[Other] Course in Cologne focusing on VMS

[LisaFaginDavis]

Hi, everyone,

My thanks to everyone who has reached out to me in the wake of my piece in the Washington Post. The response has been very positive.

I don't know if you all have seen this, the website for a recent course at the University of Cologne focusing on the VMS:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

I particularly like the interactive timeline here:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

- Lisa

[ReneZ]

I hadn't seen the interactive timeline, and it's very nicely done.

I only found one tiny error, and it's a persistent one found in many sources (the year 1666 instead of 1665) so this can be forgiven.

It nicely shows how the manuscript was 'invisble' for over 200 years in the middle of its life.

[LisaFaginDavis]

I actually think the last digit isn't clear in the Marci letter...could be a [5] or a [6] (it's online here: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). Probably best to be circumspect and record it as "1665/6."

[ReneZ]

I understand the confusion, but there are several reasons why it should be 1665.

One is a comparison with another letter by Marci sent one month later, where the writing is similar, but the figure is more clearly a five:

         

However, we can be very certain because in January 1666, Marci's friend Kinner asks Kircher if he has made any progress with the translation of the book that Marci sent him.

Both letters referred to are in the historical archives of the Gregorian University in Rome.

Edit: Addendum: It is clear that all early sources only knew the Marci letter which is indeed ambiguous. This started with Voynich's 1921 presentation, where he wrote: 1666 (or 1665).

[Anton]

I can't read German freely, but I'd say "You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view." could feature some "better" choices, e.g. Stojko

[LisaFaginDavis]

This is really helpful, Rene, thank you so much! - Lisa

I understand the confusion, but there are several reasons why it should be 1665.

One is a comparison with another letter by Marci sent one month later, where the writing is similar, but the figure is more clearly a five:

 

However, we can be very certain because in January 1666, Marci's friend Kinner asks Kircher if he has made any progress with the translation of the book that Marci sent him.

Both letters referred to are in the historical archives of the Gregorian University in Rome.

Edit: Addendum: It is clear that all early sources only knew the Marci letter which is indeed ambiguous. This started with Voynich's 1921 presentation, where he wrote: 1666 (or 1665).

[DONJCH]

The Timeline would be excellent but why does everybody these days think a tiny font in light grey is such a good idea?
Have some consideration for the visually impaired!

[hermesj]

Thank you all for the compliments and especially to Rene for pointing out that Marci wrote his letter before 1666! I have corrected the timeline.

[Koen G]

This sounds really cool, and maybe the course will create some new VM scholars. How many students would there be?

[Koen G]

By the way, isn't it weird to spend so much time and effort explaining Cheshire's nonsense in a class like this? It's like inserting a chapter on Flat Earth in a course on astrophysics.