Voynich Day!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 вер 2024
- Introducing the Voynich Manuscript (Beinecke Library MS 408) to the students in my Latin Paleography class at Yale. Everything you always wanted to know about the Voynich Manuscript - history, contents, linguistics, paleography, and more! Live-streamed from the Beinecke Library, with special guests Curator Ray Clemens and Yale Prof. of Linguistics Claire Bowern.
Dr. Davis, very insightful session, thank you. I did have a question, in the beginning of the presentation you slightly mentioned attempts to decipher the manuscript, I would love to hear your thoughts on some of the more recent attempts, in particular that of Ahmet Ardiç and his sons, would you be willing to release a short video discussing such attempts? Thanks in advance.
Awesome lecture!
lol thanks
I'm puzzled by the statement that Newbold invented the 'Roger Bacon' idea. Wilfrid's address of 1921 says very plainly that it was his own very first 'gut reaction' to the manuscript when he first saw it. I am also intrigued by the statement that Rudolf owned the manuscript. The historical evidence says no more than that it was related, as a piece of hearsay from someone who could not have been present at the time of the supposed purchase, and the person relating it refused to endorse the tale. More - if there is any evidence of its being 'bequeathed by Rudolf' I'd be delighted to see that documentary evidence. So far as I know, it's just a piece of invention, chiefly promoted by an adherent of the 'central European theory' and there are serious historical problems with the proposed timeline for what happened to it after Kircher received it - as we presume he did. The trunk in which Voynich says he found it suggests that it had lain there for decades - before which, Becxx had spent years away from Rome. Still, if there's documentary evidence for any of these things, I'll always take them into account.
Newbold didn't "invent" it, but he was the first to try to "prove" it. And it isn't at all certain that Rudolf owned the manuscript - Marci says so in his letter to Kircher, but no one has ever found any other evidence to support that contention. It COULD be true, but we just don't know for sure.
😅
You state that the manuscript reminds you of Italian Humanist period, but not to use that fact as a guide because it could have been created in (your words) "Timbuktu". I disagree, common sense dictates that if it looks to be of Humanist Italian Period, and carbon dated to that time, most likely it is and not from "Timbuktu". It makes sense that it is from the Italian Humanist period and location of creation.
However, thanks for the great insights and perspectives.
I know from our previous conversations that you WANT it to be from Humanistic Italy, but the evidence for that place of origin is really circumstantial. It MIGHT be, but Humanistic styles were used throughout Europe during this period, and the resemblance to Humanistic letterforms is just that, a resemblance only. It's not proof.
Dom, when she said Timbuktu she was being rhetorical. It’s a figure of speech meant to express a far off exotic place. Northern Italy may very well be the origin. Only time will tell. Lisa you did a great job. I look forward to fallowing your channel. Geoff Cornwell ,Thailand