08-11-2017, 11:43 PM
(This post was last modified: 08-11-2017, 11:58 PM by Diane.
Edit Reason: modify
)
Anton is right to distinguish place of production from origin of the matter contained.
For reasons explained in more detail in a post to my blog, Panofsky's brief responses to the Questions put him by William Friedman have to be evaluated in the context of the times, of their respective social standing and the atmosphere of American politics in the immediate post-war period. Comparing them to the account given by Anne Nill, and even more importantly to the style and quality of Panofsky's usual evaluations of any work mean that greater weight must be given Anne Nill's account than those responses. There is also the effect of a bias created by O'Neill's over-confident assertions which skewed perceptions of the later period for quite a number of years. Even so, Panofsky would not go beyond the limit set by the lifetime of a Jew who had been forced to leave Spain in 1492. I think it inappropriate to imagine that the 'Questionnaire' represents any change of mind on Panofsky's part - but since O'Neill's 'sunflower' was being taken for granted, he adjusted the date and location of production. Also, Kraus or one of his assistants (sorry, I'll have to check that name) wrote later (in the '60s perhaps) that no area of Europe had been ruled out.
What has happened is that items which appear to support the 'central Europe' idea have been cherry-picked and all the other evidence and argument, including that provided by the vellum, hands, imagery and effectively all the primary evidence save a bit of marginalia (later by definition than manufacture) has been ignored by a majority of Voynicheros since the early 2000s.
Efforts to investigate alternatives, or to bring clear indications of the contrary to notice have generally been shrugged off and sometimes positively attacked without balanced consideration or reasoned argument.
As example: a curator from the Getty Museum likened the formation of centres in the calendar to mosaics produced in late Roman/Byzantine-ruled Syria. At much the same time, Sam G. noted that mosaics in late Roman/Byzantine north Africa show similar characteristics to another of the calendar centres. The two regions are linked - historically and culturally - from long before the Byzantine period, and it is common culture rather than official rule which chiefly influences forms in art.
The response to those items was a flood of German medieval manuscript illustrations - not any consideration of the matter. The 'central European' theory is thus opposed by (i) a large number of the early evaluations by *independent* specialists in manuscripts; (ii) by the total absence of a Germanic 'hand' in the text (iii) by the quality of the vellum's finish (iv) by the absence of Latin conventions in art... particularly in central European art (v) by the positive presence of conventions which can be found elsewhere... and so on, and so on, and so on.
What is habitually glossed over is that Panofsky's life and work, until he went to America, had been the study of medieval central European Latin (i.e. western Christian) art. That he dismissed any such origin for the matter in MS Beinecke 408 when he saw the ms, and spoke to Anne Nill, is an extraordinarily powerful argument against the theory that has been so actively promoted since c.2000 or so. Not even Pelling's detailed argument for a north Italian provenance was treated as balance for the other. I agree with Pelling that manufacture of the work should be ascribed to northern Italy - but the evidence points to Padua-Veneto (the conclusion and evidence for which I had already published before a recent book appeared in which the same was asserted)
Panofsky attributed the work to Jews of 'Spain or somewhere southern' and originally dated the content and appearance to the thirteenth century or so. I think he was right. Not about place of manufacture but about the nature of the content as expressed by the imagery, vellum and so on.
What fazed Panofsky was first, that 'the ladies' have bellies - since he knew of none such before the fifteenth century. I've shown they do occur in Spanish Jewish works of the earlier period. Secondly, Panofsky succumbed to the then-universal habit of imagining the work an autograph - i.e. identical date for first composition and for manufacture.
If a present-day Voynich writer's aim is to promote a theory, it is natural only to look for, and take into account, whatever they can find that might be interpreted to support their own narrative.
But when the aim is to reach a correct understanding of the manuscript - so as not to misdirect, misinform or mislead those who need to know where and when, and in what cultural and historical context the work was put together, then surely when evidence is rightly understood, fairly offered and relevant but contradicts a pet theory, it is the theory which should be more readily discarded.
I do apologise for using the word 'silly'; I should have said something like 'poorly supported by the primary evidence'.
For reasons explained in more detail in a post to my blog, Panofsky's brief responses to the Questions put him by William Friedman have to be evaluated in the context of the times, of their respective social standing and the atmosphere of American politics in the immediate post-war period. Comparing them to the account given by Anne Nill, and even more importantly to the style and quality of Panofsky's usual evaluations of any work mean that greater weight must be given Anne Nill's account than those responses. There is also the effect of a bias created by O'Neill's over-confident assertions which skewed perceptions of the later period for quite a number of years. Even so, Panofsky would not go beyond the limit set by the lifetime of a Jew who had been forced to leave Spain in 1492. I think it inappropriate to imagine that the 'Questionnaire' represents any change of mind on Panofsky's part - but since O'Neill's 'sunflower' was being taken for granted, he adjusted the date and location of production. Also, Kraus or one of his assistants (sorry, I'll have to check that name) wrote later (in the '60s perhaps) that no area of Europe had been ruled out.
What has happened is that items which appear to support the 'central Europe' idea have been cherry-picked and all the other evidence and argument, including that provided by the vellum, hands, imagery and effectively all the primary evidence save a bit of marginalia (later by definition than manufacture) has been ignored by a majority of Voynicheros since the early 2000s.
Efforts to investigate alternatives, or to bring clear indications of the contrary to notice have generally been shrugged off and sometimes positively attacked without balanced consideration or reasoned argument.
As example: a curator from the Getty Museum likened the formation of centres in the calendar to mosaics produced in late Roman/Byzantine-ruled Syria. At much the same time, Sam G. noted that mosaics in late Roman/Byzantine north Africa show similar characteristics to another of the calendar centres. The two regions are linked - historically and culturally - from long before the Byzantine period, and it is common culture rather than official rule which chiefly influences forms in art.
The response to those items was a flood of German medieval manuscript illustrations - not any consideration of the matter. The 'central European' theory is thus opposed by (i) a large number of the early evaluations by *independent* specialists in manuscripts; (ii) by the total absence of a Germanic 'hand' in the text (iii) by the quality of the vellum's finish (iv) by the absence of Latin conventions in art... particularly in central European art (v) by the positive presence of conventions which can be found elsewhere... and so on, and so on, and so on.
What is habitually glossed over is that Panofsky's life and work, until he went to America, had been the study of medieval central European Latin (i.e. western Christian) art. That he dismissed any such origin for the matter in MS Beinecke 408 when he saw the ms, and spoke to Anne Nill, is an extraordinarily powerful argument against the theory that has been so actively promoted since c.2000 or so. Not even Pelling's detailed argument for a north Italian provenance was treated as balance for the other. I agree with Pelling that manufacture of the work should be ascribed to northern Italy - but the evidence points to Padua-Veneto (the conclusion and evidence for which I had already published before a recent book appeared in which the same was asserted)
Panofsky attributed the work to Jews of 'Spain or somewhere southern' and originally dated the content and appearance to the thirteenth century or so. I think he was right. Not about place of manufacture but about the nature of the content as expressed by the imagery, vellum and so on.
What fazed Panofsky was first, that 'the ladies' have bellies - since he knew of none such before the fifteenth century. I've shown they do occur in Spanish Jewish works of the earlier period. Secondly, Panofsky succumbed to the then-universal habit of imagining the work an autograph - i.e. identical date for first composition and for manufacture.
If a present-day Voynich writer's aim is to promote a theory, it is natural only to look for, and take into account, whatever they can find that might be interpreted to support their own narrative.
But when the aim is to reach a correct understanding of the manuscript - so as not to misdirect, misinform or mislead those who need to know where and when, and in what cultural and historical context the work was put together, then surely when evidence is rightly understood, fairly offered and relevant but contradicts a pet theory, it is the theory which should be more readily discarded.
I do apologise for using the word 'silly'; I should have said something like 'poorly supported by the primary evidence'.