A great video, well researched, clear exposition, well produced. And a treasure trove of informations (including things I didn't know). And English subtitles were a cool addition! My compliments
I agree: all the evidence we have overwhelmingly supports an original early 15th century manuscript.
Another great video. The work you are doing in all your videos to help all of us understand where the research stands to date, and the added statistical research you’ve done, is invaluable. I too wish I had watched these videos in 2020 when I first became peripatetically interested in the Voynich. Perhaps there is a way to flag them as “must-watch” videos for both new and old guests/members? It would be of great service.
I am going to agree with Rich that highlighting the one pre-C14 scholar’s accurate dating when so many others’ dating is all over the map was perhaps a misstep because I noticed it right away as I was watching. If you ever edit, I’d suggest including others’ opinions, or at least why his qualifications were better than the others.
@proto57 What’s your response to the info on this thread about the book on medieval inks. Unless I missed your response?
Barbrey: an lot was cut from the video. I was constantly trying to keep it under half an hour, which eventually still failed. This is not only in order to keep it manageable for the audience, but also for me. Editing just one minute of video already takes an awful amount of time, so every minute of script adds to the pile.
I think I did present good arguments in favor of HLH's expertise, but not against the others as you point out. An obvious omission was Panofsky. But this would have me explaining that at first he was spot on, but then he changed his mind to something else. Okay, so why did he change his mind, was there better evidence? Then I would have to explain the informal and incomplete nature of Panofsky's statements. And I'd have to speculate about why he so readily accepted the catastrophic "identification" of one of the plants as a sunflower. Then I would go on to explain that you simply shouldn't ask a botanist about your enigmatic medieval drawings. And so on.
This would have added at least 15 minutes to the video, if I had wanted to do the subject justice at all. At that point I thought that I'd better focus on the guy who was renowned for his expertise in assessing and describing rare books and manuscripts. Panofsky should have been included as well, but I couldn't do so without causing a long cascade.
There really are not many people who can reliably estimate the age of an old manuscript just by looking at it. Also in this respect the Voynich MS has seen its fair share of unqualified opinions.
Just as a fun (or not
) exercise: Toresella obviously was very familiar with old herbal manuscripts when he personally studied the Voynich MS. He said it is definitely authentic, and it dates from around 1450-1460.
Should that date be considered wrong? (Now that we have 1404-1438 with 95% probability?)
(29-12-2024, 10:44 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Barbrey: an lot was cut from the video. I was constantly trying to keep it under half an hour, which eventually still failed. This is not only in order to keep it manageable for the audience, but also for me. Editing just one minute of video already takes an awful amount of time, so every minute of script adds to the pile.
I think I did present good arguments in favor of HLH's expertise, but not against the others as you point out. An obvious omission was Panofsky. But this would have me explaining that at first he was spot on, but then he changed his mind to something else. Okay, so why did he change his mind, was there better evidence? Then I would have to explain the informal and incomplete nature of Panofsky's statements. And I'd have to speculate about why he so readily accepted the catastrophic "identification" of one of the plants as a sunflower. Then I would go on to explain that you simply shouldn't ask a botanist about your enigmatic medieval drawings. And so on.
This would have added at least 15 minutes to the video, if I had wanted to do the subject justice at all. At that point I thought that I'd better focus on the guy who was renowned for his expertise in assessing and describing rare books and manuscripts. Panofsky should have been included as well, but I couldn't do so without causing a long cascade.
I don’t think you’d have to throw the baby out with the bath water by going to extremes. Mentioning Panofsky is unnecessary. Just a sentence of qualification: “Experts before the C 14 dating was done ranged in opinion from [date to date]; however, one exceptionally well-qualified scholar …” and then the rest you already have. I’m suggesting from an editing point-of-view: when statements trip up smooth narrative because they cause the watcher to pause (as I did), they undermine the video’s veracity and power. And you don’t want that, because your video is excellent in every other way.
(29-12-2024, 12:01 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There really are not many people who can reliably estimate the age of an old manuscript just by looking at it. Also in this respect the Voynich MS has seen its fair share of unqualified opinions.
Just as a fun (or not ) exercise: Toresella obviously was very familiar with old herbal manuscripts when he personally studied the Voynich MS. He said it is definitely authentic, and it dates from around 1450-1460.
Should that date be considered wrong? (Now that we have 1404-1438 with 95% probability?)
I think he should be congratulated for coming so close, and who knows?, there’s still a chance he could be right (though that chance becomes slimmer as more analyses such as Koen’s are produced). What I got from the Panofsky quote, coloured as it was by the sunflower fallacy, was that one milestone in the dating speculation was whether it showed features of Renaissances style. And the VMS does not. However, the “Renaissance” began in different places at different times, sometimes only separated by whether a place was rural or metropolitan. Without that provenance, the scholars would of course have to do a fair degree of knowledgeable guessing, based on extant manuscripts they had studied, to pinpoint an exact decade or two. Toresella’s dating might not have been exact, but it was still a brilliant bit of speculation based on what he had available to him.
With respect to the C14 dates: I suppose because I studied archeology a hundred years ago, I’ve never liked to rely on C14 dating except as a baseline. It needs to be supported and cross checked with other methods. That’s why I love what Koen has done with his video.
The proposed C-14 dating puts a real pin in the hypothetical timeline. Unfortunately, it's a rather big pin, plus or minus thirty years is a fair part of a long human lifetime, in that era.
C-14 is just a starting date. First one must produce the parchment, - then begin the process of creation. But when is the date of creation? Is it not the date of completion? And when does that occur for the VMs? A person born in 1400 +/- 5 could live into their 60s or 70s and clearly pass over a completion date c. 1450. There's no reason to get too picky. A couple of decades either way is as good as it gets. Illustrated details may come from memory, not from direct examination.
Nevertheless, illustrated details become important when they can be matched to historical details. They tell you things that the artist knew. Not that the VMs artist is particularly forthcoming in that regard. The comparison of the VMs cosmos with BNF Fr. 565 is a good chronological fit with the C-14 dates.
When was the completion of VMs creation (and then it was later rebound and potentially a bit shuffled)? How about the middle third of the 15th century - c. 1430-1460.
If 1404-1438 has a 95% probability, what about just 90%? Nine out of ten is not that bad.
(29-12-2024, 04:48 PM)Barbrey Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.With respect to the C14 dates: I suppose because I studied archeology a hundred years ago, I’ve never liked to rely on C14 dating except as a baseline. It needs to be supported and cross checked with other methods. That’s why I love what Koen has done with his video.
Of course, that was the whole point. Bring in as much
usable evidence as possible. I'm from a scientific/engineering background myself, and familiar with the issues related to mixing observations of different nature, and with different precision and reliability. That is precisely what is happening here. The C-14 dating is the most reliable, but still has a range of several decades. Note that C-14 dating it is usually considerably less precise, and therefore much less reliable. The clothing works very well, but some people will find it hard to believe, especially if it goes against their own ideas. The opinion of an expert who can subjectively be argued to be in a good position adds to the whole, in my opinion, even as it necessarily has a lower weight.
And no, the Cosmos illustration of BNF Fr. 565 has no place in this. There is no link between the two manuscripts, and both illustrations might relate to a common source, but they are not so similar that they can be connected.
Much more would need to be found to say more about this.
Yes, to me the clothing was very convincing. I liken what Koen did to collecting and comparing potsherds, developing a stratigraphy, and then sequencing to determine dates. C14 helps establish a range but it’s remarkable how precise potsherd comparison can be. What Koen did is established, evidence-based practice, and should be weighted accordingly.
(31-12-2024, 03:01 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Finally, let's not forget the infamous figure (estimate) of 10% : the number of manuscripts that have survived.
Regarding the issue of Voynich imagery precedents, we are only interested in illuminated manuscripts. What percentage of those have been digitized? And how many of those have come to our attention?
Take the Balneis as an example. There's certainly research out there cataloguing all the extant Balneis MSS. Is such an overview reliable? Can we assume that researchers' cumulative efforts have unearthed almost all of the remaining copies? In that case, we can basically assume that we have access to all of our remaining Balneis imagery, and that its usefulness for the VM stops at the comparisons we currently have. (Some of which I find very impressive). Maybe there are a few undigitized or even unnoticed ones, but probably not many.
But how about Zodiac sequences from the regions we are interested in? I wouldn't be surprised if hundreds of them are still hiding in smaller repositories, especially if we add other types of illustrations (works of the months, calendars...). If that is the case, I'd expect some relevant ones to be among those, and possibly even a crucial missing link.