The Voynich Ninja

(07-03-2026, 12:39 AM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The diagram is specific in saying that the the animal skin parchment is what was dated.

Indeed, sorry.  But there is still the "Scottsh Cow" problem: IIUC, only one bifolio was dated.  It is possible that some other bifolio would have been dated 1550...

And that was just one unpublished measurement by one person. (The other two authors were not involved in the C14 dating.)

Quote:I prefer the term "parchment" over "vellum", since the latter term refers to parchment of particular high quality; the VMS is not.

I have read somewhere that this terminology has changed in the last 50 years or so, and is different in Britain and France.  (And the cynical hemisphere or my brain has promptly made up an unflattering explanation for this change...)

As for your second and third quibble, I do agree that they imply facts when they are actually only presumptions. 

I have to agree with your quibble regarding the statement that Voynich purchased the manuscript from the Jesuits; it should not be green -- or at least it should be reworded. It does seem like a pretty reliable fact that Voynich brought the VMS back to London in 1912 from a book hunting trip in Europe (Millicent Sowerby at least gives an independent account of that in Rare People & Rare Books)  but as I stated in an earlier thread, Wilfrid could just as well have picked the VMS up from a shop on his way back from the train station. We really have only Wilfrid's word to go on.

Quote:the diagram is assuming there were no forgeries or misrepresentations. As we know though, that is an arguable problem, especially when it comes to Wilfrid.

To be clear, I still think that the Standard Provenance theory is the most likely, at least as far back as Barschius and Marci.  I still give the Book Switch theory maybe 15% of probability -- and only because the theory is my child.

But I think it is very unlikely that Rudolf ever owned the book.  To me, Raphael's claim was based entirely on hearsay about the "600 ducats book", and so it is just the first crazy Origin theory about the VMS that we know about.  (By the way, that is another quibble with your diagram: even yellow is too much credit for the claim that "the VMS was purchased by Rudolf") 

All the best, --stolfi

(07-03-2026, 12:39 AM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
The diagram is specific in saying that the the animal skin parchment is what was dated. It does not convey any claim on the creation of the VMS itself. That was intentional. (Aside: I prefer the term "parchment" over "vellum", since the latter term refers to parchment of particular high quality; the VMS is not.)

I believe Koen did a study of art history and fashion history regarding the sleeves of the clothing in the illustrations in the Voynich Manuscript.  You may want to add that information to the carbon-dating information.  The window of clothing fashion is probably smaller than the window of a style of castle walls.

(07-03-2026, 10:54 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(07-03-2026, 12:39 AM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The diagram is specific in saying that the the animal skin parchment is what was dated.

Indeed, sorry.  But there is still the "Scottsh Cow" problem: IIUC, only one bifolio was dated.  It is possible that some other bifolio would have been dated 1550...

And that was just one unpublished measurement by one person. (The other two authors were not involved in the C14 dating.)

Hi Jorge: Actually, four samples from four bifolios (bifolia?) were radiocarbon dated by Greg Hodgins of the University of Arizona, not only one. Which ones, and the results found, were not published until... by the most rare and fortiutous chance... I had my camera turned on and ready during Greg's lecture at the Voynich 100 Conference in Frascati, Italy, in 2012, and quickly snapped this picture [EDIT TO ADD: In fact, the little red line you see at the title of the right-most column is from my laser pointer/slide changer, which I had brought for my presentation, but loaned to the event for everyone's use]:

[attachment=14499]

Until then, we only had the graph which processed the above numbers into "1404 to 1438". The results actually show an extreme range of something like 60 to 120 years or more, as I outlined in one of my blog posts:

proto57's blog Wrote:Folio 8: 490±37, which works out to 1423 to 1497
Folio 26: 514±35, which works out to 1401 to 1471
Folio 47: 506±35, which works out to 1409 to 1479
Folio 68 (cleaned): 550±35, which works out to 1365 to 1435

So basically I agree with you, but I only wanted to point out FYI that there were four samples, not one, and you were actually close... since one could extend to 1497 being only 53 years from your top end speculative example of 1550.

Point being, your intuition was spot on. The dates DO vary. This is also, actually, a point in my talk in the upcoming March 11th Voynich Zoom 2026, in fact.

Quote:To be clear, I still think that the Standard Provenance theory is the most likely, at least as far back as Barschius and Marci.  I still give the Book Switch theory maybe 15% of probability -- and only because the theory is my child.

Well I must point out that, while you may have arrived independently at the "Book Switch" idea... which, by the way, I find plausible (NTIM)... it was actually Andrew Steckley (asteckley here, of course) who first proposed it, some months or more earlier. He discussed it on Ninjas some time ago.

But I hope that does not affect your 15% assessment of the idea!

Quote:But I think it is very unlikely that Rudolf ever owned the book.  To me, Raphael's claim was based entirely on hearsay about the "600 ducats book", and so it is just the first crazy Origin theory about the VMS that we know about.  (By the way, that is another quibble with your diagram: even yellow is too much credit for the claim that "the VMS was purchased by Rudolf")

Further to your point... which I also agree with... it goes beyond the nature of the "600 ducats" being "heresay" (which, of course, it is), in that that letter never actually states that 600 ducats was for the purchase of the book, but rather, that the "bearer" of the book was given 600 ducats. For all we know, the book was valued at 20 ducats, or one, or a hundred. The person who brought said book may have been paid for various other reasons, other activities and services of value to the Court, which was patronizing that person for a range of reasons, including the book.

In fact, the way I interpret the various translations of the Letter, I think it even possible that "the bearer" never actually sold the book at all... they just were "bearing" it, and later left it there, gifted it, or whatever.

All the best, Rich

(07-03-2026, 02:48 PM)pjburkshire Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I believe Koen did a study of art history and fashion history regarding the sleeves of the clothing in the illustrations in the Voynich Manuscript.  You may want to add that information to the carbon-dating information.  The window of

I take your point. But the intent of the diagram is "provenance" specifically -- who owned it and where it's been.  Not evidence for or against possible origin theories.
A different --much larger-- diagram regarding such general evidence around VMS origins is in progress.

(Also, while I think Koen's clothing study is very good, it is also very subjective -- relative to such things as a letter-in-hand, or a C-14 dating report, for example.) 

(07-03-2026, 10:54 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.... even yellow is too much credit for the claim that "the VMS was purchased by Rudolf"

This is true, but it would be a slippery slope to start showing more than the two levels of evidence strength. I included the Rudolf connection because, despite being hearsay, has become part of the putative provenance story.

Here is an updated diagram:
[attachment=14500]

I agree that most of the yellow items have some degree of uncertainty, some more than others. Which is fine for an object of this age, by the way. However, I would say that the Tepenec signature is good, solid evidence. This is a crucial factor that changes the reading of the diagram dramatically.

(07-03-2026, 08:49 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Which is fine for an object of this age, by the way. 

I don't know what this means. You seem to be saying it "by the way" in the sense that its uncertainty does not diminish it as evidence (for the standard provenance story, I presume?).  But of course, that is not true. The more uncertain any information is, the more it diminishes its value as supporting evidence -- regardless of what theory it is being used to support.

(07-03-2026, 08:49 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I would say that the Tepenec signature is good, solid evidence. This is a crucial factor that changes the reading of the diagram dramatically.

I would like to consider it stronger evidence than the other yellow boxes (and I intentionally separated it from the observations in the red-dashed box regarding the Kircher Letters).  But I can't see it as hard evidence, given the questions surrounding it.

1. It says—as near as modern technology can reveal—Jacobus de Tepenec.   But Wilfrid Voynich was the one who determined that the name actually refers to Jakub Hořčický (Jacobus Sinapius).  We don't know that. It is somewhat circular reasoning to say that it does. Wilfrid identified a person associated with Rudolph II who also happened to receive the de Tepenec title in 1608, and so considered him to be a plausible "owner" of the signature. That identification has then been widely accepted as true. (In fact, some have taken it as evidence that the VMS was indeed associated with Rudolph II -- thereby supporting the hearsay put forth by Marci.  But that's circular reasoning -- Wilfrid sought out a plausible candidate for the signature based on Marci's statement.)
   
2. It's been observed that the signature does not match that of Jakub Hořčický  (and, as usual, speculative explanations are put forth in order to account for that so as to continue to support the story.)
   

So it may indeed be true that the signature is that of Hořčický -- which would indeed put the VMS into the hands of -- if not the ownership of--  Hořčický sometime during or after 1608.  But it just can't be considered hard evidence. By contrast, the other items (in green boxes) all have multiple sources supporting their veracity—or, in the case of C14 dating, multiple tests combined with a very reliable scientific testing procedure.

With this definition of hard evidence, your diagram would be yellow for the majority of manuscripts until the point they show up in the modern record.

I must also add: I understand that there are different kinds of evidence, and that some things are uncertain. But manuscripts are provenanced by a range of factors, of which paleography is often the most crucial one. The style of the marginalia is evidence, unless we are dismissing the usefulness of paleography for dating manuscripts...

So I would add the inscription of the marginalia, in green, in the 15th century.

(08-03-2026, 12:38 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.With this definition of hard evidence, your diagram would be yellow for the majority of manuscripts until the point they show up in the modern record.

I don't think so. 
I too noticed  that, in my diagram, there happens to be a correlation between green blocks and modern-ness of the particular information. But that is not the important aspect that actually distinguishes them as "hard evidence". It is the fact that there is a multiplicity of sources for the information in the block along with the observations coming from reliable/authoritative sources. That is true of each of the green blocks, and not true for each of the yellow ones.  

For example, the C-14 testing was done on multiple samples, and the technique is a well established, reliable scientific test (carried out by a professional lab)  The fact of the VMS being in Wilfred's hands, then Ethel's, then Anne's, then Hans', and then Yale's are all supported by multiple witnesses and the reports are of little doubt.  

Now the fact of "de Tepenec" is certainly authoritative -- we can all see it right there on the folio page-- and it's presence and visual details have been "tested" in various ways by multiple people. But the connection of the signature to Jakub Hořčický in particular, cannot be said to be multiply sourced, and it is only an inferred identification as well. And, additionally, there are specific observations that introduce some doubt on the authenticity of the signature. Likewise, the "fact" of the Marci Letter ever even being colocated with the VMS (let alone attached) has a single -and dubious-- source (Wilfrid Voynich).  That is all without going into the various uncertainties associated with all the yellow blocks surrounding the Kircher Letters, which we've discused before.

(08-03-2026, 01:01 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I must also add: I understand that there are different kinds of evidence, and that some things are uncertain. But manuscripts are provenanced by a range of factors, of which paleography is often the most crucial one. The style of the marginalia is evidence, unless we are dismissing the usefulness of paleography for dating manuscripts...

So I would add the inscription of the marginalia, in green, in the 15th century.

I would say paleography can range all the way from providing pretty strong evidence (e.g. "Here is some unknown writing. I have no other clues. Please, analyze it" --> "Oh, that is definitely the writing of Sir John the Authentic from the year 1388") to being biased supportive evidence(e.g. "Could this writing possibly be the writing of the person in my favorite theory" -->"Yes, I can see consistencies".)

But what paleographic evidence contributes to the provenance of the VMS?  It contributes to establishing the authenticity of some things (like say, the Marci Letter), but that hasn't come into play in identifying provenance.  (If I recall, Lisa Fagin-Davis suggested that some marginalia looked like the hand of Marci. But that would certainly fall in the category of finding similarities, not identifying a person.)