11-10-2016, 11:07 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-10-2016, 12:02 AM by Diane.
Edit Reason: cos
)
VViews,
You're right; I shouldn't get stuck in the past. Voynich.ninja has brought a lot of new people to the study and is rapidly changing the tone, and quality of the way work on the manuscript proceeds.
Thank you for the comment.
Ellie,
The source is mentioned in the posts. I know that there were several secondary sources whose dates conflicted; and in the first instance I also thought that there seemed to be a 17-yr gap in the record. Not sure where I got that idea, now, but I was speculating about whether he went to visit the various centres to which the Jesuits had been dispersed when dispossessed.
Then I came across the official history of the Order and (I will check) from that found that he had left Rome and gone straight to Fiesole - no wanderings at all. I think it reasonable to suppose that the author of the official history would have had the most comprehensive access to all files and records. But as I say, I will check the notes I took at the time. Thanks for bringing it to notice.
About checking the lists of books gained by Voynich against those recorded as formerly owned by Libri. I have thought of doing that, but as always when deciding which avenue to work on, my priority is always a better understanding of the primary document (Beinecke MS 408). There is evidence enough that books sold by Voynich have arrived in collections at the same time as ones that had been Libri-collection ones, and some have a dual provenance: i.e. Libri then Voynich.
But there is no complete list of the volumes which Libri stole, and many in his collection were not stolen.
To do this sort of investigation, one would have to spend quite an amount of time poring over, and comparing, the catalogues produced when Libri's collection was sold in England.. the auction took more than a week, and those were just the manuscripts he took to England! Then one would have to compare with every catalogue and record of sale that remain from Voynich's business, and finally cross-reference with the list of works which are said to have come from that one trunk - by then in Mondragone.
There is a remote possibility that we'd learn something about our manuscript from all that - but I don't believe it likely and I personally have never placed much importance on post-1438 theories. Not even my own. The main point is that if the manuscript had been given to Beckx, in trust, because it had been church property stolen by Libri, then it could have come from any library, anywhere, on the route of the Napoleonic wars, and subject to the later confiscations. That's how Libri managed to have access to so many important MSS, including pre-Carolingian ones. Which means, perhaps, we should widen the range of scripts used for comparison to the Vms.
Postscript: The last point may not be clear. There was a monastic dictum "every cow its calf" which meant that copies taken of a manuscript had to remain in the same library as the original, unless a commissioned copy or (as was rare) an original sold off. This rule remained in effect through the fifteenth century in universities and even with regard to private collections. Thus, when Ficino left the Medici's employ, he was not permitted to take with him the translations he'd made from texts owned by Cosimo. He was only permitted to take his own 'lecture notes' (he was the family tutor). This makes it probable that - while there's no dispute the Vms dates are 1405-1438 - if it had come from a library holding ancient or 'exotic' source-works - it could have remained in the same collection as the source/s from which it was copied.
And this is one more reason why correctly typifying and identifying the source for vellum produced to exactly the same dimensions, and in the same quality (unusual for the time) is itself an important matter. If vellum of that quality, in those dimensions, was only being made in a few places, then the source-texts may have been there, too.
You're right; I shouldn't get stuck in the past. Voynich.ninja has brought a lot of new people to the study and is rapidly changing the tone, and quality of the way work on the manuscript proceeds.
Thank you for the comment.
Ellie,
The source is mentioned in the posts. I know that there were several secondary sources whose dates conflicted; and in the first instance I also thought that there seemed to be a 17-yr gap in the record. Not sure where I got that idea, now, but I was speculating about whether he went to visit the various centres to which the Jesuits had been dispersed when dispossessed.
Then I came across the official history of the Order and (I will check) from that found that he had left Rome and gone straight to Fiesole - no wanderings at all. I think it reasonable to suppose that the author of the official history would have had the most comprehensive access to all files and records. But as I say, I will check the notes I took at the time. Thanks for bringing it to notice.
About checking the lists of books gained by Voynich against those recorded as formerly owned by Libri. I have thought of doing that, but as always when deciding which avenue to work on, my priority is always a better understanding of the primary document (Beinecke MS 408). There is evidence enough that books sold by Voynich have arrived in collections at the same time as ones that had been Libri-collection ones, and some have a dual provenance: i.e. Libri then Voynich.
But there is no complete list of the volumes which Libri stole, and many in his collection were not stolen.
To do this sort of investigation, one would have to spend quite an amount of time poring over, and comparing, the catalogues produced when Libri's collection was sold in England.. the auction took more than a week, and those were just the manuscripts he took to England! Then one would have to compare with every catalogue and record of sale that remain from Voynich's business, and finally cross-reference with the list of works which are said to have come from that one trunk - by then in Mondragone.
There is a remote possibility that we'd learn something about our manuscript from all that - but I don't believe it likely and I personally have never placed much importance on post-1438 theories. Not even my own. The main point is that if the manuscript had been given to Beckx, in trust, because it had been church property stolen by Libri, then it could have come from any library, anywhere, on the route of the Napoleonic wars, and subject to the later confiscations. That's how Libri managed to have access to so many important MSS, including pre-Carolingian ones. Which means, perhaps, we should widen the range of scripts used for comparison to the Vms.
Postscript: The last point may not be clear. There was a monastic dictum "every cow its calf" which meant that copies taken of a manuscript had to remain in the same library as the original, unless a commissioned copy or (as was rare) an original sold off. This rule remained in effect through the fifteenth century in universities and even with regard to private collections. Thus, when Ficino left the Medici's employ, he was not permitted to take with him the translations he'd made from texts owned by Cosimo. He was only permitted to take his own 'lecture notes' (he was the family tutor). This makes it probable that - while there's no dispute the Vms dates are 1405-1438 - if it had come from a library holding ancient or 'exotic' source-works - it could have remained in the same collection as the source/s from which it was copied.
And this is one more reason why correctly typifying and identifying the source for vellum produced to exactly the same dimensions, and in the same quality (unusual for the time) is itself an important matter. If vellum of that quality, in those dimensions, was only being made in a few places, then the source-texts may have been there, too.