The Voynich Ninja

In no world could you argue that "paper" is a synonym for "parchment" or "vellum." It isn't just that paper "suggests" a pulp-based, pressed, and dried substrate. It's that paper IS a pulp-based, pressed, and dried substrate. That is a serious error, especially for someone trying to argue that the manuscript is a fake. If he wants to make a serious argument about the material evidence, as he does, this carelessness immediately suggests that we should not be taking that part of his argument seriously. If you need a more generic term that covers both paper and parchment, the right term would be "substrate" or "writing material." 

I don't want to be the kind of person who tosses out an entire book based on what might have been just a careless mistake, but in this case, the error has implications for the rest of his argument and implies that he hasn't really done the reading or understood some fairly important details about the physical reality of the manuscript.

(05-10-2024, 01:07 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....this is a scientific publication by the professional author of "the historian's toolbox", 

Was this book presented as a scientific publication?
Dorrance offers help to potential authors to develop their idea:

Manuscript Development
Our ghostwriting services are perfect for those who have an idea for a book, but can't write it themselves. Turn your idea into a finished manuscript today!

(05-10-2024, 01:38 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In no world could you argue that "paper" is a synonym for "parchment" or "vellum." It isn't just that paper "suggests" a pulp-based, pressed, and dried substrate. It's that paper IS a pulp-based, pressed, and dried substrate. That is a serious error, especially for someone trying to argue that the manuscript is a fake. If he wants to make a serious argument about the material evidence, as he does, this carelessness immediately suggests that we should not be taking that part of his argument seriously. If you need a more generic term that covers both paper and parchment, the right term would be "substrate" or "writing material." 

I don't want to be the kind of person who tosses out an entire book based on what might have been just a careless mistake, but in this case, the error has implications for the rest of his argument and implies that he hasn't really done the reading or understood some fairly important details about the physical reality of the manuscript.

Perhaps "no world" ... except those outside the ivory towers of academia. But, In any case, Williams did not argue they were synonymous. He merely used it as a description. He obviously knows that it isn't pulp-paper or he wouldn't have used the term "calfskin paper".

But the more important point is that it is not relevant to his thesis or even to his competency. For all we know, he made the choice intentionally because he thought it better for his popular auduence. (This was not a scientific paper.) Not a choice I would make, but again -- irrelevant.

There are plenty of reasons to conclude he did not give the whole subject adequate treatment to support his forgery case-- this misuse of the word paper just isn't one if them.
And anyone treating it as one is trying too hard to just find things to criticize. Doing so comes across as petty and undermines the credibility of the critic more than that of Williams.

(04-10-2024, 01:35 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Many who believe the Voynich IS fifteenth century think the plants may be fake also, as in some sort of hoax to either sell the Voynich for more money, or puff up the reputation of a doctor who owned it, and so on. In fact, if one thinks the plants real, and not a hoax, that opens the possibility of the very excellent comparisons made by Janick and Tucker (and others) to New World varieties. So "fake plants" might fit better with old, than it does with newer. If real plants, then comparisons must necessarily compete with post-Columbian identifications.

I do not think anyone has determined the pharmacy sections show names of roots... but let's say, for the sake of argument, it does. Can we not label a fake root with a fake or real name? I mean, labeling a root does not make it a real root, I don't think.

Rich.

It seems to me like a mirage, we return always at our starting position without finding anything. 
All the students of the manuscript from 1945 till present accepted the facts about authenticity of around 14-th century ink and velum. And it was proved so. If the components of the ink do not correspond to the known libraries of 14 centuries manuscripts- this is making it still more interesting. Don't forget that the manuscript is not likely any other and is unique.
 If the plants were fake, then why the faker has included also some well known plants- irrefutably identified like the three colour violet- f9v, water lily -f2v, etc. for me there are at least three more identified plants.
 And they are not post-Columbian. The authorship explains the plants. Here again I do not to post the name, unless some fiction author steals the idea.
 O yes, there are authentic roots with their names in the pharmacy part like Arum and two others (again identified by me).
And at last my question to all who support the forgery theory:
If it is a forgery- is it a meaningless nonsense, or a coded old manuscript?
The meaningless nonsense is repudiated by the marginalia, whose readings of 116v and 17r I have posted in this blog. They prove professionalism and deep knowledge of the writer/user as good healer or doctor- which qualities do not correspond to Voynich.
 Also the whole manuscript is interleaved with several different sections, like herbal, pharmacy, astrology, etc. for which to be faked one needs to be a genius. 
 And at last if it really be a forgery - which is the document from which was copied to be created? What is the provenience and underlying language of the forgery? 
 BR: Vessy

It's not a question of "ivory tower" vs "popular". It's "accuracy" vs. "inaccuracy." It's misleading to use terminology that is simply wrong. If you don't know the correct term for something, look it up! In any kind of scholarship, regardless of the audience, it is quite possible to both avoid pretension and use accurate descriptive terms. 

(05-10-2024, 07:58 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(05-10-2024, 01:38 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In no world could you argue that "paper" is a synonym for "parchment" or "vellum." It isn't just that paper "suggests" a pulp-based, pressed, and dried substrate. It's that paper IS a pulp-based, pressed, and dried substrate. That is a serious error, especially for someone trying to argue that the manuscript is a fake. If he wants to make a serious argument about the material evidence, as he does, this carelessness immediately suggests that we should not be taking that part of his argument seriously. If you need a more generic term that covers both paper and parchment, the right term would be "substrate" or "writing material." 

I don't want to be the kind of person who tosses out an entire book based on what might have been just a careless mistake, but in this case, the error has implications for the rest of his argument and implies that he hasn't really done the reading or understood some fairly important details about the physical reality of the manuscript.

Perhaps "no world" ... except those outside the ivory towers of academia. But, In any case, Williams did not argue they were synonymous. He merely used it as a description. He obviously knows that it isn't pulp-paper or he wouldn't have used the term "calfskin paper".

But the more important point is that it is not relevant to his thesis or even to his competency. For all we know, he made the choice intentionally because he thought it better for his popular auduence. (This was not a scientific paper.) Not a choice I would make, but again -- irrelevant.

There are plenty of reasons to conclude he did not give the whole subject adequate treatment to support his forgery case-- this misuse of the word paper just isn't one if them.
And anyone treating it as one is trying too hard to just find things to criticize. Doing so comes across as petty and undermines the credibility of the critic more than that of Williams.

(06-10-2024, 08:49 AM)BessAgritianin Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(04-10-2024, 01:35 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Many who believe the Voynich IS fifteenth century think the plants may be fake also, as in some sort of hoax to either sell the Voynich for more money, or puff up the reputation of a doctor who owned it, and so on. In fact, if one thinks the plants real, and not a hoax, that opens the possibility of the very excellent comparisons made by Janick and Tucker (and others) to New World varieties. So "fake plants" might fit better with old, than it does with newer. If real plants, then comparisons must necessarily compete with post-Columbian identifications.

I do not think anyone has determined the pharmacy sections show names of roots... but let's say, for the sake of argument, it does. Can we not label a fake root with a fake or real name? I mean, labeling a root does not make it a real root, I don't think.

Rich.

It seems to me like a mirage, we return always at our starting position without finding anything. 
All the students of the manuscript from 1945 till present accepted the facts about authenticity of around 14-th century ink and velum. And it was proved so. If the components of the ink do not correspond to the known libraries of 14 centuries manuscripts- this is making it still more interesting. Don't forget that the manuscript is not likely any other and is unique.
 If the plants were fake, then why the faker has included also some well known plants- irrefutably identified like the three colour violet- f9v, water lily -f2v, etc. for me there are at least three more identified plants.
 And they are not post-Columbian. The authorship explains the plants. Here again I do not to post the name, unless some fiction author steals the idea.
 O yes, there are authentic roots with their names in the pharmacy part like Arum and two others (again identified by me).
And at last my question to all who support the forgery theory:
If it is a forgery- is it a meaningless nonsense, or a coded old manuscript?
The meaningless nonsense is repudiated by the marginalia, whose readings of 116v and 17r I have posted in this blog. They prove professionalism and deep knowledge of the writer/user as good healer or doctor- which qualities do not correspond to Voynich.
 Also the whole manuscript is interleaved with several different sections, like herbal, pharmacy, astrology, etc. for which to be faked one needs to be a genius. 
 And at last if it really be a forgery - which is the document from which was copied to be created? What is the provenience and underlying language of the forgery? 
 BR: Vessy

Hi, Bess:

"All the students of the manuscript from 1945 till present accepted the facts about authenticity of around 14-th century ink and velum."

With respect, this is not at all correct. If you have not yet, I would recommend Mary D'Imperio's book, "The Voynich Manuscript: An elegant Enigma", from the 1970's. You can see that, until then (and of course this was before the radiocarbon dating in 2009), the vast majority of experts gave a wide range of dates for the origin of the Voynich Manuscript. Yes, some did think 14th, but I remind you that the current, generally accepted range of vellum creation is early 15th century, not 14th as you write. If interested, you can read my post outlining the dating and number of opinions over time:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

And, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Here is my chart from those blog posts:



"If the plants were fake, then why the faker has included also some well known plants- irrefutably identified like the three colour violet- f9v, water lily -f2v, etc. for me there are at least three more identified plants."

I don't believe all the plants, or all of the plant parts, are fake. I don't think anyone does, whether they believe the Voynich real, fake, old or new. I used the generalization "fake plants" (or however I worded it) for the sake of brevity. But in answer to your question, "why" would a faker include well known plants, along with fake plants? Dunno. It might sound dismissive and even petty, but I mean this, "Why not?". A forger could include all real, all fake, some fake some real, some made of real and fake parts, in any forgery, for a multitude of reasons. I don't think, in any conceivable case, it alters the outcome.

"And they are not post-Columbian. The authorship explains the plants. Here again I do not to post the name, unless some fiction author steals the idea.
O yes, there are authentic roots with their names in the pharmacy part like Arum and two others (again identified by me)."

I think I'm not alone in saying I would be very interested in seeing your suggested author, and translations, when you see fit.

"Also the whole manuscript is interleaved with several different sections, like herbal, pharmacy, astrology, etc. for which to be faked one needs to be a genius."

Well that is a matter of opinion, I don't think a forger would have had to have been a genius to do this. I know of many fake books created, which are often really quite amazing, and I also don't think genius was necessary. But I would ask, to your argument, why should it be assumed that a possible forger of the Voynich was NOT a genius?

"And at last if it really be a forgery - which is the document from which was copied to be created? What is the provenience and underlying language of the forgery?"

I see in this the old "bugaboo" of definition. That is, the technical definition of "forgery", yes, would entail the forgery of a preexisting item or style or content. And this has come up many times in the past ten plus years... I would say that, again, it is a simple matter of convenience, and most understand by now that I and others, while perhaps not technically a perfect description, "forgery" serves to convey a mutual description that explains my intention very well. But yes, depending on one's view of why and how the Voynich was created, as a fake document, then it could share characteristics of a forgery, a fake, a false document, a hoax, a work of art, a scam... we could go on and on. But to clarify, for you, here, what it is I mean by "forgery", then I would say a modern, unique manuscript created to fool others, containing both real and fake illustrations and writing, all made to look just enough like real things to almost be identifiable, and to suggest a general purpose, geography and era of creation, but "off" reality just enough to defy perfect identification, and so then be vulnerable to unfavorable comparison, and therefore lead to detection.

"Hoax" would probably be closer.

"And at last my question to all who support the forgery theory: If it is a forgery- is it a meaningless nonsense, or a coded old manuscript?"

Well that is the million dollar question, of course. If you are asking my opinion, then I would say I have no idea which it is. I think today I sway a bit toward meaningless, but that is an answer that is been so far impossible for the best mathematicians and programmers to answer with certainty... and I ain't one of them.

But I do remind if a forgery/hoax, it could still be either meaningless or meaningful. In fact, almost any famous forgery/hoax you can think of also had meaning: The Protocals of the Elders of Zion; The Hitler Diaries; the Howard Hughes Will; The Oath of a Freeman; The "White Salamander" letter, and on and on. So "meaning" in the Voynich, if it is there, far from equating to "genuine", will still allow it to be a fake*.

There are actually fewer cases of genuine items having no meaning. I think this is the "elephant in the room" which drive attempts to find evidence of meaning, because until one does find such meaning, it actually tips the scale towards a fake outcome. Meaning does not equal fake; but meaningless most likely does. Of course it could be an old fake, as some surmise, and there are cases of ancient, meaningless fakes... angel writing and such, I think.

Anyway, rambling away as usual. But when asked for my viewpoint, I always try to respond. At the same time, my answers don't mean to suggest you, or anyone, is not correct in their own opinions, and always look forward to anything anyone else has to offer. I'm just answering, as I was asked, for my views on all this.

Rich.

* Just speculation, as all of it necessarily is, but "IF" the Voynich has meaning I think the plain text will relate to activities, items and people in the early 17th century Court of Rudolf II, as (poorly) understood by the 1904 book, "Follies of Science in the Court of Rudolf II". Your mileage may vary.

(05-10-2024, 08:41 AM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Williams' Voynich work is certainly amatuerish and ill-informed, and on the topic of the Voynich MS, it's essentially useless. So there are a lot of substantive flaws in his work to criticize; his use of the word "paper" is probably not one of them.

I disagree with your characterization of this work as "amateurish and ill-informed". Now that I finished reading it, I can say that the book is as well-written as any history book intended for the general public. It focuses on history of and around the VM: the Voynich family, the antique book dealer business, hoaxes, intelligence, cryptography. It contains a wealth of detailed biographical and historical information (maybe too much, not all of it is directly relevant to the VM). I appreciate the large number of useful references in notes (some of them should be updated, the URLs of the Wellcome website for example). It could use some editing (a few spelling mistakes, nothing too bad) and there might be a few errors: I checked only one paragraph for accuracy and found several, see above. I am not familiar enough with historical/biographical details to notice any factual error without further research.

The study of the manuscript, its codicology, paleography, iconography, statistics, etc. are not the subject of the book but historically important books and studies are listed. There is only a short description of its "calfskin or vellum" leaves in six "folios" (sections). I don't care about the use of proper terminology, this is not an issue since the physical makeup of the VM and its contents are not the subject of the book.

The real problem, for me, is the absence of critical thinking. There is only the forgery by "Wilfred" Voynich narrative, no examination of evidence for/against it. It feels one-sided, biased and unfinished. I don't expect neutrality, I just want to understand why such a definitive statement is made.

(06-10-2024, 01:51 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It's not a question of "ivory tower" vs "popular". It's "accuracy" vs. "inaccuracy." It's misleading to use terminology that is simply wrong. If you don't know the correct term for something, look it up! In any kind of scholarship, regardless of the audience, it is quite possible to both avoid pretension and use accurate descriptive terms. 

Ok.. sure. But has anyone claimed his use of the term 'paper' was accurate? Technically, it isn't. It's just that it remains an irrelevant faux pas on Williams' part, having nothing to do with his evidence (or lack thereof) for his forgery thesis. In fact, it appears to be an intentional simplification, given that he qualified it by saying "calfskin paper".  So he obviously knows it was calfskin. And he obviously knows it was not a pulp-based paper, wood, cotton, or otherwise. So in what way, having any importance at all, is it "misleading"?  If a 5-year old asked "what is vellum?", a teacher or parent might well answer "It's paper made out of calfskin." Would that be "misleading"? Perhaps. If one's aim is to find flaw in the teacher.  But most people (at least, outside the ivory tower) would accept that it is intended as a helpful simplification for a particular audience. They would not use it to suggest the teacher is therefore wrong about some different topic.

(06-10-2024, 03:53 PM)nablator Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I disagree with your characterization of this work as "amateurish and ill-informed".  

I may indeed be wrong saying "amateurish and ill-informed". I haven't read the whole book and I made the assessment only from his preface -- which I did find poor enough to question the value of purchasing the book. 

(06-10-2024, 03:53 PM)nablator Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I don't care about the use of proper terminology, this is not an issue since the physical makeup of the VM and its contents are not the subject of the book.
...
The real problem, for me, is the absence of critical thinking. There is only the forgery by "Wilfred" Voynich narrative, no examination of evidence for/against it. It feels one-sided, biased and unfinished. I don't expect neutrality, I just want to understand why such a definitive statement is made.

That sums up the real problem for me too.  I felt that based just on the short preface as well as from SantaColoma's assessment. It seems your reading of the book further confirms it.

The use of the word "paper" is simply a clue to fact that the author has taken no account of the contents of the VMs in his discussion of the manuscript's authenticity and modern provenance.

So, what do the contents have to say on the matter of modern forgery?  C-14 dates the parchment. The written text is impenetrable, and the artistry reveals more and more that there is an innate familiarity with social information that is most compatible with the first half of the 15th century. The most probable way for a person to have gained that level of familiarity would be to have lived during that era.

It's not forgery. It's trickery. The VMs is a puzzle. Visual discrepancy is part of the disguise. This can be seen in the VMs cosmos, mermaid, etc. It can be proven by the duality on VMs White Aries. Trickery is intentional.