Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 June 26

= June 26 =

Gilbert Cuzent
When was Gilbert Cuzent was Mangareva? Voyage aux îles Gambier (archipel de Mangarèva) was published in 1872 but base on the content which I can read by google translating, it talks about events that happen more than ten years before the publication date. I suspect 1857 but that circumstantial guessing. Can somebody find the time period it was written by skimming this book or possibly finding another source that cites the date of Gilbert Cuzen's visit?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * On page two, the date (of departure from Papeete) is given as 16 May 1858. They sighted Mangareva on 7 June (page 18) (after being delayed by calms) but actually arrived 8 June (page 30). 184.147.138.101 (talk) 01:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The beginning of the book (Chapitre Ier) says that Cuzent left Tahiti on May 16 1858 on the Maputeo Ier (p. 2) and arrived in Mangareva on June 8 1858 (p. 30). The end of the book (Chapitre VII) says that he left Mangareva on June 24th 1858 (p. 141) on the same ship. It also mentions that he arrived in Valparaiso on July 24 1858 (p. 143). So apparently Cuzent only stayed in Mangareva for 16 days, but there's no reason to assume that 149 page book only deals with what happened during that 16 day stay. Contact Basemetal   here  02:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Was Leonardo da Vinci is the author of the Voynich Manuscript?
This person here puts forward a theory that Leonardo da Vinci is the author of the Voynich Manuscript. To my laymons intellect it seems plausible but I can find no authoritative information to support or discredit the hypothesis. Is it just a crack pot theory or is there some actual substance to her claims? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.221.132.69 (talk) 23:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Radiocarbon dating isn't extremely accurate, but even the upper limit on the vellum dating (per our Manuscript article) puts it 14 years before da Vinci was born. Unlikely theory, to this layman. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's not likely to have been Da Vinci - but the carbon-dating only tells you the date on which the animal that produced the vellum stopped breathing. It's possible (but highly unlikely) that some older source of vellum could have been used.  That said, the art style of the manuscript looks nothing like anything that Da Vinci produced.  Compare this:
 * Voynich_Manuscript_%28170%29.jpg...to this...Vinci,_Leonardo_Da_-_Ornithogalum_(Star_of_Bethlehem).jpg
 * Da Vinci sketched with precision and liked to show the underlying structure of things - not just a crude visual depiction of them - he couldn't produce something as ugly as the Voynich drawings if he tried! SteveBaker (talk) 03:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind, he was allegedly six at the time. Only still a rookie genius. And yeah, unlikely to use old skin when there's plenty around. Sheep never go out of style. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If we could answer this in the positive, we'd have to rewrite our articles on both. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I have no opinion of the authorship, but see palimpsest and consider that vellum can easily predate a script, it is only post-dating that is problematic. μηδείς (talk) 04:56, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Merlin could pull it off. Merlin aside, I'd considered that. I'm basing my "unlikely to use old skin" on the presumption that someone doesn't make something like this without time on their hands and a worldly way (in a non-wizard sense). Those are generally rich people, moreso then than now. Rich people don't need palimpsest. Though they could want palimpsest. Was this written on palimpsest? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The point of mentioning palimpsest was to show that one uses what medium one gets. The dating due to old vellum is not in itself a huge issue.  I think the real issue is the availability of outlets for creative activity.  Nowadays one can self publish easily.  But in the early modern period there must have been far more frustrated geniuses than there were cranks with Wordpress accounts. μηδείς (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Sherwood claims the manuscript was written by a lefty but a lefty (such as Leonardo) would have written right to left. Contact Basemetal   here  06:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The manuscript is like a Rorschach test. You can come up with any crazy theory you want, and if you look hard enough you can find a few words to support your theory. Afterall it's 240 pages of gibberish, it'd be difficult to find a crazy theory that isn't kind-of supported by some of the text if you squint a little. There's almost no language the people haven't claimed to have "discovered" a few words of in the manuscript. The images are likewise diverse nonsense. You can find a detail in them to support a wide range of theories.
 * There's nothing really connecting Leonardo to the manuscript besides "Hey, he's a person from almost that era that people have heard of." ApLundell (talk) 05:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)