson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.What's the publication date? Is this some sort of obscure, lost in translation April's fool?
Unfortunately not an April Fool's joke, the article is from March 6th, 2021.
There is a paradox here I find rather unsettling.
On the one hand, I have been hoping for more professional art historians to shine their light on the VM, and Eggenberger appears to fit the bill.
On the other hand, this theory is careless and unsubstantiated, relying not just on weak arguments, but historical falsehoods and weird connections.
How can we resolve this paradox?
Koen, I'm afraid we'll just have to accept this contradiction. It is not possible to say whether Eggenberger or Carl-Krüsi provided the basic thesis for the article, but someone with Eggenberger's expertise should present a paper of better quality. The paper is all the more disappointing because art historians actually rarely speak out on the VMS.
Are we sure this Eggenberger is the art professor? Only I note that his author byline in the original article makes no reference to his academic credentials, and wondered if there had been a mixup somewhere.
(14-12-2021, 08:28 PM)davidjackson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Are we sure this Eggenberger is the art professor?
I can only find one art historian named Christoph Eggenberger online and that is indeed Prof. Dr. Christoph Eggenberger. In the footnote of the NZZ it says
Quote:Lea Carl-Krüsi is a freelance art historian. Christoph Eggenberger was titular professor of art history at the University of Zurich and head of the manuscript department of the Zurich Central Library.
The same reference to the authors is also on "Archivalia".
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
A mix-up is thus ( unfortunately ) quite unlikely.
Interestingly, Christoph Eggenberger at the University of Zurich last published in 2005.
Quote:Lea Carl-Krüsi is a freelance art historian. Christoph Eggenberger was titular professor of art history at the University of Zurich and head of the manuscript department of the Zurich Central Library.
'Nuff said.