02-10-2016, 06:47 AM
02-10-2016, 07:44 AM
David, yes, I will check it when I am back home.
03-10-2016, 06:59 PM
(02-10-2016, 06:47 AM)davidjackson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.ReneZ, do you know the dates of the MS's you quote?
I have noted the following dates and origins, but I suspect that many are known more accurately. (Comments welcome of course).
Unfortunately, I don't know how to make a nice table.
[attachment=697]
A = Med.Gr.1, ONB, Vienna
512 - (Byzantine)
B = Voss.Lat. Q.9, Leiden
2nd half 6th C - (Latin - Italy)
C = Graecus 1, Napoli
6th - 7th C (Greek - Ravenna)
D = MS Grec 2179, BN Paris
8th C (Egypt - Israel)
E = MS Plut. 73.41, Bibl. Medicea Laurenziana, Florence
early 9th C
F = CLM 337, Munich
mid 10th C
G = Ms M 652, Pierpont Morgan library
948 (Byzantine)
H = MS Bodley 130
Late 11th C (England)
J = MS Harley 1585
1145 - 1158
K = Cod. Vind. 93, ONB, Vienna
1st half 13th C (S. Italy)
L = MS or. Arabe 4947, BN Paris
13th C (Arabic)
M = MS Plut. 73.16, Bibl. Medicea Laurenziana, Florence
1220-1250
N = Egerton 747
early-mid 14th C (Italy)
O = MS Lat. 6823, BN Paris
1330-1340 (Pisa?)
P = Ms.Canon Misc.408, Bodleian, Oxford
1378 (Milan)
Q = MS 459, Bibl. Casanatense, Roma
1390-1405 (Lombard)
R = MS Aldini 211, Pavia
End 14th C (N. Italy)
S = Egerton 2020
1390-1404 (Padova)
T = Chigi F. VII 159, BA Vaticana
1406-1430 (Byzantine)
U = MS 106, Bibl. Dip. Di Botanica dell'Universita, Florence
1st half 15th C (N. Italy)
V = MS Lat 17844, BN Paris
2nd half 15th C (N. Italy)
W = MS Hebr. 1199, BN Paris
15th - 16th C (Hebrew, N. Italy)
Z = Voynich MS.
First half 15th C (Central Europe)
03-10-2016, 08:46 PM
Thanks Rene. A number of them are quite a bit earlier then ours.
04-10-2016, 06:01 AM
Hi David, indeed, they cover the important traditions, and the earliest known copies of these. I found it interesting to see how large the Vienna Dioscurides is compared to most later books.
04-10-2016, 08:50 AM
Well, the Dioscurides was made as a luxury copy. The Middle Ages had a strong feel for the hierarchy of things, and such was often expressed in the size of the manuscript dealing with the subject.
20-03-2017, 08:57 AM
On page f99v, an unaccounted plant is drawn to the left of the upper container.
Does this mean that previously existed f99v2 page and f99r2?
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
[attachment=1220]
Does this mean that previously existed f99v2 page and f99r2?
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
[attachment=1220]
23-10-2017, 09:45 AM
Oh dear - another furphy has taken root.
It's one thing to point out that a little bit is apparently lost from a single folio here and there. It doesn't constitute a 're-trimming when the book was bound'.
Where The Atlantic got THIS false impression I have no idea, but the recent article asserts as if the poor journalist had been told so:
"Yes, there is evidence that the Voynich manuscript is missing pages and has been trimmed as it’s been rebound, but there is no evidence of an index. "
IT IS NOT TRUE.
There is NO evidence that the folios were trimmed on re-binding. NONE.
In terms of where folios were being produced in vellum of such rough quality and in these fairly unusual measurements - that there should be odd bits of trimming seen on individual folios is not important.
What WOULD matter in terms of the information which the ms offers about where it was produced would be the loss of original dimensions if, as often happened, the whole stack of quires was uniformly trimmed in a later re-binding. That did not occur... as everyone is obliged to admit, even those who would like a bit of wiggle-room for the sake of a theory.
What we have is the odd leaf from which a little seems to have been shaved.
It's one thing to point out that a little bit is apparently lost from a single folio here and there. It doesn't constitute a 're-trimming when the book was bound'.
Where The Atlantic got THIS false impression I have no idea, but the recent article asserts as if the poor journalist had been told so:
"Yes, there is evidence that the Voynich manuscript is missing pages and has been trimmed as it’s been rebound, but there is no evidence of an index. "
IT IS NOT TRUE.
There is NO evidence that the folios were trimmed on re-binding. NONE.
In terms of where folios were being produced in vellum of such rough quality and in these fairly unusual measurements - that there should be odd bits of trimming seen on individual folios is not important.
What WOULD matter in terms of the information which the ms offers about where it was produced would be the loss of original dimensions if, as often happened, the whole stack of quires was uniformly trimmed in a later re-binding. That did not occur... as everyone is obliged to admit, even those who would like a bit of wiggle-room for the sake of a theory.
What we have is the odd leaf from which a little seems to have been shaved.
23-10-2017, 10:33 AM
Please quote where anyone has reached for theory in this thread.
Yes, it was a snarky comment. It was also totally inaccurate with respect to the posts actually made in this thread: they are observations about the appearance of the manuscripts's borders. No theory is being put forward.
As for the Atlantic article, Lisa Fagin Davis, who is the main source for the article, is the Executive Director of the Medieval Academy of America, with a PhD from Yale, has dozens of peer-reviewed publications to her name, and actually teaches manuscript studies. I'm fairly certain she needs no lessons from you about methodology or "furphies" and I'm absolutely sure she has no interest in Voynich "theory wars".
ETA: I see that you have modified your post after my reply was made, removing the snark, the remarks about methodology, and your rant about and theory wars (which you describe as "to reduce"). It is generally considered poor "netiquette" to modify a post after it has been replied to, unless you explicitly acknowledge that the reply was the reason for the edit.
Yes, it was a snarky comment. It was also totally inaccurate with respect to the posts actually made in this thread: they are observations about the appearance of the manuscripts's borders. No theory is being put forward.
As for the Atlantic article, Lisa Fagin Davis, who is the main source for the article, is the Executive Director of the Medieval Academy of America, with a PhD from Yale, has dozens of peer-reviewed publications to her name, and actually teaches manuscript studies. I'm fairly certain she needs no lessons from you about methodology or "furphies" and I'm absolutely sure she has no interest in Voynich "theory wars".
ETA: I see that you have modified your post after my reply was made, removing the snark, the remarks about methodology, and your rant about and theory wars (which you describe as "to reduce"). It is generally considered poor "netiquette" to modify a post after it has been replied to, unless you explicitly acknowledge that the reply was the reason for the edit.
23-10-2017, 12:14 PM