27-10-2016, 05:40 PM
27-10-2016, 05:40 PM
27-10-2016, 08:23 PM
Ellie
I remember the first time that 'Holy Trinity' manuscript was introduced into discussion. It was mentioned in a fairly speculative comment made to Nick pelling's blog.. amazing to see how that passing speculation, being passed hand to hand, eventually gains a reputation - almost 'orthodoxy'.
For me, an important question raised by such attempted comparisons is too rarely considered or investigated - namely, that such 'comparisons' are always instantly intelligible even to modern eyes where the Voynich manuscript's imagery remains opaque for the most part... Why is that, exactly?
I remember the first time that 'Holy Trinity' manuscript was introduced into discussion. It was mentioned in a fairly speculative comment made to Nick pelling's blog.. amazing to see how that passing speculation, being passed hand to hand, eventually gains a reputation - almost 'orthodoxy'.
For me, an important question raised by such attempted comparisons is too rarely considered or investigated - namely, that such 'comparisons' are always instantly intelligible even to modern eyes where the Voynich manuscript's imagery remains opaque for the most part... Why is that, exactly?
27-10-2016, 08:48 PM
27-10-2016, 09:22 PM
I'm not into the matter and (shame fa' me!) have no idea who is Jennifer Rampling. This should be not treated as any disrespect on my part, but just that's not my field.
But if the issue is that Diane is mistaken and that it was actually Ms Rampling who enjoys priority of some proposal or observation, then surely this can be expressed in a more calm tone.
But if the issue is that Diane is mistaken and that it was actually Ms Rampling who enjoys priority of some proposal or observation, then surely this can be expressed in a more calm tone.
27-10-2016, 09:30 PM
27-10-2016, 10:17 PM
(27-10-2016, 08:23 PM)Diane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Ellie
I remember the first time that 'Holy Trinity' manuscript was introduced into discussion. It was mentioned in a fairly speculative comment made to Nick pelling's blog.. amazing to see how that passing speculation, being passed hand to hand, eventually gains a reputation - almost 'orthodoxy'.
For me, an important question raised by such attempted comparisons is too rarely considered or investigated - namely, that such 'comparisons' are always instantly intelligible even to modern eyes where the Voynich manuscript's imagery remains opaque for the most part... Why is that, exactly?
Diane,
I have no idea what you are complaining about here.
The Book of Holy Trinity (I keep misspelling it in German, so I'll go with the name in English) is not one manuscript - it has many copies, including some surviving from the 15th century. There are some iconic emblems that appear in most of them, but many drawings are different from manuscript to manuscript. It has been mentioned often in relation to the VMs. Some of the copies have Lunaria plant that appear similar to one of the VMs plant drawings. Even on this forum it was mentioned in relation to the eagle root. One of the copies has a dragon that looks like the one in the VMs that is eating a leaf. It has been in the discussion on the list too.
27-10-2016, 10:23 PM
Rene,
Yes, it was in 2008 that I was approached and asked to comment on imagery from this manuscript.
I don't quite see why it's relevant. It's not as if my date of entry means I may read nothing written earlier than August 2008 - any more than someone who encounters the manuscript today is barred from reading anything written before October 2016.
The point is rather that a person who first brings new information, data, argument and original research to this study deserves due recognition. To do otherwise is to create a false impression that the non-crediting writer actually discovered it themselves - which is false - or to hinder the efforts of people wanting to see what basis the original proponent had for any ideas that now circulate. Such things are, or should be, self-evident to any scholar so I apologise for stating the obvious here.
In this case, I think, the person to be credited is Adam Morris.
Nick's blogpost says:
"Adam’s jumping-off point was the visual similarities between the VMs and Reusner’s 1582 book “Pandora” (a version of the ‘Buch der heiligen Dreifaltigkeit’, Book of the Holy Trinity) – colouring, faces, line-structure, etc. And so he wondered: might Hieronymus Reusner be (or be connected with) the author of the VMs?"
That blogpost is dated 17th June, 2009, so it looks as if "Buch der Heilingen..." first arrived on the scene even later than I did.
Yes, it was in 2008 that I was approached and asked to comment on imagery from this manuscript.
I don't quite see why it's relevant. It's not as if my date of entry means I may read nothing written earlier than August 2008 - any more than someone who encounters the manuscript today is barred from reading anything written before October 2016.
The point is rather that a person who first brings new information, data, argument and original research to this study deserves due recognition. To do otherwise is to create a false impression that the non-crediting writer actually discovered it themselves - which is false - or to hinder the efforts of people wanting to see what basis the original proponent had for any ideas that now circulate. Such things are, or should be, self-evident to any scholar so I apologise for stating the obvious here.
In this case, I think, the person to be credited is Adam Morris.
Nick's blogpost says:
"Adam’s jumping-off point was the visual similarities between the VMs and Reusner’s 1582 book “Pandora” (a version of the ‘Buch der heiligen Dreifaltigkeit’, Book of the Holy Trinity) – colouring, faces, line-structure, etc. And so he wondered: might Hieronymus Reusner be (or be connected with) the author of the VMs?"
That blogpost is dated 17th June, 2009, so it looks as if "Buch der Heilingen..." first arrived on the scene even later than I did.
27-10-2016, 10:41 PM
(27-10-2016, 09:22 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I'm not into the matter and (shame fa' me!) have no idea who is Jennifer Rampling. This should be not treated as any disrespect on my part, but just that's not my field.
But if the issue is that Diane is mistaken and that it was actually Ms Rampling who enjoys priority of some proposal or observation, then surely this can be expressed in a more calm tone.
Hi Anton,
There is no issue with Ms Rampling. She properly listed her sources in the footnotes of her article. Since my name was mentioned by Rene - I stated I don't pretend in any way to be the first to link the VMs to the Book of Holy Trinity manuscripts. There were already folks that studied that relationship for years before I knew the VMs existed.
The issue with Diane is that she didn't say "I remember the first time I saw it mentioned" - she said "I remember the first time that 'Holy Trinity' manuscript was introduced into discussion."
It is humanly impossible for her to be sure when the Book of Holy Trinity was first mentioned in relation to the VMs. It's been a 100 years long discussion (in the modern part of the VMs history).
Diane often complains about flaming comments, but she readily provides the sparks to start the fire.
27-10-2016, 10:49 PM
Frankly I was not able to trace the sparks, but anyway let's not blow the fire lest I notice it and ring the bell. 
27-10-2016, 10:53 PM
(27-10-2016, 10:23 PM)Diane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Rene,
Yes, it was in 2008 that I was approached and asked to comment on imagery from this manuscript.
I don't quite see why it's relevant. It's not as if my date of entry means I may read nothing written earlier than August 2008 - any more than someone who encounters the manuscript today is barred from reading anything written before October 2016.
The point is rather that a person who first brings new information, data, argument and original research to this study deserves due recognition. To do otherwise is to create a false impression that the non-crediting writer actually discovered it themselves - which is false - or to hinder the efforts of people wanting to see what basis the original proponent had for any ideas that now circulate. Such things are, or should be, self-evident to any scholar so I apologise for stating the obvious here.
In this case, I think, the person to be credited is Adam Morris.
Nick's blogpost says:
"Adam’s jumping-off point was the visual similarities between the VMs and Reusner’s 1582 book “Pandora” (a version of the ‘Buch der heiligen Dreifaltigkeit’, Book of the Holy Trinity) – colouring, faces, line-structure, etc. And so he wondered: might Hieronymus Reusner be (or be connected with) the author of the VMs?"
That blogpost is dated 17th June, 2009, so it looks as if "Buch der Heilingen..." first arrived on the scene even later than I did.
Diane,
The image Ms. Rampling used in her article is unique to the Rylands Univ Library copy of the manuscript (it is not found in the other surviving copies - as far as I know). It has nothing to do with the printed book you cited and Ms Rampling has no obligation whatsoever to credit Adam Morris.