20-06-2017, 08:06 PM
So, is Stephen Skinner wrong in his assessment???
Could you provide a section nr. or page nr. in D'Imperio's book, from which any of this follows?
Or any other source, for that matter?
The repeated reference to Panofsky's supposed statement that the MS is Jewish deserves a closer look.
In the 1930's there were two Jewish art historians in Germany who took a great interest in the Voynich MS.
Of the two, Richard Salomon was the senior. He was involved in creating the Warburg library in Hamburg, a forerunner of the famous Warburg institute. He was a mentor to Erwin Panofsky, who turned out probably to be the more brilliant of the two (matter of speculation and taste).
With the uprising of national socialism in Germany, both had to leave their posts and moved to the US.
Both have left us their opinions about the Voynich MS.
Salomon was of the opinion that the MS is German, but this seems to be ignored.
Panofsky left two opinions, once in the 1930's and once in the 1950's.
In the later one, he was also of the opinion the the MS is German, but this also seems to be ignored.
In the earlier one, he is quoted by ELV as follows:
Jewish is one out of five: "Jewish or Arab, Dutch or Flemish, Spanish".
Ignoring ~90% of the evidence, and quoting only ~10% of it, is not sound scholarly work.
It looks like a case of selecting the evidence that fits the theory.
Quote:The Friedmans assumed the Voynich manuscript was the unique creation of a sixteenth century, European and Christian 'author' whom they presumed created the text in cipher. Their only interest in the manuscript lay in the challenge of 'breaking' the written part of the text - to which all the imagery was assumed potentially an aid - but evidently of no independent worth from their point of view.
d'Imperio's booklet is now very badly out of date on many points, including this one. It shows clearly that the Friedman group interpreted 'Jewish' as meaning a written source of some text on magic from which that imagined Christian, European 'renaissance' or 'enlightenment' author had derived his cipher.
Could you provide a section nr. or page nr. in D'Imperio's book, from which any of this follows?
Or any other source, for that matter?
The repeated reference to Panofsky's supposed statement that the MS is Jewish deserves a closer look.
In the 1930's there were two Jewish art historians in Germany who took a great interest in the Voynich MS.
Of the two, Richard Salomon was the senior. He was involved in creating the Warburg library in Hamburg, a forerunner of the famous Warburg institute. He was a mentor to Erwin Panofsky, who turned out probably to be the more brilliant of the two (matter of speculation and taste).
With the uprising of national socialism in Germany, both had to leave their posts and moved to the US.
Both have left us their opinions about the Voynich MS.
Salomon was of the opinion that the MS is German, but this seems to be ignored.
Panofsky left two opinions, once in the 1930's and once in the 1950's.
In the later one, he was also of the opinion the the MS is German, but this also seems to be ignored.
In the earlier one, he is quoted by ELV as follows:
Quote:That it shows Jewish or Arab influence, probably in connection with the Kabbala; but also Dutch or Flemish influence in the female faces and figures and some Spanish or anyhow southern qualities. This last impression was strengthened in his mind by the character of the greens and red.
Jewish is one out of five: "Jewish or Arab, Dutch or Flemish, Spanish".
Ignoring ~90% of the evidence, and quoting only ~10% of it, is not sound scholarly work.
It looks like a case of selecting the evidence that fits the theory.