Koen G > 23-06-2021, 07:33 PM
(22-06-2021, 09:19 AM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I am on my phone and I cannot easily link stuff. Touwaide 2016 includes a relatively detailed discussion of the various sections as parts of a medical collection. I will post a quote when I get back home in a few days.
MarcoP > 23-06-2021, 07:55 PM
Quote:Voynich stated his impression on first seeing the manuscript that "the drawings indicated it to be an encyclopedia work on natural philosophy" (1921, p.1). Elizabet Friedman says: "The 'botanical' and largest section of the manuscript (125 pages) is probably herbalistic in character, and the manuscript may constitute what is now called a pharmacopeia" (1962).
Panofsky provides another clear summary: "So far as can be made out before the manuscript has been decoded, its content would comprise: first, a general cosmological philosophy explaining the medical properties of terrestrial objects, particularly plants, by celestial influences transmitted by astral radiation and those 'spirits' which were frequently believed to transmit the occult powers of the stars to the earth; second, a kind of herbal describing the individual plants used for medicinal and conceivably, magical purposes; third, a description of such compounds as may be produced by combining individual plants in various ways" (1954, p.1). He confesses that he is unable to suggest any known medieval parallel synthesizing all of these doctrines into one compact book. (There were, in fact, a number of very large encyclopedic works of many volumes that covered a somewhat similar range of topics: an obvious example that comes to mind is the work of Albertus Magnus, a contemporary of Roger Bacon).
Koen G > 23-06-2021, 10:23 PM
Aga Tentakulus > 24-06-2021, 03:28 AM
MarcoP > 24-06-2021, 11:32 AM
(23-06-2021, 10:23 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Thanks Marco, these quotes do point in the direction of a medical compendium. I also agree that Panofsky's interpretation appears speculative, as if he did not want to dig too deep.
(23-06-2021, 10:23 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Would it be fair to say that such remarks tend to look at the manuscript with a birds' eye view, without necessarily getting into the details? (This is not meant in a dismissive way: each perspective has its merits and most readers would probably get a cursory glance at most pages). Or, put differently, that specialists feel more confident assessing the overall themes of a section rather than getting into all the details?
bi3mw > 27-06-2021, 03:55 PM
Quote:Medical-scientific collective manuscript, therein:
Bl. 50ra-68rb = herbal book
Bl. 72r-105v = Johannes de Rupescissa: 'Liber de consideratione quintae essentiae', dt.
Koen G > 27-06-2021, 04:20 PM
Helmut Winkler > 27-06-2021, 04:37 PM
bi3mw > 28-06-2021, 02:39 PM
Quote:we do have a complete digitized copy of manuscript M II 180, but we do not yet have a suitable server to offer the pages open access. If you would like to purchase the digitized copy, the cost is 50 Euros.
With kind regards
Beatrix Koll
Koen G > 28-06-2021, 03:49 PM