I think that before stitching in Q3 exercise book there were still two bifolio 17- _ 24+ and 17+ _ 24-.
On page You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. is imprinted bud with of a missing f17v- sheet. The imprint looks like a poppy, with blue flowers.
On You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. page there are an imprint, like flaccid (a faded) flower of Tagetes.
Where did the imprints leaf, flower, part of the stem on the You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. page?
A systematic analysis of these imprints has not been done as far as I know, but it should be very useful.
Even just having a list would be a good start.
The fragment in the corner of You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. is very interesting, and hard to explain. There should be no imprint of
inked lines, I think. Only of paint. That means that these inked lines must have been made on this page.
It seems very likely that the herbal pages have not been bound in the right order, but I also have not
found any page anywhere that could have caused these blue imprints....
today I found this page, and am not sure if it belongs in this thread,
but I have to post this nonsense and fake page somewhere ;-)
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
through small discussion source: You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
"
Kent Ramliden
14. März 2015
@Ruth Krämer-Klink
This link you provided was a very good lead. It turns out the owner of this website at one point owned the book in which the note was found. He no longer does but he may be able to tell you more if you have further interest. He told me a Swiss book collector formerly owned the book and he believes a collector in France now has the book, which he said concerns botanical matters. You can reach him via the Guestbook feature of his website if you want to learn more about the book or the note origin.
Regarding the text itself I found online references to two historical works which, with minor variations, contain lines 1,2 and 4 of the pergament note in Latin plain text: Page 745 of “Scriptores rerum austriacarum” by Hieronymus Pez and page 73 of “Historia canonae Sand-Hippolytanae” by Christoffe Muller (Albert de Maderna). Both works appear to be from the 1700s and the texts connected with St. Hyppolite is some way.
These two texts differ substantially from the University of Vienna online text from 2003(the actual text underlying the encrypted note which I shared in a prior note) with respect to line 3. Here the university text has removed “visu pulcherrima et odoratu suavissima” and substituted “in sepulcro quod erat fornice illo”. Google Translate tells me this makes a big difference!
From the use of Voynichese text values pretty much identical to Zandbergen and Landini’s EVA values we can already suspect the note is pretty recent, the Vienna text may be an indication the note was written after 2003.
I hope that the information is of use to you and wish you well with any further enquiries. If I can help further please let me know."
(29-06-2016, 03:13 PM)Davidsch Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.today I found this page, and am not sure if it belongs in this thread,
but I have to post this nonsense and fake page somewhere ;-)
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
through small discussion source: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
"
Kent Ramliden
14. März 2015
@Ruth Krämer-Klink
This link you provided was a very good lead. It turns out the owner of this website at one point owned the book in which the note was found. He no longer does but he may be able to tell you more if you have further interest. He told me a Swiss book collector formerly owned the book and he believes a collector in France now has the book, which he said concerns botanical matters. You can reach him via the Guestbook feature of his website if you want to learn more about the book or the note origin.
Regarding the text itself I found online references to two historical works which, with minor variations, contain lines 1,2 and 4 of the pergament note in Latin plain text: Page 745 of “Scriptores rerum austriacarum” by Hieronymus Pez and page 73 of “Historia canonae Sand-Hippolytanae” by Christoffe Muller (Albert de Maderna). Both works appear to be from the 1700s and the texts connected with St. Hyppolite is some way.
These two texts differ substantially from the University of Vienna online text from 2003(the actual text underlying the encrypted note which I shared in a prior note) with respect to line 3. Here the university text has removed “visu pulcherrima et odoratu suavissima” and substituted “in sepulcro quod erat fornice illo”. Google Translate tells me this makes a big difference!
From the use of Voynichese text values pretty much identical to Zandbergen and Landini’s EVA values we can already suspect the note is pretty recent, the Vienna text may be an indication the note was written after 2003.
I hope that the information is of use to you and wish you well with any further enquiries. If I can help further please let me know."
It's certainly not one of the VMS hands and only about 80% of the shapes and combinations of shapes are consistent with Beinecke 408.
It looks like someone's effort to write in Voynichese. For what purpose is anyone's guess. It's like something one might see as a prop for a mystery game.
Rene
re your post of April 3rd., 1016 10:52 pm
When you say that Touwaide is referring to both manuscripts - the one made in Lombardy (I assume that's what you mean, and not culturally "Lombard"), and the other manuscript that wasn't made in Lombardy, and say - if I take your meaning correctly - that Touwaide's description of the binding alludes to those two manuscripts... can you provide a bibliographic reference for that? I'd like to read it in the original before I quote it.
Thanks
(04-04-2016, 12:00 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (02-04-2016, 11:49 AM)Diane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Anton,
Sorry, I just noticed your reply:
Quote:It's actually not about evidence, but about attempts to locate any historical records about manuscripts in Rudolph's collection which potentially could match the VMS. There are not that many of such records. I remember we discussed another one in Nick's blog - mentioned in a book by Czech historian, - and that one also did not look as a good match for the VMS.
I see. I thought this was about provenancing the manuscript.
Since Touwiade has recently confirmed that the manuscript appears to have been made in Italy, I'd think it more likely that we'd find any cognate works there, or perhaps in England, if it is accepted that the Arabic page numbers are in John Dee's hand (this from a recognised expert in that area)....
Does Touwiade define what he means by Italy?
There was no Italy in the 15th century as we know it. It was a general term to encompass a collection of city states and even in the late 15th century, after Lombardy and the Roman Empire had significantly receded northward, "Italie" only reached somewhat north of Venice. North of that were Recia, Vindelitia, and Noricum which still had significant Germanic populations at the time (vestiges of Lombardy).
Once more - just saw your comment, Anton (There was no Italy in the 15th century as we know it...)
I don't come by so often at the moment, sorry.
Yes of course - after hammering for years the foolishness of imposing modern conceptions of national units upon the fluid nature of medieval movements and their having a single common language ( of the literate) -namely Latin - I sort of assumed people would know that I use the term geographically or else - as the medieval scholars did - to indicate a person's vernacular tongue.
It's interesting, I think, that the idea of a 'nation' in medieval times went straight back to biblical ideas about the tower of Babel. So the universities called the group of people with English as their common tongue the 'nation' of the English and so on. You couldn't talk about "being French" as we do now. A 'man of France' belonged to the King of France whose territory shifted year by year. That's part of what is meant by the old practice of the kings in calling themselves 'France' or 'England'.
Most readers of medieval studies know that in a publication, modern terms such as 'France' are used for convenience, but adjust their interpretation of 'France' what they already know about medieval history. In one year 'France' might include Mallorca, but the next it is included in the term 'Spain' etc.
Usually I use these terms in a topographic/geographic sense. Three researchers had earlier thought it made in that region. Pelling thought Milan; I think more likely Padua and Veneto; If Sherwood still thinks Leonardo da Vinci wrote it as a child, I guess she would opt for Vinci in modern Italy (if he is imagined leaving it in his home town), or perhaps Amboise in modern France if she thinks he had it still when he died.
All things considered - perhaps we should say it was most likely made in spitting distance of the via Francigena?
(06-08-2016, 07:37 PM)Diane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.When you say that Touwaide is referring to both manuscripts - the one made in Lombardy (I assume that's what you mean, and not culturally "Lombard"), and the other manuscript that wasn't made in Lombardy, and say - if I take your meaning correctly - that Touwaide's description of the binding alludes to those two manuscripts... can you provide a bibliographic reference for that? I'd like to read it in the original before I quote it.
You may find the answer here:
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
and since you have already commented on this extensively, many times,
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
I am not sure what is the purpose of your question.
Please do read the original paper.
He is not talking about the binding of these two manuscripts, but about aspects of their similarity
with the Voynich MS.
Many of the guesses you make in your above-mentioned commentary are incorrect. I have
communicated with Alain since the middle of 2014, and discussed the Voynich MS with him
(and his partner, equally a historian of medicine) in person quite extensively. He wrote his paper
after that, but it should be considered a summary paper in which he is not divulging his
more specific views. Whether he will still do that I cannot say.
A possibility for the missing pages would be the top 2 plants pictured in You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. The bottom plants correspond with You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. and You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. respectfully.
I presented my reconstruction of what happened with these missing bifolios at Frascati in 2012, building on what the late Glen Claston had described previously.
My conclusion was that the nine-rosette page had originally been stitched in there, but ended up being ripped out along the fold it had been stitched along. It was then restitched along a different fold and bound many pages later.
When (later still) the foliator came to add the folio numbers, the original remnants of the ripped bifolio were still visible: so made the inference that a number of pages must originally have been there (which would indeed have been the case): and hence numbered the folios either side with a defensively large numbering gap in case those bifolios turned up again.
And then (even later still) the remnants of that page were removed (or fell out), and so we are left with numbers but no pages. Simples.
Nick, so you're saying no folios are actually missing there?