Hi proto57, just wanted to say I followed your link in order to find out what the heck you were talking about, and I found your forgery argument very compelling in many respects. I'm surprised it isn't pinned because newer members such as myself should be able to see the more comprehensive theories without having to stumble upon them by accident.
I actually believe the ostensible history of the VMS is so full of questionable characters (particularly those surrounding Rudolf's court), that it could have been forged at any time over a 600 year period. My personal fave would be it was produced as a joke on Kircher, in line with another prank played on our erstwhile Egyptian hieroglyphic decipherer.
But your Voynich 1910 theory makes a lot of sense, and I loved your list of the top ten reasons to suspect a forgery, and how Voynich's discovery fits in neatly to that list. I also really appreciated seeing the actual carbon dates on the actual pages. Your suspicion that people thought, from the flat carbon dating of 1404-1438, that the vellum was all from one source and matched up datewise is very true in my case.
So your theory joins my very small, open list of "most plausible".
That said, it wouldn't be much fun if your theory were true, obviating the need for analysis or discussion really, so I will continue as a "1420 genuinist" for now, always leaving the date open however. Just wanted you to know I appreciated your well-researched and well-stated arguments.
(14-07-2021, 11:30 AM)Barbrey Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Hi proto57, just wanted to say I followed your link in order to find out what the heck you were talking about, and I found your forgery argument very compelling in many respects. I'm surprised it isn't pinned because newer members such as myself should be able to see the more comprehensive theories without having to stumble upon them by accident..
As a moderator I'd say it is not the task of the forum to favor certain theories by pinning them. People can get an idea about the most prominent (or most vocal) theories from many sources, including the Wiki page for the VM.
As a researcher I would add that this is in essence a conspiracy theory, which I don't like. Moreover, everything points towards the MS being authentically medieval, as Lisa repeated in the recent seminar. The fact that the manuscript's imagery is consistent with the decades of the carbon dating has been confirmed by specialists and You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. alike.
In short, the chance that the VM is a modern fake is too small to take it seriously.
I think we need a list. Not anything extensive, not even a top ten, but something to chew on, to prove the point.
I agree that there is a connection of the two Lauber illustrations and the VMs mermaid as well as the relevant illustration in Harley 334. They represent the same theme. They illustrate the same situation. They all have similarities of appearance. They all have similarities of structure. They are expressing the same idea. The mermaid as a creature, an animal among fish, a monster among sea monsters.
On closer inspection, however, the VMs mermaid is clearly different. She has thighs. Mermaids do not have thighs. One has to figure it from there. This is a representation of mythical Melusine. Which historical version of Melusine? The more mermaid-like one claimed to be ancestral to the royal house of Luxembourg. Their descendants include, coincident with VMs parchment dates, the kings and dukes in Valois era in France, etc.
This, if you will, is a higher level of sophistication (or trickery). The VMs substitutes the Luxembourg Melusine in place of the generic mermaids found in Lauber.
A second item on the list might be the comparison of cosmic diagrams as proposed by E. Velinska, which you well know and which I strongly support. Comparing the interior of the VMs cosmos with BNF Fr. 565, the structural similarities are remarkable. The visual diversity is even more remarkable. But that's the whole point of the VMs illustration: it's the same thing structurally and ideologically, but it has been made to look different. The nebuly line in the VMs and the elaborate scallop-shell cloud-band in Oresme are visually distinct and functionally equivalent.
The Oresme cosmos has the same sort of cultural relationship to the VMs as the illustrations from Lauber. So this seems like a good comparison. Potentially there are other suggestions for the list.
The provenance of the Oresme text is Paris c. 1410, in the library of Duke Jean of Berry. This is within the most restrictive version of the VMs parchment dates. And Jean of Berry was a descendant in the Valois line. The Harley ms also connects to Paris in the 2nd quarter of the 1400s, also partially overlaps the most restrictive C-14 dating - which might not be as restrictive as other interpretations suggest.
Given that both items (and others) are compatible with each other. Given that the material evidence largely fits within the C-14 dates. There is reason to suggest the creator of the VMs illustrations had some familiarity with the relevant sources, at least expressing the same ideas as those sources represent. The Vms creator had the requisite familiarity to know that a nebuly line equated to a cosmic boundary, about the 43 undulations, and much more. <Not Newbold's folly>
I believe that additional, specific items added to this list will further clarify the situation.
My remark about the pinning was not meant particularly for the ninja but more to express my surprise I had not encountered this theory before. So no disrespect intended for this site.
But isn't it rather harsh to throw out accusations of conspiracy theory? I have to assume a bee's nest history I have inadvertently stepped in. I see
nothing that smacks of conspiracy except the author's belief that the letter Rene found was also a forgery planted by Voynich to establish provenance. Very unlikely, and I don't believe it. But out of the realm of possibility in the world of forgery? No.
R. Sale, I love that Oresme comparison. Very strong. And great idea to itemize ten or twenty items to corroborate the dating, because I keep hearing about "independent internal evidence" but seeing next to nothing that couldn't be easily countered. Forgery, btw, is always going to haunt Voynich studies, if not a 1910, then a 1410, 1510 and so on. But it seems to me a 1910 forgery claiming to be Bacon's work could be refuted by showing comparisons that post-date Bacon. I mean, why would anyone model their images on drawings done 100 years after Bacon died if trying to deceive people into thinking Bacon wrote it?