19-06-2017, 03:04 AM
(This post was last modified: 19-06-2017, 03:58 AM by Diane.
Edit Reason: cut
)
Perhaps I should put up a post, annotating Skinner's introduction?.
That would make an easy way to link readers to the numerous posts which contain the evidene, comparative matter, historical context and so forth which I've presented and which led me to the opinion that while the imagery originated, for the most part, in Hellenistic works, it had been maintained by eastern Jews until a period which I judge to be mid-thirteenth to mid-fourteenth century, and that it then came not into Latin culture, but into the Jewish culture of the south, comparisons being made especially to the Jewish cartographic school in Mallorca, and to the Genoese. I had been about to explain further the connection between the two and why certain Black Sea sites are of particular importance in the matter of transfer.
That series of posts is now halted.
Some readers may recall the comments which I sought, and partly offered online, from one of the chief experts in ancient and medieval semitic scripts. That person said very plainly that the current manuscript was not written by someone trained to write Hebrew, but that a small string of micrographic letters (micrography being a speciality of the Karaite) looked as if a person untrained in writing Hebrew had tried to do so.
That judgement agrees with the conclusions that I have already stated online, and for which I have adduced codicological and other matter as informing my view: viz. that the manuscript we have is a close copy of precedents which appear to me to have taken their final form(s) between the mid-thirteenth and mid-fourteenth centuries, having earlier been retained by Jews and recently gained by Latins - at around the time the Venetian state absorbed that of Padua, which region was soon to be invaded and devastated by the Germans. I have also said - and explained - why I date the ms to c.1427-8.
As I have recently said at Voynich ninja, I had been cautious about stating exactly where I thought the manuscript made, but in fact I had come to the opinion some time ago that it was most likely made in Padua, at St.Giustina or the adjacent university.
I have published so much of the research online, and indicated so much of the direction it takes, while remaining apparently entirely alone with Panofsky in my conclusions that it comes as something of a surprise to hear that Skinner's essay is termed either "new" or "a theory". I do not offer theories but evidence, historical context for the evidence, and my conclusions.
Given that Zandbergen was associated with the publication and has known Dr. Skinner for some time, I wonder that he didn't save Dr. Skinner the inevitable embarrassment of seeming to re-invent an old and pretty solid wheel.
Still, perhaps an annotation of the article will help - my blog is called '... and scholia', after all.
That would make an easy way to link readers to the numerous posts which contain the evidene, comparative matter, historical context and so forth which I've presented and which led me to the opinion that while the imagery originated, for the most part, in Hellenistic works, it had been maintained by eastern Jews until a period which I judge to be mid-thirteenth to mid-fourteenth century, and that it then came not into Latin culture, but into the Jewish culture of the south, comparisons being made especially to the Jewish cartographic school in Mallorca, and to the Genoese. I had been about to explain further the connection between the two and why certain Black Sea sites are of particular importance in the matter of transfer.
That series of posts is now halted.
Some readers may recall the comments which I sought, and partly offered online, from one of the chief experts in ancient and medieval semitic scripts. That person said very plainly that the current manuscript was not written by someone trained to write Hebrew, but that a small string of micrographic letters (micrography being a speciality of the Karaite) looked as if a person untrained in writing Hebrew had tried to do so.
That judgement agrees with the conclusions that I have already stated online, and for which I have adduced codicological and other matter as informing my view: viz. that the manuscript we have is a close copy of precedents which appear to me to have taken their final form(s) between the mid-thirteenth and mid-fourteenth centuries, having earlier been retained by Jews and recently gained by Latins - at around the time the Venetian state absorbed that of Padua, which region was soon to be invaded and devastated by the Germans. I have also said - and explained - why I date the ms to c.1427-8.
As I have recently said at Voynich ninja, I had been cautious about stating exactly where I thought the manuscript made, but in fact I had come to the opinion some time ago that it was most likely made in Padua, at St.Giustina or the adjacent university.
I have published so much of the research online, and indicated so much of the direction it takes, while remaining apparently entirely alone with Panofsky in my conclusions that it comes as something of a surprise to hear that Skinner's essay is termed either "new" or "a theory". I do not offer theories but evidence, historical context for the evidence, and my conclusions.
Given that Zandbergen was associated with the publication and has known Dr. Skinner for some time, I wonder that he didn't save Dr. Skinner the inevitable embarrassment of seeming to re-invent an old and pretty solid wheel.
Still, perhaps an annotation of the article will help - my blog is called '... and scholia', after all.