15-10-2016, 11:58 PM
Anton,
If Rene is not personally impressed with a theory he has a right to say so.
If he wishes to correct a detail, I am grateful for the correction.
The tone in which this is done is important.
I agree with you that flaming (and pack-attacks) should not occur on this list.
I consider Rene's production of his graphic O-T here. It has no relevance to my thread's topic, and serves only to cut short any reasonable discussion of it, by first implying that we "know" the true story.. which we do not... and secondly by setting up a situation where attention is turned from the subject of the thread to the subject of the poster.
No matter how reasonable the "tone", the comment does nothing but turn attention from the topic, end the conversation, turn attention back to Rene's own ideas, and create a sub-text which is unacceptable, off the point, and derogatory.
If it were a one-off thing, it couild be ignored. But as I've said, and as anyone can see by reviewing the years' of their responses (Rene+Winkler) to Santacoloma's list, this has been a constant pattern for many years.
I should now like to return to the topic of my thread, where the conversation had been quite interesting for a while. Those who do not find it so, of course, need not contribute.
Ellie et.al,
As I've said, I've returned to check the various sources I used, and it is clear that indeed - as Rene and friends have kindly said - that although the Jesuits were expelled from Rome in 1860, the Papal city was not considered part of 'Rome' as such until the breaching of the Porta Pia.
It was indeed in 1873 that Fr.Beckx and his companions went to Fieole. However, the usual account given that he returned to Rome after the election of his successor is less clear than is usually asserted. Campell's history of the Jesuits, written in 1921 (i.e. after the Catholic Encyclopaedia which is online) does not state where Beckx died, but says only that the community who had gone to Fiesole were obliged to remain there until *after* the death of Beckx' successor. This leaves open the possibility that the reason Beckx' trunks lay unopened for a quarter of a century after his death is that they had not come back to Rome at all, and that it was because Wilfrid was in Florence, and in conversation with Fr. Strickland, that he first came across the trunk. It may never have left the Jesuits' house(s). This would certainly offer a reasonable explanation for why any books that had belonged to the College Library had not been immediately replaced at the time of Beckx' death.
Now, we can't suppose that Libri personally handed anything to Beckx', but it is remains possible that the Voynich manuscript was among those which Libri had acquired while overseer of the many collections gained by the French by war and confiscations. Libri's remaining manuscripts were given in trust to Count Manzoni just before Libri died - and Manzoni was also in Fiesole.
What I don't know is whether Manzoni held the collection in his house in Florence or in Fiesole, but the latter seems most probable from what accounts I've found so far.
I find particularly interesting that the so-called "pharma" section in the manuscript looks nothing like any Latin pharmaceutical text that I've encountered, but does resemble somewhat the conventions found in forms of commercial documents, in the east but also in fourteenth century France, where we find tax-lists and (illustrated) invoices.
One example which I have cited comes from a particular house which belonged to a merchant in the fourteenth century, but had been left to the Franciscans by the merchant in question, and remained so. Unless it has changed hands recently, it is still so. The same merchant had contacts with North Africa, connections with and through Jewish colleagues, and is also said to have planted one of the first of Europe's botanical gardens.
Plus, of course, Kraus carried not only the Vms to America, but items from the Libri collection.
If Rene is not personally impressed with a theory he has a right to say so.
If he wishes to correct a detail, I am grateful for the correction.
The tone in which this is done is important.
I agree with you that flaming (and pack-attacks) should not occur on this list.
I consider Rene's production of his graphic O-T here. It has no relevance to my thread's topic, and serves only to cut short any reasonable discussion of it, by first implying that we "know" the true story.. which we do not... and secondly by setting up a situation where attention is turned from the subject of the thread to the subject of the poster.
No matter how reasonable the "tone", the comment does nothing but turn attention from the topic, end the conversation, turn attention back to Rene's own ideas, and create a sub-text which is unacceptable, off the point, and derogatory.
If it were a one-off thing, it couild be ignored. But as I've said, and as anyone can see by reviewing the years' of their responses (Rene+Winkler) to Santacoloma's list, this has been a constant pattern for many years.
I should now like to return to the topic of my thread, where the conversation had been quite interesting for a while. Those who do not find it so, of course, need not contribute.
Ellie et.al,
As I've said, I've returned to check the various sources I used, and it is clear that indeed - as Rene and friends have kindly said - that although the Jesuits were expelled from Rome in 1860, the Papal city was not considered part of 'Rome' as such until the breaching of the Porta Pia.
It was indeed in 1873 that Fr.Beckx and his companions went to Fieole. However, the usual account given that he returned to Rome after the election of his successor is less clear than is usually asserted. Campell's history of the Jesuits, written in 1921 (i.e. after the Catholic Encyclopaedia which is online) does not state where Beckx died, but says only that the community who had gone to Fiesole were obliged to remain there until *after* the death of Beckx' successor. This leaves open the possibility that the reason Beckx' trunks lay unopened for a quarter of a century after his death is that they had not come back to Rome at all, and that it was because Wilfrid was in Florence, and in conversation with Fr. Strickland, that he first came across the trunk. It may never have left the Jesuits' house(s). This would certainly offer a reasonable explanation for why any books that had belonged to the College Library had not been immediately replaced at the time of Beckx' death.
Now, we can't suppose that Libri personally handed anything to Beckx', but it is remains possible that the Voynich manuscript was among those which Libri had acquired while overseer of the many collections gained by the French by war and confiscations. Libri's remaining manuscripts were given in trust to Count Manzoni just before Libri died - and Manzoni was also in Fiesole.
What I don't know is whether Manzoni held the collection in his house in Florence or in Fiesole, but the latter seems most probable from what accounts I've found so far.
I find particularly interesting that the so-called "pharma" section in the manuscript looks nothing like any Latin pharmaceutical text that I've encountered, but does resemble somewhat the conventions found in forms of commercial documents, in the east but also in fourteenth century France, where we find tax-lists and (illustrated) invoices.
One example which I have cited comes from a particular house which belonged to a merchant in the fourteenth century, but had been left to the Franciscans by the merchant in question, and remained so. Unless it has changed hands recently, it is still so. The same merchant had contacts with North Africa, connections with and through Jewish colleagues, and is also said to have planted one of the first of Europe's botanical gardens.
Plus, of course, Kraus carried not only the Vms to America, but items from the Libri collection.
I am grateful for that.