13-01-2019, 02:41 AM
Rene,
Thank you for doing us all the courtesy of explaining, and defending, your interpretation of these documents. It is very helpful to be able to clarify questions by means of round-table discussion.
My own difficulties are these - which you may be able to clear up for me.
You say:
This document, preserved as Arch.Bibl.109 is a photographic copy of an original that seems to be lost. It is dated 1903, and it presents a list of manuscripts offered for sale to the Vatican, by the society of Jesus.
When you say "it" is dated to 1903, do you mean that lost original, or the photographic copy was made, and dated, 1903?
Secondly, is the photograph a true photograph? If so, are there any details of the photographer/developing studio on the reverse. This would be normal, but not invariable, for those times and might help clarify my next question.
You say that the list of manuscripts are ones which the Society offered to the Vatican in 1903, but which (for whatever reason - perhaps they were being stored in a trunk? ) were not actually sold for another nine years.
My question about this item is -
Is it possible to discover which Jesuit libraries contributed to that list of manuscripts which the Society (as a whole) was offering to the Vatican.. in 1903 or later? Is it information that might become available through (e.g.) acquisition details in digitised copies?
btw - the Society is known, I believe, as the Society of Jesus or colloquially as 'the Jesuits'
Is there any way to be sure that even one or two of the manuscripts on that list - and preferably all of them - had come from the Roman College?
I accept that most of the manuscripts listed in that photograph-of-a-list (was the list handwritten, or typed, or printed?) were, by 1912 either purchased by the Vatican Library [which Vatican library, btw?] or had been 'incorporated into it' - which is not the same thing, of course.
When you say:
Most of these manuscripts were finally incorporated in the Vatican library in 1912, and they are included in a catalogue by Jose Ruysschaert published in 1959.
I wonder if you wouldn't mind making a copy of the list, and marking those which do, and which don't, later turn up in a library in the Vatican city. I;d be interested in researching the rest, myself, when I can find the time.
Of course I accept what you say about
Ruysschaert having remarked that some of the manuscripts "that should have been included in this sale" are actually missing. But then it seems they are not missing, but had been purchased by Wilfrid Voynich.
If I'm not mistaken, I think I remember reading your saying somewhere that the Jesuits actually approached Wilfrid to purchase some of their manuscripts; in the normal way wouldn't one take that to imply that he had already gained a good 'rep' among members of the Society, either by private purchases from persons known to one or more, or because in hunting out medieval religious mss (his speciality at the time) he had already bought from other communities of the Jesuits? I'm not arguing this, only pointing out that it would be good to have some certainty on these matters.
As it is, we have only list of books which the Society as a whole had collected and offered to one or more libraries in the Vatican city, but which were not purchased from the Jesuits until after 1911, at which time it has been argued that Voynich was first offered those from Mondragone/Roman College. (Where did the head of the Society reside in those days? It would be a natural collection point for donations, one would think).
I would dearly love to believe that the 'fifteenth century manuscript on membrane' was the Vms, but without any title or dimensions or better description... and no certainty that Voynich's buying from one lot of Jesuits precludes his having bought from other Jesuits... I think it needs to be narrowed a bit better.
In the end, it makes no difference, though, does it? Radiocarbon dating dispatched all the 'late fifteenth-to-seventeenth-century' speculations at last, and we've known for a long time that the Jesuits didn't steal the manuscript.
One thing remains to be answered - why did Wilfrid associate the manuscript with Parma?
So Rene, thanks very much for making so much clear and responding so civilly to queries and cross-examination of the evidence. It's been great to have my own understanding of your argument improve.
(Is it possible to see a copy of that photograph-of-a-list? Front and back of each sheet/photo would be best.)
Thank you for doing us all the courtesy of explaining, and defending, your interpretation of these documents. It is very helpful to be able to clarify questions by means of round-table discussion.
My own difficulties are these - which you may be able to clear up for me.
You say:
This document, preserved as Arch.Bibl.109 is a photographic copy of an original that seems to be lost. It is dated 1903, and it presents a list of manuscripts offered for sale to the Vatican, by the society of Jesus.
When you say "it" is dated to 1903, do you mean that lost original, or the photographic copy was made, and dated, 1903?
Secondly, is the photograph a true photograph? If so, are there any details of the photographer/developing studio on the reverse. This would be normal, but not invariable, for those times and might help clarify my next question.
You say that the list of manuscripts are ones which the Society offered to the Vatican in 1903, but which (for whatever reason - perhaps they were being stored in a trunk? ) were not actually sold for another nine years.
My question about this item is -
Is it possible to discover which Jesuit libraries contributed to that list of manuscripts which the Society (as a whole) was offering to the Vatican.. in 1903 or later? Is it information that might become available through (e.g.) acquisition details in digitised copies?
btw - the Society is known, I believe, as the Society of Jesus or colloquially as 'the Jesuits'
Is there any way to be sure that even one or two of the manuscripts on that list - and preferably all of them - had come from the Roman College?
I accept that most of the manuscripts listed in that photograph-of-a-list (was the list handwritten, or typed, or printed?) were, by 1912 either purchased by the Vatican Library [which Vatican library, btw?] or had been 'incorporated into it' - which is not the same thing, of course.
When you say:
Most of these manuscripts were finally incorporated in the Vatican library in 1912, and they are included in a catalogue by Jose Ruysschaert published in 1959.
I wonder if you wouldn't mind making a copy of the list, and marking those which do, and which don't, later turn up in a library in the Vatican city. I;d be interested in researching the rest, myself, when I can find the time.
Of course I accept what you say about
Ruysschaert having remarked that some of the manuscripts "that should have been included in this sale" are actually missing. But then it seems they are not missing, but had been purchased by Wilfrid Voynich.
If I'm not mistaken, I think I remember reading your saying somewhere that the Jesuits actually approached Wilfrid to purchase some of their manuscripts; in the normal way wouldn't one take that to imply that he had already gained a good 'rep' among members of the Society, either by private purchases from persons known to one or more, or because in hunting out medieval religious mss (his speciality at the time) he had already bought from other communities of the Jesuits? I'm not arguing this, only pointing out that it would be good to have some certainty on these matters.
As it is, we have only list of books which the Society as a whole had collected and offered to one or more libraries in the Vatican city, but which were not purchased from the Jesuits until after 1911, at which time it has been argued that Voynich was first offered those from Mondragone/Roman College. (Where did the head of the Society reside in those days? It would be a natural collection point for donations, one would think).
I would dearly love to believe that the 'fifteenth century manuscript on membrane' was the Vms, but without any title or dimensions or better description... and no certainty that Voynich's buying from one lot of Jesuits precludes his having bought from other Jesuits... I think it needs to be narrowed a bit better.
In the end, it makes no difference, though, does it? Radiocarbon dating dispatched all the 'late fifteenth-to-seventeenth-century' speculations at last, and we've known for a long time that the Jesuits didn't steal the manuscript.
One thing remains to be answered - why did Wilfrid associate the manuscript with Parma?
So Rene, thanks very much for making so much clear and responding so civilly to queries and cross-examination of the evidence. It's been great to have my own understanding of your argument improve.
(Is it possible to see a copy of that photograph-of-a-list? Front and back of each sheet/photo would be best.)