Koen: This is one reason why I think archival research is so important. One can either wait until material becomes digitised or one has to visit archives in person or request photoreproductions from archives. It would help if people were to produce lists of manuscripts or other documents that they would like to see which have not yet been digitised. They may well be listed in an inventory even if they haven't been digitised.Then if people live near or visit the area where there is an archive which such documents then maybe they can photograph them. It may be a very long wait until all the manuscripts people want to see have been digitised, so to make progress we need to be more proactive in locating documents. I have asked if anyone knows of any documents in the Lombardy area that they think I should look at on my trip and which I can photograph and share with interested people if not directly on the forum, so far I have not received any suggestions. I have my own ideas of what I want to look at, but I would welcome other suggestions. Even if the suggestions are more general such as a specific archive that they think might have something of interest.
If there was a list of undigitised documents that people would like to see and a reason given why each document was considered of interest then we could gradually tick documents off that list as people see and photograph them, if other people think the document might also be of interest. Likewise, if people listed archives or libraries that they suspected might have material of interest then they could be visited. We don't seem to have any strategy at the moment for expanding the range of documents that we have to compare with the Voynich manuscript. I previously photographed and shared images of a herbal manuscript kept in the Bodleian Library in Oxford, where I live, that other people requested to see and which has not yet been digitised by that archive. So, I have done this before.
The thing with finding images though is that you'd just have to go to a library and start browsing their undigitized manuscripts, hoping to find something. This would probably be allowed if you're an established scholar, but I'm not sure how people like me could pull that off. And then you'd need a massive amount of luck.
(31-12-2024, 12:22 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The thing with finding images though is that you'd just have to go to a library and start browsing their undigitized manuscripts, hoping to find something. This would probably be allowed if you're an established scholar, but I'm not sure how people like me could pull that off. And then you'd need a massive amount of luck.
Well, after my Milan trip I hope to have a clearer idea of what is and is not possible or easy to do as archival research. I know of some documents that I would like to see and I will certainly be consulting the archivists there to seek their advice as to other documents that I should look at. Maybe then I can share my experience. I appreciate that most Voynich researchers have no experience doing archival research and so it must probably be quite strange and daunting to them. I must admit that one reason that I am visiting the Milan archives and not the Vatican archives on this trip is that I would like to be more confident doing archival research before tackling the Vatican Apostolic Archives. In my cipher research I have noticed that only relying on material that has been digitised or is available in books seriously limits one.
Koen: In your Voynich Temple article entitled "Bonsai Perspective" you say the following->
"Arlima lists 37 manuscripts. I tried all of them, but the search was long and full of problems; an overview, following Arlima’s list:
Basel: its illustrations have been cut out.
Berlin: not digitized?
Bruges: not digitized
Brussels: not digitized
Erfurt: not digitized
Firenze: not digitized
Göttingen: not digitized
Klagenfurt: not digitized?
Klosterneuburg: not digitized
Krakow, not illustrated
Kremsmunster, not digitized
Kremsmunster, not digitized
L’Aquila not digitized
Leipzig not digitized, no mention of illustrations in description
Luneburg not digitized
Macreata not digitized
Milan not digitized (?)
Montpellier, not illustrated
München: not digitized
München: not digitized
München: not digitized
Oxford: not digitized, no mention of illustrations in description
BNF Lat 8018: not illustrated
BNF Lat 8758: not illustrated
BNF Lat 10363: not illustrated
BNF NAL 1905: only one illustration
Prague, not illustrated
Stuttgart not illustrated
Stuttgart not illustrated
Uppsala not digitized
BAV Ott.lat.1463a not illustrated
BAV Ross. 1097: not digitized
BAV Vat.Lat.4363: not digitized
ONB 5363 not illustrated
Wolfenbüttel: no mention of illustrations in description
Wolfenbüttel: no mention of illustrations in description
Wroclaw: ???"
This list serves as an example of the extent to which documents have not been digitised. You mention an Oxford manuscript and a Milan manuscript. I live in Oxford and I am going to Milan, so I could potentially investigate either of those. I notice that in other posts you have made on related topics you have mentioned other manuscripts that you were interested in that have not been digitised. If you are still interested in them and they are in Lombardy or within a reasonable distance of Oxford I might be able to check them out. Obviously, the more potentially interesting a manuscript is the more reason there is to find a way to get to see it. One can always request photoreproductions from archives. It might help if you could put all manuscripts that you think might be interesting into one list giving reasons why you think they might be interesting. (If/when I visit Rome in the future there are manuscripts that other people recommend that I photograph when there then I could potentially do that.) Possibly other researchers near or visiting other archives could similarly take photos of relevant manuscripts there.
Koen: The Milan manuscript that you mention from the Arlima list is in the Biblioteca Ambrosiana, which I will be visiting. And the Oxford manuscript is in the Bodleian Library, which I could visit. It would really help if we had a more centralised list of manuscripts that people think might be worth checking out.
Koen: I personally would be interested in seeing a list of all the Diebold Lauber manuscripts that have not been digitised.
Koen: In your article "Gemini: type, Alsace or Willehalm?" you say:
"The wonderful handschriftencensus.de lists 79 entries, but only a few are both illustrated and digitized." It might be nice to have a list of these that are illustrated, but not digitized.
(31-12-2024, 05:46 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It might be nice to have a list of these that are illustrated, but not digitized.
Yes, this would be an interesting line of investigation to pick up again. Probably things have changed in the years since I wrote that post. Looking at the Handscriftencensus: You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. , it appears that a lot of the current entries are marked as fragments, which is a shame.
I'll have a better look at this next year
(31-12-2024, 06:39 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (31-12-2024, 05:46 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It might be nice to have a list of these that are illustrated, but not digitized.
Yes, this would be an interesting line of investigation to pick up again. Probably things have changed in the years since I wrote that post. Looking at the Handscriftencensus: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , it appears that a lot of the current entries are marked as fragments, which is a shame.
I'll have a better look at this next year
I also mentioned those as part of a more general point. It would be nice if everytime someone comes across a manuscript or document that is not digitised and which they think is interesting they could add it to a list with a brief reason why they think it is interesting. This might help towards making in roads into the non-digitised world of manuscripts and documents relevant to Voynich research. I don't think we can afford or should ignore the non-digitised world. Obviously, manuscripts whose existence we don't know about either, as they don't appear in inventories or their listing gives no clear indication of the nature of the manuscript, such that we wouldn't know it is of interest to Voynich research, can only be discovered by luck searching through an archive. Though we can still identity archives which might be more suitable for searching.
(31-12-2024, 07:06 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I also mentioned those as part of a more general point. It would be nice if everytime someone comes across a manuscript or document that is not digitised and which they think is interesting they could add it to a list with a brief reason why they think it is interesting.
The problem is that it's very hard to know for sure whether a MS is interesting. Take my Willehalm research for example. This MS was not digitized when I wrote my blogpost, but now it is: You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
Before, I had only one image from it, and at a glance I already noticed that the style was very different from the VM. Still, seeing the images of the embracing couple in there would have been interesting, but it doesn't add anything to our understanding. It's not even worth mailing the library about.
For me to know of a MS that might actually be worth the effort, I would need to know that it is the "missing link" I'm after. And that is very tricky. In practice, it turns out than none of the MSS I could have looked for are of much help. It's kind of like looking for a needle in a haystack, but you don't know if the needle is there. Getting to see more pieces of hay probably doesn't help much.
Of course, there can be instances where you have a very good idea of a single potentially interesting document. But in that case, I try to reach out to the library directly.