[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Fwd: RE: Re: Toresella
Perhaps I was too critical of O'Neill's paper, but there is a great deal
of controversy over his identifications. Stolfi discusses the
"sunflower" on his site(http://www.dcc.unicamp.br/~stolfi/voynich/
98-01-17-sunflower/) with the conclusion that it could not be a
16th-century depiction of a sunflower, and as a botanist myself I am not
convinced that the "Capsicum" on folio 101v is even botanical (despite
the red color, and a similar figure elsewhere in green, it looks like a
piece of laboratory equipment to me). That said, a 16th-century date
does seem correct to me (the MS is certainly not medieval). I wonder
what can be gained from the study of elements of costume worn by human
figures in the MS.
>Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 04:40:52 -0500
>From: "ddhopper" <ddhopper@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: "ddhopper" <ddhopper@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: RE: Re: Toresella
>The botanist Hugh O'Neill, a friend of R.G. Kent, did publish his
>identifications as "tentative", and drew his speculation on that
>phrase. I don't think his identifications were "careless" or his
>presumptuous or "provocative". He simply chose the two most
>plants and wrote his brief pamphlet as a guide for researchers.
>people have identified the flower as a sunflower, and the capsicum is
>distinctive. When Dana's views are added to O'Neill's identification
>only a couple of plants, a pattern builds toward early to middle 16th
>century. Perhaps it is not O'Neill who was careless, but other
>in ignoring or not pursuing the more obvious. Perhaps...
>In O'Neill's unpublished notes he identifies quite a few more plants to
>From: philip.marshall@xxxxxxxx [mailto:philip.marshall@xxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 12:13 AM
>Subject: Fwd: Re: Toresella
>If the VMS were penned in the second half of the XVI
>>> century, then I have no difficulty in accepting the presence of
>>> samples from the Western Hemisphere; however, I am not convinced
>>> the sunflower identification is accurate.
>> It was Brumbaugh that said that the sunflower and pepper showed that
>>it was written after the discovery of the New World. He thought that
>>was nonsense, written by Dee and Kelly to make money. He did think
>>labels were meaningful, Latin enciphered in a rudimentary cipher. We
>>accept any of this.
>More precisely, I believe that it was Hugh O'Neill who first
>(carelessly, I would say) the "sunflower" and "pepper" and emphasized
>that they would date the MS to after 1493 (when Columbus returned to
>Europe with seeds). Brumbaugh was responsible only for the
>popularization of O'Neill's provocative claim.
---------End of Included Message----------