+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: News (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-25.html)
+--- Thread: [Talk] Alain Touwaide - Villa Mondragone - 14 Oct. 2019 (/thread-2953.html)
RE: Alain Touwaide - Villa Mondragone - 14 Oct. 2019 - -JKP- - 22-10-2019
I did not question Alain's statement that the VMS is not a serious medical manuscript.
I can't, because we don't KNOW whether the VMS plant drawings have anything to do with medicine (it could be a garden collection, a trade collection, an astrological collection, or a magical collection). Touwaide might be right or he might be wrong.
Let me ask a question... How many "serious" medical manuscripts (by modern standards) were created in the Middle Ages? Are there any that hold up to empirical standards of modern medicine or even weak standards of modern medicine?
Marco has done some very good translations of some of the content of medieval herbals. They provide an eye-opening glimpse into how people thought in those days and are well worth reading. I think we can say that most of these remedies would be rejected by modern medicine, but they took them very seriously in the Middle Ages.
How do we define serious? By the medical efficacy of the recipes? By those standards almost none of the medieval manuscripts are "serious" medical manuscripts. Or by the intention of the creator?
What we can say about the VMS is that the plant drawings are more detailed and more extensive than many medieval books of herbs.
.
I did question Touwaide's numerous statements that were specific to plants and plant drawings because I think they are incorrect or misleading (or poor choices for examples). And I don't mean just one or two of the statements, I mean most of them (if it had been just a few small problems I would not have said anything).
RE: Alain Touwaide - Villa Mondragone - 14 Oct. 2019 - MarcoP - 22-10-2019
(22-10-2019, 06:11 AM)davidjackson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Did Touwaide actually use the terminology of capsule or was this just a translation choice?
(22-10-2019, 06:24 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Touwaide was speaking to a general audience, not specialists, so I am not sure if it matters a lot....
Rene is right of course. When Touwaide mentioned emoji, he did so with a big smile. Even if You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., he did not mean that they made their way into the VMS
He was talking to a friendly audience of scholars and students of art history and philology, many of whom are familiar with his works. Also, Touwaide's words are filtered through someone like myself, I am incompetent of botany and my English is what it is. I wrote that my summary was to be taken with a grain of salt, but clearly that was not enough. I now begin to doubt if publicly sharing my notes was wise. All those who have read at least a single recent book about herbals know who Touwaide is: his works are in all bibliographies. I thought introducing him would have been superfluous, but on this point I was clearly wrong.
I see a number of valuable things in Touwaide's talk. For instance, his interpretation of the pharma section as inspired by Galen comes from a scholar who has devoted to Galen several of his You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..
His mention of a possible parallel with Schoenberg Dioscorides LJS 62 comes from one who has been studying Dioscorides manuscripts for the last 40 years. He is the author of 36 published works on the subject, from "L’authenticité et l’origine des deux traités de toxicologie attribués à Dioscoride" (1984), to "L’identification des plantes du Traité de matière médicale de Dioscoride: un bilan méthodologique" (1994) to "Al-Ghâfiqî’s Kitâb fî l-adwiya al-mufrada, Dioscorides’ De materia medica and Mediterranean Herbal Traditions" (2014).
His comparison of the VMS with BL Sloane 4016 comes from the author of a 512 pages book about the London manuscript (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). When he says that VMS plants appear to depend on the Tractatus de Herbis but are unrecognisable, I know his opinion is of the greatest value. These ideas are not new (more or less everything possible has been said, at one time or another), but when they come from an authoritative point of view they have a different weight (at least in my eyes).
I believe the best approach is trying to understand what he said and why, and see what use we can make of it. Many of his ideas are different from mine: I welcome this as an opportunity to challenge my opinions.
RE: Alain Touwaide - Villa Mondragone - 14 Oct. 2019 - -JKP- - 22-10-2019
Of course you were right to share it. Just because someone (like me) disagrees with some of the things he says doesn't mean it wasn't a useful and valuable thing to share.
RE: Alain Touwaide - Villa Mondragone - 14 Oct. 2019 - -JKP- - 22-10-2019
MarcoP Wrote:"For instance, his interpretation of the pharma section as inspired by Galen comes from a scholar who has devoted to Galen several of his You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.."
I would be interested in seeing this person's interpretation of parallels between Galen and the VMS small plants section.
The link to the published works of medical traditions includes many different authors. Did Touwaide mention a name for the Galen researcher?
RE: Alain Touwaide - Villa Mondragone - 14 Oct. 2019 - Koen G - 22-10-2019
Let's not make more of this than it is: Marco's translated notes about a semi-informal talk Touwaide gave for the occasion of the "return" of the VM (facsimile) to the Villa. I would pay more attention to exact wording if it were a peer-reviewed publication, but it's not.
But I really wanted to know his current ideas, so I appreciate that you shared it. In general, I take away two things:
- Touwaide sees connections with botanical manuscript traditions, but the images have been manipulated. This is completely within the area in which he is a renowned authority. I personally also agree with what he said along these lines.
- Touwaide has more sympathy for some form of "modern forgery" theory than most of us expected. It's hard to say from this one talk to what extent he really believes the VM could be a modern forgery, and whether he would really argue this in a more formal publication. I personally disagree with any modern forgery theory because there is zero evidence, while evidence for early 15th century is abundant.
This goes to show again how unusually difficult and complex the study of this object is.
RE: Alain Touwaide - Villa Mondragone - 14 Oct. 2019 - -JKP- - 22-10-2019
The problem is not the wording (it is only partly the wording). The problem is interpretation of structures and choice of examples. Taken as a whole, they are not cohesive. They look like a scattering of repeats of other people's guesses.
...
I could only find one article by Touwaide on the VMS (so far). Unfortunately, I was not able to find a link to the article which may have been published as a monograph by the Smithsonian Institute while he was working there as a historian, but is included as a 17-page chapter in a composite volume by publisher Palombi Editori:
Does anyone happen to have a link to:
"Il manoscritto più misterioso - L’Erbario Voynich"
I would like to read it if it's publicly available.
RE: Alain Touwaide - Villa Mondragone - 14 Oct. 2019 - MarcoP - 22-10-2019
(22-10-2019, 10:12 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.MarcoP Wrote:"For instance, his interpretation of the pharma section as inspired by Galen comes from a scholar who has devoted to Galen several of his You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.."
I would be interested in seeing this person's interpretation of parallels between Galen and the VMS small plants section.
The link to the published works of medical traditions includes many different authors. Did Touwaide mention a name for the Galen researcher?
I am sorry JKP, my poor English again. I was referring to Alain Touwaide himself: no other researcher is involved. He did not elaborate much on the subject: he said that ancient medical science is divided in two phases. The first one (with Hippocrates and Dioscorides) was about simple medicines. The second one (with Galen) introduced compound drugs.
This is what I understand of the subject: as is well known, the Tractatus de Herbis is an illustrated version of a text which begins with the words "Circa instans negotium de simplicibus medicinis" (about the present subject of simple medicines): herbs are simple drugs.
As far as I know, the "small plants" section of the VMS is unique. As we discussed on the forum, there are a few herbals with large-plants and small-plants sections (e.g. the first two pages of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.), but the VMS is different, because there are rows of "simples" each described by a separate paragraph of text. More importantly, most of the rows of plants begin with a labelled container that could represent the compound produced by using those simples. I think Touwaide finds this original iconographic system suggestive of the knowledge of Galen's works about compound drugs (of which I know nothing).
About Touwaide's paper, in 2016 Rene published a summary of it on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..
RE: Alain Touwaide - Villa Mondragone - 14 Oct. 2019 - -JKP- - 22-10-2019
Thank you for the clarification, Marco, and the additional information (and your Engish is 20 times better than my Italian
).MarcoP Wrote:More importantly, most of the rows of plants begin with a labelled container that could represent the compound produced by using those simples. I think Touwaide finds this original iconographic system suggestive of the knowledge of Galen's works about compound drugs (of which I know nothing).
I think this is certainly possible, that the containers might be suggestive of compound drugs. It might even be the most likely explanation.
I've often thought about what they might represent.
Another idea that came to mind was that the containers might represent categories of plants. For example, some plants are used for preservation, some for baked goods (e.g., certain spices), others were used for savory foods like soup and stew, some plants were used as ointments, some were cosmetic, others were medicinal, some were purely talismanic, some were used as perfumes, others for burning in censors.
Or the containers might be a signal (by that I mean the shape of the container might be meaningful in a way that is symbolic rather than literal) as to how a plant was to be prepared (ground, dried, cured, or prepared as a tincture), or perhaps how it should be stored (again, in a symbolic rather than a literal way). Some of them could even be related to pigments.
They are very beautiful containers. The average person would never see anything as nice as these. That's why I wonder if they might be symbolic in some way. They progress from more simple ones (almost like reading tubes) toward some that are not the normal shape for storage containers. Not even the fanciest apothecary jars look like these except ones used for very expensive and precious items like Balsam, myrhh (a word they used for several different resins), or expensive perfumes or ointments. A few of them look like containers that would be specially crafted for a king and would not be seen outside the circle of nobility.
RE: Alain Touwaide - Villa Mondragone - 14 Oct. 2019 - proto57 - 26-10-2019
I can't tell you how simply wonderful this all is to me. First of all, the talk by Mr. Touwaide is yet another indication of just how seriously the idea of the Voynich as a modern fake should be, and in his talk is, taken. Also, his reference my ideas in particular was very gratifying. Modern forgery was pretty much on the back burner for far too long, and now it is, as it should be... by all the laws of common sense and logic... be seriously considered.
Increasingly, that is the case. This is because anyone who examines the manuscript with a true open mind, and critically examines it with no pre-conceptions, will eventually see that modern forgery is not only possible, but the most likely explanation for it. Many people are beginning to realize this, despite the protests. No, it is not a fad, or an exciting new idea... just simple, common sense.
But then, in this thread, I also see another reason why research into the Voynich is stuck in a vicious cycle of "It must be real, not fake, but we don't know what it is. But it must be real, not fake." Demonstrated here is a lack of understanding, or purposeful ignoring of, the true anomalies and anachronisms that the Voynich is sick with; combined with a unfounded dismissals of any opinion, expert or amateur, which point this out.
The thread starts out that Touwaide is a respected professor, and everyone is waiting with baited breath to hear what he has to say about the (genuine) Voynich. And then MarcoP gives a very good analysis of what Touwaide had to say about it, and how he clearly takes my modern forgery theory very seriously, and WHAM! The poor guy is thrown right under the bus! A generalization of how the comments proceeded after that can be broken down thusly:
1) Touwaide isn't so great after all, it seems. He does not know enough about the Voynich/botany/linguistics/whatever, therefore, we can't accept his serious consideration of Modern Forgery (i.e., JKP, "I hate writing responses like this. I had high hopes for learning something from Touwaide. I am disappointed. He might be an expert in his respective field, but his understanding of the VMS seems to me to be superficial." Or,
2) Touwaid wasn't really saying it could be a modern forgery at all! He was saying this that and the other thing, instead... that it is a puzzle, or a game, or could be an old this or that... but he didn't say it could be a modern forgery, don't worry.
In this thread, therefore, I see a microcosm of the problem as a whole... that to anyone who believes, first, the Voynich must be a genuine 15th century manuscript, any information, observations, opinions, facts for that matter, to the contrary, and anyone who espouses them, cannot be correct. Why? Because the Voynich must be a genuine 15th century manuscript. And that line of "reasoning" is used over and over and over again, in many forms, couched as genuine, factual reasoning, but it boils down to simply that: It must be genuine and old, therefore, it is.
There are literally hundreds of examples of this, of all types, this is not a unique phenomenon. But this incident reflects more specifically the use and perceived value of expert opinions as a whole. So for one, closer, example, look what happened to the more than a dozen experts who, pre-carbon 14, were all over the map on dating and origin and meaning of the Voynich: All the "wrong ones" were dismissed, except for those rare experts.... all of two, as I recall... who happened to have an opinion which matched the dating of the parchment. The rest? Summarily dismissed, like poor Mr. Touwaide just was. And so, as a result, and as is reflected here in various comments, is the misconception that all experts agree the Voynich is real and old. It is simple: All you need to do to reinforce this erroneous perception is to keep eliminating those experts who might tell you it may not be real and/or old.
And so it is with all the problems with the Voynich, and all the evidence which shows that it is most likely just a poor fake from the early 20th century. These are not argued against successfully, but dismissed based on one filter alone: Does the evidence/opinion/fact fit with 1420 European Cipher Herbal or not? If it does, it stays; if it does not, it is rejected. Don't get me wrong, you know I've been here for all the arguments, seen all the complaints, and even responded to the Opus Magnus, the consolidation of all anti-forgery arguments, René's "no fake" page ( You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. ). But none of the complaints do hold up, and no, genuine is essentially an unsupported argument. The only remaining argument used, in my observations and opinion based on that, is one: The Voynich it real and old because it must be real and old. Therefore, like any expert, any evidence to the contrary MUST be wrong.
So I am highly charged and gratified that this is all so clearly demonstrated here, by these reactions to Touwaide's thoughtful consideration of the obvious possibility, and even, probability, of forgery. It is both a reinforcement of my ideas, and at the same time, a model of one of the chief reasons the Voynich is still not solved.
Rather than address the very many individual comments in this thread, which either dismiss on no grounds, or worse, ignore, both the serious problems with the Voynich, and at the same time, heavily rely on various misconceptions about what is known and accepted as factual about it, I'll link two of my pages which cover all of these points, and more, below. I believe that every complaint about Modern Forgery is addressed in these links. But if anyone has any reason to believe I've missed something, you know I am always ready and eager and prepared to answer any questions, or field any rebuttals.
My 1910 Voynich Theory which Mr. Touwaide referenced: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Why many of the perceived "foundations" to genuine (many used here in these comments, to rebut forgery) are anything but: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
How the Voynich Manuscript exhibits an overwhelming number of characteristics of forgery (adapted from my 2017 talk at the NSA Historical Cipher Symposium): You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
All the best, Rich.
*****************************************************************
RE: Alain Touwaide - Villa Mondragone - 14 Oct. 2019 - proto57 - 26-10-2019
Well I do want to (cherry pick, yes) one little nugget from the many comments preceding. it demonstrates to me one of the common effect, treatments, whatever, which are another cause of the endless loop of genuine people get stuck in: The rejection of the obvious because of what it points to modern fake; in favor of some very far less likely, or even, invented, interpretation, solely because that substitute does not support fake (much like "anything BUT an armadillo):
JKP wrote:
"They are very beautiful containers. The average person would never see anything as nice as these. That's why I wonder if they might be symbolic in some way. They progress from more simple ones (almost like reading tubes) toward some that are not the normal shape for storage containers. Not even the fanciest apothecary jars look like these except ones used for very expensive and precious items like Balsam, myrhh (a word they used for several different resins), or expensive perfumes or ointments. A few of them look like containers that would be specially crafted for a king and would not be seen outside the circle of nobility."
You are correct, JKP: They look nothing like apothecary jars. But no, not even like any made for "very expensive and precious items", unless you have found something no one else yet has. What they do look like is modern optical devices.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.