12-06-2018, 12:28 PM
@ReneZ. Thank you for you information! With respect to you and your research, I would like to understand and verify things.
You wrote on your pages (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.)
"Kircher responds to a letter from Moretus and writes about unknown symbols from a book surrounded by mystery which Moretus had sent to him in his letter. This is the oldest extant reference to the Voynich MS that we presently know about. ...
Furthermore (but this may refer to another item or another page sent by Moretus at the same time - the Latin is somewhat ambiguous) he recognises a similarity with certain Illyrian characters in the style of Hieronymus, i.e. the Glagolitic script. ..."
This can go either way. The comment does not refer to the VMS, or the comment does indeed refer to it.
You write that the conclusion it does not refer to it, is clear from
a* the wrong translation. It should have been "the other folio". "Alterum denique folium"
b* later correspondence.
You wrote on letters:
"Then he discusses a second sheet, which has in the past led to some speculation, due to the absence of a reliable translation. Of this second sheet he immediately recognises the writing as being "Illyrian [...] commonly called St.Jerome's". This is a reference to the Glagolitic script You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. Kircher refers to this second sheet as: "appeared to be written in the same unknown script", but since Kircher does not recognise the first writing,
while he does recognise the second, we may safely conclude on the one hand that the first writing is not in Glagolitic, and on the other that the suggestion that the two writings are similar must have been made by Moretus and/or Barschius."
I did not read that comment before. I was focused on the 'Illyrian' and perhaps blinded by finding it. But now, I need to have the facts straight.
a. Could it be possible Kircher received two folios of the VMS, or the full VMS and a separate folio of the VMS?
b. What later correspondence are you referring to.
The part "while he does recognise the second....etc." sounds if the Glagolitic script is referring to the "other folio" it does not refer to the VMS and I even got more confused than I was before.
Sorry to be a pain, but I mean no harm, I am just ignorant.
You wrote on your pages (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.)
"Kircher responds to a letter from Moretus and writes about unknown symbols from a book surrounded by mystery which Moretus had sent to him in his letter. This is the oldest extant reference to the Voynich MS that we presently know about. ...
Furthermore (but this may refer to another item or another page sent by Moretus at the same time - the Latin is somewhat ambiguous) he recognises a similarity with certain Illyrian characters in the style of Hieronymus, i.e. the Glagolitic script. ..."
This can go either way. The comment does not refer to the VMS, or the comment does indeed refer to it.
You write that the conclusion it does not refer to it, is clear from
a* the wrong translation. It should have been "the other folio". "Alterum denique folium"
b* later correspondence.
You wrote on letters:
"Then he discusses a second sheet, which has in the past led to some speculation, due to the absence of a reliable translation. Of this second sheet he immediately recognises the writing as being "Illyrian [...] commonly called St.Jerome's". This is a reference to the Glagolitic script You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. Kircher refers to this second sheet as: "appeared to be written in the same unknown script", but since Kircher does not recognise the first writing,
while he does recognise the second, we may safely conclude on the one hand that the first writing is not in Glagolitic, and on the other that the suggestion that the two writings are similar must have been made by Moretus and/or Barschius."
I did not read that comment before. I was focused on the 'Illyrian' and perhaps blinded by finding it. But now, I need to have the facts straight.
a. Could it be possible Kircher received two folios of the VMS, or the full VMS and a separate folio of the VMS?
b. What later correspondence are you referring to.
The part "while he does recognise the second....etc." sounds if the Glagolitic script is referring to the "other folio" it does not refer to the VMS and I even got more confused than I was before.
Sorry to be a pain, but I mean no harm, I am just ignorant.