Koen: You've made a very entertaining and well-produced video. You are really good at this... my attempts are fairly unpolished compared to yours!
But the problem is that in an attempt to make a case for your "genuine circa 1420" theory, you have had to cherry pick only those facts, observations and opinions which support it. Left out, or casually dismissed from your video are a huge number of facts and expert opinions which would give your viewers a far more accurate picture of the true nature of the Voynich, so that they could come to their own conclusions with open eyes.
The second major problem is that you misstate my own hypothesis and opinions, both by leaving important points out, and even re-writing core elements! You have created a Straw Man of my own ideas, and argued that, and not the actual hypothesis.
But even if my hypothesis were not the focus of your video, I would feel compelled to address your omissions and alterations to the actual Voynich knowledge base.
I'd also add that your rebuttal video, which, by necessity needs to ignore serious problems with the Voynich rather than address them, in order to seem to work, by doing so actually makes the case against your theory, and supports mine.
0:50 "This uncertainty... this 'not knowing"... has led some to question the authenticity of the manuscript".
I can't speak for others, but since I am the focus of your video I want to correct you: I did not come to believe the Voynich is a modern fake because of "not knowing" what it was. Your claim here is a common attempt at minimalizing the actual reasons for suspecting this. Among the actual motivations for believing it may be a fake are the high level of anomalous and anachronistic content, style and construction, all seemingly derived from, or influenced by, a great many sources ranging from the 14th through early 20th centuries. In addtions is the lacking, and even contra-indicative "provenance" presented in "support" of it.
7:44 "1910- Wilfrid Voynich forges the MS (SantaColoma)
Thank you for linking my blog in the description.
9:40 "Keep in mind that we know next to nothing about the exact origins of most manuscripts sitting in archives. So the fact that we can't trace it back to a specific Medieval scriptorium is what we would generally expect".
There are two problems with this: First, whether common or not, the Voynich still does not have any provenance, as you agree, and so... well, it still has no provenance. Secondly, the cases of most other works without provenance is entirely different, because they are STILL are identifiable to one or more of: an age, geographic and cultural origin, approximate purpose, meaning, and so on. So while it is true we don't know, in many cases, specific authorship nor have a trail of provenance, other works are nothing like the Voynich, for which none of this can be determined, at best, or multiple, widely disparate and contradictory explanations exist.
10:00 "Radiocarbon dating"- Yes, claimed is a "certainty of 95%" that the calves died about 1404-1438. And almost certainly the vellum is from ABOUT that time. I agree. But it is not as exact as the 95% "result" implies, as the dates of the individual samples gave ages as much as 60 or more years apart, and were then "combined" under the "assumption" that the manuscript was created in a shorter time than that... the "assumption" being "under ten years". This is a problem because it is a form of confirmation bias, in which actual, raw results were manipulated to conform to a pre-concieved, desired, result.
Well one might ask, "what difference does it make?", if one agrees, as I do, with those raw results? Because the actual results would be unusual in a book of that time. That is, it would not be normal to find a book made of sheets of vellum 60+ years apart in age. It is anomalous to a genuine book. To erase this problem, the dates were "combined" to give a more palatable result which fits "genuine" better. It is another case of "science done backwards", that is, letting preconceptions drive interpretation of raw data, when it should be the reverse: We should listen to the data, work with it, and figure out what it really tells us.
11:20 "You can just say that a forger found some old vellum lying around".
You must be aware, by now, of Wilfrid's purchase of the Libreria Franceshini in 1908, which contained a 40 year collection of over a half million items of all types. Yet you do not mention it.
11:24 "Keep in mind, though, that vellum wasn't cheap..."
Actually, various times in history, it was fairly cheap. In the comments under my blog post, here: You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
I use linked costs of vellum provided by Nick Pelling to calculate the cost of the vellum needed for "a" Voynich. Being conservative with the figures, it would come to only "... a couple of dozen shillings".
But on the flip side, playing the devil's advocate and hypothetically accepting the cost would have been higher than this, even much higher, we have to remember that in the case of a forgery for sale to Rudolf II would have netted 600 ducats, and that if forged by Wilfrid, he hoped to sell it for over $100,000 in his time. With inflation, that would be something like $1.4 million dollars today. In either case, the cost of vellum to a forger would have been a negligible investment for the intended return.
11:30 "Finding a stack of unused 15th century vellum is probably like finding an unused vintage car"
Actually, no, it is not the same. It is more akin to finding a vintage unused car PART. Whole cars, like unread books, would be less common than finding parts or blank leaves of vellum (a coincidental aside, I actually purchased the entire stock of unused antique car parts when I was 16 years old, for the staggering sum of $125, and became an Original Equipment Parts dealer for the next couple of years).
There are a great deal of sources for unused vellum, which I discovered and outlined in several blog posts years ago. And arguably, in 1910 such sources would have been even more prolific. But my demonstrations of possible and actual sources became somewhat moot when I learned of the Libreria purchase in 1908, which effectively provides a plausible source for the vellum needed in the Voynich...
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
... especially if the manuscript was cut down from one quire's worth of full sized (folio) vellum:
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
13:20 "In 2009, McCrone took samples of ink and various paints from the Voynich manuscript."
13:45 "... the ink is compatible with 15th century ink, lacking any modern ingredients. The same goes for the pigments..."
14:17 (Text) "Voynich: Medieval ink and pigments, NOT suspicious"
This is incorrect, as it cherry picks from that McCrone report. Among the items were actually were anomalous were a "binder" that was not Gum Arabic, and not identified by McCrone as it was "not in [their] library" of binders. They called the finding of "copper and zinc" in the ink as "unusual", and only said it "could have" come from a brass inkwell. They found a "titanium compound" in some pigments, which they never explain. There is more than that in the report, and McCrone even suggested, more than once, that further testing was needed.
When I asked about these issues, I got no response. So they are still an open question, not explained nor ever further tested. For instance, was it "unusual" for copper and zinc to dissolve into ink from a brass inkwell? Or was it simply "unusual" to find copper and zinc in Medieval ink? Could it have come from a [much later] brass nib? What FORM was the "titanium compound" in? Anatase smooth crystals (ghosts of the Vinland Map fiasco!)? Which "compound" was it?
These questions are unresolved, yet very important. But by your leaving out these and other oddities from the report, you are clearly constructing an inaccurate and misleading picture, in support of your own conclusions.
14:30 "Fashion trends" [as identifiers of age]
15:50 "It was [fashion] details like these which allowed early researchers to conclude, with confidence, that this style is compatible with 15th century Europe".
This is patently untrue. You are aware of our long discussion of early expert analysis, so you also know that only one early expert... Lehmann-Haupt... dated the content of the Voynich to the early 15th century. The overwhelming number of experts of the pre-radiocarbon dating era dated the illustrations and writing over a wide range of eras, from the 13th to the 17th centuries. It is only by rejecting and ignoring upward of 15 or so highly qualified experts that you could make such a claim.
Of course your (and others) comparisons to the crossbowman's outfit in the Devonshire Hunting Tapestries may be correct. It probably is correct. But it is again cherry picking, because the styles of dress and many other items in the Voynich have been favorably compared to those from many OTHER eras, too, but you leave those out.
17:10 "... these sleeves are sufficient to force a cut off point for the one tapestry that contains them?"
But, in addition the reality of overwhelming expert opinion NOT backing early 15th century, and the cherry picking of only those style examples which do match the C14 dating, it is simply possible for anyone to copy older styles in a newer forgery. This renders the use of comparative styles moot to determining the Voynich's age or authenticity. And, in essence, you admit this, earlier in your video, when you correctly point out that a written date (if hypothetically found) would NOT be proof of age, because anyone can add an old date. Well, they can add in any old content, too, as well as a date.
23:00 I now see that you do acknowledge my listing of the overwhelming majority of experts (you even show my chart! Thank you.) who did NOT believe the manuscript was from the date range of the eventual radiocarbon dating. Then how and why can you claim, as you did, that "... details like these which allowed early researchers to conclude, with confidence, that this style is compatible with 15th century Europe".
I mean, you admit it was only Lehmann-Haupt, so why do you use the plural "researchers"? As for eliminating the overwhelming majority of experts who disagreed with you (or would, if they were still alive), I also see you do give some reasoning here, in your next part, at:
23:35 You begin to pick off those experts who did not agree with Haupt, or early 15th century, with various rationalizations. Among them, the lack of radiocarbon dating! This is a tacit admission of something I have long argued, but has so far been strenuously denied: That the bias imposed by the radiocarbon dating has been improperly driving the interpretation of the content, and elimination of pre-C14 experts and their opinions. But this is science done backwards (again), for those opinions do, or should matter.
Then you further dismiss the opinions the contrary experts by stating that they were "all over the place" (well that is true!), but it was because of the "grainy, black and white copies of a few folios". But you have now left out the fact that a great many of the researchers on that list actually saw either the actual Voynich, in person, and/or the original photostats... which Wilfrid and Ethel kept in the NYPL, for permitted scholars to examine. I've seen these in person, and they are very high quality, and quite detailed:
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
They were in no way... not sure who was, if any, actually, hampered by those very bad illustrations published in newspapers, magazines, and even D'Imperio. We were also saddled with them up until the 2000's, in fact. You show one of THOSE in your video, not what the listed experts actually had at their disposal, which was quite good.
25:00 Here you elevate the ONE expert who happened to hit the eventual C14 dating range, Hellmut Lehmann-Haupt. I agree he was a capable scholar. But you have here demonstrated exactly the effect which is so obvious to me, and which I have pointed out many times: That the obvious problem to "genuine @1420" is the overwhelming number of scholars who told us that the content of the Voynich was all over the map and the centuries long calendar, and that all but one did NOT match the eventual C14 dating. So the "solution" to this dilemma is to pick the ONE person who happened to hit the C14 date, and simply discard the rest who didn't.
And later, in your conclusions, at 28:47, you've declared Haupt "... the most qualified professional to comment on the manuscript's age".
I absolutely disagree. Summarily dismissed by you is the expert input of Charles Singer, far more versed in the history of the herbal than Haupt. Also removed is the opinion of Panofsky, whose opinion was recently cited to me as the reason that person believed the Voynich was from the 15th century... until I pointed out that Panofsky actually changed his mind to circa 1510 on his further and more complete examination. And Steele, and O'Neil, so on, for all of them. They are all at worst, the equivalent of Haupt, at best, far more qualified for the task at hand. And Brumbaugh, whom you mention in passing? Yes, he believed it could have been created by Dee, an authorship we pretty much all agree is incorrect. But the important question is "why?" Brumbaugh would have seen "Dee like" elements in the Voynich. He was skilled, experienced and knowlegeable. So rather than dismiss his input as incorrect, I think one should explain it. I do have an explanation that fits my hypothesis, I do not need to ignore his informed input.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
No, it is clear to me that no matter where in that list of experts the eventual carbon date landed, the person it landed on would be cited as the "best" expert, and the rest, discarded... along with Haupt.
27:43 Lisa Fagin Davis, "... there is absolutely nothing suspicious about the VMS."
But in actuality, Lisa raised some important, and I would say, "suspicious" points about the VMS, in her recent lecture at Wellesley college. In that talk, Lisa calls the Rosettes foldout pages, “Completely inexplicable”. They are, foldouts like that have been said, even by the Yale examiners, "highly unusual for the age". She describes the quires, folio numbers, stitching, and such, and over and over, and says how “odd” many things are: The order, the reorder, and so on, and then she said, "You're not supposed to go back and forth by nested bifolia… that’s just STRANGE” It’s WRONG. It’s not how it’s supposed to work”.
And in the Q&A after the talk:
Q: “How unusual is it to have no punctuation?”
A: “It’s extremely unusual. We would expect to see punctuation. To see capital letters- in a Western language, certainly, um, and so it’s not clear whether the lack of punctuation is… if it’s encoded, part of the coding process. The same for the quote-unquote “capital letters”: Is that part of the encoding? Is that part of the way that the language has been recorded? Maybe. I don’t know. But you would absolutely expect, in this period, to have punctuation and capital letters. It is a very unusual feature”.
And so on, the lecture is here: You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
The thing is... and I've seen this same effect over and over for over 15 years, and even in much content that came long before that, and it goes like this: A person insists that everything they see in the Voynich is perfectly fine, and not suspicious or out of the ordinary. But then, as the same time, when describing the manuscript they unavoidably point out the great many things that are anomalous, anachronistic, totally inexplicable and unexplainable. They honestly admit and describe these things, but then say they see nothing "suspicious". But, they do, they did, because they told us they did. We hear them tell us, and read when they write about them. The Yale book is another perfect example of this: Page after page of anomalies, anachronisms, and the inexplicable that does not match anything they've seen from the 15th century. And the conclusion? It's genuine, and from the 15th century. Go figure.
28:15 "The best we can do, is consider the evidence".
Well, I agree… but we have to consider ALL the evidence, and omit nothing.
29:11 In the following segment, you first of all use a straw man argument, in part, as you do not accurately describe my Modern Forgery hypothesis.
- Yes, I do contend he "found a large stack of unused" vellum, but you leave out the fact he bought a mountain of materials when he bought the Libreria Franceshini. This is key, and very important, for it gives a very plausible source of vellum for a forged Voynich.
- "Then, he decided to make a fake, 1420's manuscript". No, this is entirely incorrect. I do not believe he wanted to do that, nor tried to do that. I believe he intended the Voynich as an early 17th century manuscript, to look as though it came from the Court of Rudolf II. I do think he removed pages sometime after making it, and changed his desired authorship to Roger Bacon.
- "Predict future technologies" No, again, this is a straw man, I do not believe he predicted anything of the kind: My actual contention is that the huge disparity between the early expert opinion and the later C14 dating is exactly because he could not predict such future technologies. He picked the wrong age vellum for his forgery BECAUSE he could not know. And in addition to that, the forger used vellum pages with a 60+ year spread, and not the narrow range derived from the raw data, commonly reported. This is further evidence the forger could not “predict future” C14, because if they could have, they would not have chosen vellum with this spread, either.
- "Perfectly replicate Medieval inks and pigments, without leaving any trace of modern materials" As I pointed out, McCrone actually found an unknown binder, "unusual" copper and zinc, and an unexplained "titanium compound". You also leave out the well known fact that Wilfred's associate, Sidney Reilly (the "Ace of Spies), took out a book on making medieval inks. That being said, it is not inconceivable, and is possible, to make medieval inks, at any time, with no "modern materials". But, I don't think it was accomplished here, as per the McCrone tests. This ink has unexplained problems.
- "... known of a short lived Medieval 'sleeve trend' relevant only to the exact period when the vellum was made". This cherry picks, again, one feature from the manuscript which fits your opinion. And of course any older "thing" could have been drawn in the Voynich at any time from it's first use in history, up until about 1911. The age of any item only gives an "earliest possible" date, not a latest possible.
- "Fool specialists and science, leave no trace" Well I don't think, first of all, that any of the many people who believe this is a forgery by Wilfrid HAVE been fooled. I think he failed with some, and succeeded with many others. And I think the science does not say what you claim it does. The raw data, when examined critically, does not say what you think, either. And as for “no trace”, that is not true... and that is not my opinion, but what is actually found in the Yale book, the original carbon dating report, the McCrone report, and in many of the honest and well meant original finding of the experts. Many “traces” have been found, and they are there to be either rejected or accepted. My hypothesis needs to reject nothing to survive, while any genuine argument is like Swiss cheese.
Koen, I would argue that in this video, you actually make my case for me. In order to support your own views, you have needed to cherry pick a very small subset of all the data and observations available, and discard the huge... overwhelming?... corpus of evidence and expert opinion contrary to your own. And further, you have needed to misstate my own views, findings and hypothesis, in order to create a false version of it, which you have found is more easily debated.
I really do look forward to any eventual arguments which do include and address all the problems inherent in the Voynich and its backstory, but I have not yet seen anything close to that. If your video presentation was able to do that, I would have been very interested to hear it. I was and am still completely ready and willing to hang up my hat on the matter, and move forward with the "Genuine 1420 European Cipher Herbal" with you and many others. It just has not happened yet, if it ever will.
Rich.