(23-11-2024, 10:01 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.We only have a few brief and relatively informal statements from Panofsky about the VM. Upon first seeing the actual MS, he was basically spot on: 1410-1430. Note that my preferred range as expressed in the video fits within Panofsky's initial assessment: 1410-1425. So this could have been added to strengthen my point.
I didn't though, because for some bizarre reason, Panofsky then decided to change his opinion to something much more vague, explicitly influenced by botanist O'Neill's sunflower. I could not have added all this to the video without making it 10 minutes longer and that was not possible (I also scrapped a whole bunch of other things).
I frankly do not understand why Panofsky had good intuitions at first, but then decided to go along with the sunflower fantasy. Diane believes that certain societal factors were at play, which is certainly a possibility. But I simply don't know.
Hi Koen: But when we look at the statement by Panofsky, we can see that what you surmise is clearly incorrect. You say, "Panofsky then decided to change his opinion to something much more vague, explicitly influenced by botanist O'Neill's sunflower."
Here is Panofsky's actual statement, as related in the Mary D'Imperio book, "Were it not for the sunflower which, if correctly identified, would date the manuscript after 1492, I should have thought that it was executed a little earlier, say, about 1470. However, since the style of the drawings is fairly provincial, a somewhat later date, even the first years of the sixteenth century, would not seem to be excluded. I should not go lower than ca. 1510-1520 because no influence of the Italian Renaissance style is evident."
Yes, he did... in his revised opinion... mention the O'Neil sunflower identification. But then he clearly states, with his "however", that the sunflower was NOT the overriding, nor even a considered reason, at all, why he did revise his final opinion to 1510-1520. It was both because he realized "... the style of the drawings is fairly provincial", then cementing this observation, he hones his opinion range "... because no influence of the Italian Renaissance style if evident."
Now of course you and others have every right to dispute the final opinion of Mr. Panofsky, that is not the point. We all have the right to any opinion at all. But we don't have the right to the facts of the matter, and these facts are exactly what Mr. Panosfky's opinion ACTUALLY was, and why he felt that way:
1) His first opinion hit the eventual C14 dating on the head. This was after a cursory, two hour first examination.
2) He later changed his mind. I say again,
he changed his mind... to 1510-1520. He had every right to do this, we all do, I do, change my mind. It is wrong and unfair to erase the man's informed opinion, and claim that only his first opinion should be regarded. I mean, disagree with his final opinion if you like, but it was his final opinion, and that should be, fairly and ethically, reported as his true opinion. We all have the right to change our opinions, and our revisions should be respected.
3) He didn't change his opinion based on the O'Neil's sunflower identification. If anything, in his quote he tells us that the sunflower was a sort of "back up", an "oldest possible date" (of 1492). But then, when looking at what he actually said in its entirety, we note that regardless of O'Neil, he STILL would not go earlier than 1510. I mean, the logical structure of his final statement on the matter means that in NO WAY is the sunflower ID responsible for his 1510-1520 expert opinion.
4) Although it has no bearing on the final, true opinion of Panosfky, of course you or anyone is welcome to reject O'Neil's sunflower and pepper identifications. But O'Neil actually told us that, "The most startling identification… …was folio 93, which is quite plainly the common sunflower. Helianthus Annuus L.
Six botanist have agreed with me on this determination. This immediately recalls the date 1493, when the seeds of this plant were brought to Europe for the first time (by Columbus on his return from his second voyage). Again folio 101v shows a drawing which does not resemble any native European fruit, but suggests plainly Capsicum, a genus strictly American in origin, known in Europe only after the above date… …It seems necessary to consider this manuscript as having been written after 1493."
Italics and bold mine, of course: The thing is, you are not just rejecting the opinion of O'Neil, but also his "six botanists" who agreed with him. And also, many who came later, including the eminent Tucker and Janick, who added to the sunflower and pepper with up to 200 other plants which they felt were meant to be New World in origin. So even if Panofsky DID rely on the sunflower ID alone... which, as anyone can see, he did not... then one would have to argue with a long list of qualified botanists who did. In incorrectly tying Panofky's last to O'Neil, you are actually rejecting a full EIGHT expert in one fell swoop in that case, and a great many more, in addition!
Now my correction here is not to argue for the sunflower, nor any plant, specifically. My point is to once again demonstrate how your argument, or for that matter, any argument for a circa 1420 Genuine European Cipher Herbal (or some slight variation on that theme), is an article of Mass Rejection... the majority of qualified experts must be removed; the final opinion of Panofsky must be removed, and on a demonstrably incorrect basis; bad provenance, and even counter provenance must be accepted; anachronisms in content, style and physical construction, even those by the Yale team(!!!) must be rejected; several "unusual", unexplained, and finds needing further testing must be "assumed" to be incorrect; invented provenance, such as the 1903 and Wildman references, must be declared factual; the actual situation involving the true access to the Letters of the Carteggio must be re-written to avoid the reality of possible access by Voynich himself; and even the very history and base nature of Wilfrid Voynich needs to be cleansed to portray him as a changed soul, who supposedly shifted from a lying schemer to a respectable member of the Bourgeois class of eminent and honest scholars, almost overnight.
And more, when we list the great many cases of the above, and all the ones I missed in writing this.
On the contrary, each and every observation, test result, and expert opinion as to the content, construction, and history of the Voynich, every innocently blurted "I don't know", and "This doesn't fit", and "This makes no sense to me", practically without exception, fits perfectly with, and makes perfect sense, with my hypothesis of a circa-1910 forged Voynich. All these things you need to reject, because they work against 1420 Genuine... every single one of them... either fits perfectly with, or is even supportive of, my hypothesis.
So then, over and over, I see people who believe in 1420 Genuine being confused, and saying things, as you do, in this case, like, "But I simply don't know", and "... for some bizarre reason" Well the answer to this is all in one simple, logical package, which would help you "know", and so, evaporate the sense of "bizarreness" you and others state, over and over: Is all explained by a modern forgery verdict. But it is, of course, up to you whether your take the obvious, and simple path, or continue instead the laborious effort you chose, of trying to fit a thousand square pegs into a thousand round holes, in the attempt to force 1420 to (seem to) work.
This one misinterpretation of Panofsky's actual opinion is just a microcosm of this effect as a whole, one which needs to be repeated over and over again to present 1420 Genuine as an at all feasible and even plausible conclusion.
Rich.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.