[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: VMs: f17r marginalia - Mattioli / Lobelius / Brumbaugh /Poundstone...?
Hello Nick,
the Czech connection is really strong, I quote from my page about Thadeus Hajek:
1562 - He translated Mathiolli's Herbal, written by Italian, Dr. Mathiollus (Pietro Andrea Mathiolli, 1501-1577), personal physician of Ferdinand I, see sample from the book with illustrations, at http://www.amo-bulbi.it/ad_Mattioli_N_Engl.htm ( compare with crude and dubious pictures in the VM, which suggests that the latter are not necessarily those of real plants)
And of course, Ferdinand I was followed by Rudolph II and his personal physician was none other than Thadeus Hajek! And Hajek's translation into Czech contained furthermore some additional info provided by Hajek himself, from his own medical practise. Joannes Marci also became the personal physician, but to Ferdinand III and later to Leopold I.
By the way, do you see any similarity between handriting of this note and the one on the last folio?
Jan
======= You wrote:
>Hi everyone,
>
>At 00:22 30/11/2004 -0800, Rene Zandbergen wrote:
>>I suspect that there may be a little misunderstanding.
>>The emperor who wrote the marginalia in the
>>code book was not Rudolf II, but
>>Friedrich III (1415-1493) (Roman-German king and
>>emperor).
>>http://www.geschichte.uni-muenchen.de/ghw/geheimschriften/g6.shtml
>
>This reminded me of a question I meant to ask about the f17r marginalia:
>Poundstone/Brumbaugh suggested that this might read "Mattioli ...",
>referring to Pietro Andrea Gregorio Mattioli's "Di Pedacio Dioscoride
>Anazarbeo Libri Cinque", translation of Dioscorides' famous Greek herbal -
>a Latin translation in 1544 & a German translation printed in 1558, as per:-
> http://www.lombardmaps.com/cat/botanicals/mattioli.htm
>
>Now, according to http://www.voynich.nu/q03/index.html#f17 , this was "once
>(but no longer) believed to be a reference to the herbal of Pier Andrea
>Mattioli": but note that Jim Reeds noted on-list (Sat Apr 19th 1997):-
>
> My question is: why are we talking about Mattioli? Where did
>this idea
> connecting him to f17r come from? There is no other mention of
>him in my
> collection of email correspondence. He is not in Brumbaugh's index
>or in
> D'Imperio's index.
>
> There is a passage on p.128 of Brumbaugh's book: "And on folio 17r,
> some owner has noted at the top that part of the plant drawing
>seems to
> come from the herbal of Matthew Lobelius, published in 1570." But of
> course Mathias de l'Obel, also known as de Lobel or Lobelius
>(1538-1616),
> is not the same person as Pierandrea Mattioli, also known as
>Matthiolus
> (1501-1577).
>
>Mike Roe followed this up on-list (on Mon Apr 21st 1997) with a reference
>to sci.crypt post/thread from 1991 (pre-vms-list, does anyone have a copy
>of this?):-
>
> At the top of 17r, there is a small note in a different hand from
>the rest of
> the MS. Part of this note looks a little bit like "Mathian" (in
>the latin
> alphabet). Someone has clearly had a big leap of imagination and
>connected
> this with the herbal of Matthiolaus. Several authors (including
>Poundstone
> and Brumbaugh) have perpetuated this idea.
>
> [ The 'herbal of Matthiolaus' connection was discussed on
>sci.crypt in Novemeber
> '91, just before the Voynich mailing list was set up.
>(Particularly,
> John Baez's posting of 13 Nov 1991 and my posting of 16 Nov 1991).
> ]
>
>This was followed up by Karl Kluge, 15th Mar 1998:-
>
> Poundstone says
>
> "To add to the confusion, folio 17 contains a tiny note in
>Middle
> High German, not necessarily by the original author, talking
>about
> the Herbal of Matthiolaus."
>
> My notes on Brumbaugh's book indicate "f17r -- some owner has
>noted that
> part of the plant drawing seems to come from the 1570 herbal of
>Matthew
> Lobelius."
>
> Is there one note on f17 or two, and if only one then which is the
>correct
> reading? Here's a brief precis of the info on both authors from
>Blunt and
> Raphael's _Illustrated Herbal_:
>
> Pierandrea Mattioli 1501-77: born in Siena, studied in Venice and
>Padua
> before returning to practice in Siena, then Rome. Left Rome after
>sack
> by Chas. V in 1527. Next 14 years in Valle Anania near Trent, then 14
> years as town physician of Gorizia.
> 1544 non-illustrated version of herbal published in Italian
> 1554 first illustrated edition
> 1555 Mattioli summoned to Prague by Emp. Ferdinand I to
>treat son
> 1562 publication of folio edition in Czech
> 1577 Matiolli retires to Trento
> In later years became rabidly pro-Dioscorides, causing problems
>for some of
> his opponents. Note the Prague connection.
>
> Matthias de L'Obel (Lobelius): b. in Lille in 1528; studied under
>Rondelet
> at Montpellier.
> 1566 (May) Rondelet dies, leaving his mss. to Lobelius
> 1569 publication of _Stirpium Adversaria Nova_,
>coauthored with Pena
> 1581 publishes book which classifies plants based on the
> character of their leaves; named personal physician to
> William of Orange
> 1607 appointed _Botanicus Regius_ to James I of England
> 1616 dies at Highgate
> A "high-flyer", rising fast professionally for unclear reasons.
>
> Can somebody check both the Mss. copyflow and Peterson for this
>note to
> verify what the correct reading is?
>
> BTW, there's a web page from the ASU Special Collections library
>Patten
> collection of herbals:
>http://www.asu.edu/lib/speccoll/patten/html/index.html
>
>Rene then replied (16th Mar 1998):-
>
> I would love to know where Poundstone got his information.
> His sounds like a statement, not a guess. The source would have
> been pretty certain about it. Given that it says middle
> high German, one could think of E. Panofski or Charles Singer.
> Thirdly Richard Salomon, the source of the 'der Mussdel'
> reading, but I know nothing about him or any publication
> by him.
>
> As Karl points out, Mattioli has a strong Prague connection
> and his student Hajek was very influential at Rudolph's
> court. The connection of the note on top of f17r seems
> to be not all that strong, alas, unless the source for
> the identification becomes better known.
>
> > Can somebody check both the Mss. copyflow and Peterson for
> > this note to verify what the correct reading is?
> I have tried and failed. I am not even sure where in this
> line it is supposed to contain the name. It must be in the
> very beginning, but it only becomes half legible after that.
>
>...which is roughly where the whole thread tapers away to nothingness.
>
>Back to the question I was about to ask - now that we have good quality
>images of f17r, what do you think the writing in the top margin probably
>refers to? Mattioli, Lobelius, or something/someone else entirely?
>
>FWIW, the #1 problem with either herbal writer IMHO is the handwriting,
>which seems (to my eyes, anyway) to be Central European circa 1500 (at the
>latest), & not really to 1570-1600 (ie post-dating Mattioli's herbal or
>Lobelius' "Stirpium Adversaria Nova") - but all the same, evidence is
>evidence, and what it says is what it says. :-o
>
>Cheers, .....Nick Pelling.....
>
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
>unsubscribe vms-list
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list