The confusion might come from the fact that 'Kremlin' is used metonymically to refer to the Russian government, and that building is often pictured.
What I find interesting from the wiki is that there seems to be some disagreement about the origin of its atchitectural style, with a period of nationalism having steered the conclusions for a while - as it so often does.
Ah - hem people, thought we were discussing Rich's forgery theory?
We seem to have gotten lost down a side path.
In a way this is still on topic. If this building in its current style has indeed inspired Voynich drawings, that could be an indication of forgery.
(Not that I believe any of that, but I'm just connecting the threads again).
In support of Rich's ideas, I have noticed the appearance of what look like coins with milled edges on f34v.
This practice did not start until Sir Isaac Newton took over leadership of the British Mint in the latter part of the Seventeenth Century.
I haven't seen this mentioned elsewhere.
Thank you.
Don of Tallahassee
(12-09-2016, 08:33 AM)don of tallahassee Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In support of Rich's ideas, I have noticed the appearance of what look like coins with milled edges on f34v.
This practice did not start until Sir Isaac Newton took over leadership of the British Mint in the latter part of the Seventeenth Century.
I haven't seen this mentioned elsewhere.
Thank you.
Don of Tallahassee
If you look at the root on the same page, the "animal" shape on the left has similar lines on its back but, because the root is bigger than the shapes of the "leaves/berries" (or whatever they represent), the lines are farther apart. I think this is a rough attempt at hatching to try to create some dimensionality and the resemblance to milled coins may be coincidental.
Quote:In support of Rich's ideas, I have noticed the appearance of what look like coins with milled edges on f34v.
This practice did not start until Sir Isaac Newton took over leadership of the British Mint in the latter part of the Seventeenth Century.
Coins with hatching existed before Newton, the French were milling coins by 1550.
Newton allowed the words DECUS ET TUTAMEN to be engraved on the edges of coins (a motto which still appears on the pound coin) although I seem to remember the actual idea was that of a Frenchman.
I seem to remember hatching also didn't start to be used until after the period estimated for the VMS. Does anyone have a date?
I haven't noticed any other attempts by the author/artist to use hatching to show thickness in this manner. Does anyone else have any?
Thank you.
Don of Tallahassee
(12-09-2016, 02:11 PM)don of tallahassee Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I seem to remember hatching also didn't start to be used until after the period estimated for the VMS. Does anyone have a date?
I haven't noticed any other attempts by the author/artist to use hatching to show thickness in this manner. Does anyone else have any?
Thank you.
Don of Tallahassee
Hatching (in the drawing sense) has been said to not have started until after the VMS, but I have collected many samples that prove otherwise.
It's not necessarily darkness. It may indicate contour. If you look at the pool edges, you will see more examples.
I was once pointed to this Italian sample from 1420 by art historian Alexander Nagel:
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
The application of this technique doesn't really help us narrow down the time of creation inside the 15th Century.
It certainly cannot be said to postdate the creation of the Voynich MS, and it is in no way an indication of a later fake.
When the VMS is a forged document and not an original late medieval manuscript, there are two areas to consider; a scientific/logical approach and a crime investigation approach.
In favour of the hypothesis of SantaColoma, I would list the following points:
Scientific/logic
-> what SantaColoma remarks; the existence of the VMS before Voynich allegedly purchased it, is very shaky. The only reference is the letter from 1665/1666 that has its own problems, summarised by SantaColoma in his blog
-> it is very strange that if such a mysterious manuscript would have existed for 300 years (early 1600s-early 1900s), that it isn't mentioned anywhere. That may be due to missing data (we don't know what we don't have), but in any case the timespan is so huge, that if the VMS would have existed for such a long time AND has been in the hands of so many people, it would have been mentioned unequivocally in many different writings. It's not the standard work that would be "oh yeah, I also had some manuscript which is unreadable and unidentifiable in terms of plants, but I forgot to mention that"
-> the VMS is only dated for vellum, not for ink, paint or even the binding. The dating may be real, in which case Voynich could have purchased old empty vellum and write the manuscript, or the dating may be part of the forgery, known in a small circle of people
-> the binding/cover has not been dated, which is a red flag. It is only said "the binding is from a much later date", but no specification as to when. The binding may be done in 1913, while the text was written in 1912, that is still possible
-> the lack of broad attention. For such a mysterious manuscript, one would expect that people would be swarming over the VMS, it would be headlines let's say. And apart from a group of interested people (here, the mailing list, the few cryptographers who worked on it in the past, etc.), the attention for the VMS is unexpectedly low and has been like that for ages
-> what SantaColoma remarked in his blog, quoted above; "you think you recognise something, but it's just a tad different" (paraphrased). The combination of clear objects (the castle, the dragon, some of the astronomical section, parts of plants) and the fantasy (the plants that look like to be combinations of different plants, the text) serves that purpose very well. It is not a useful book to identify plants, use them for alchemy or alternative medicine or anything like it. It is -in the sense of practical purpose- a useless manuscript.
-> the fact that the text/cipher hasn't been solved, has pointed people to the idea that it's a hoax. A forgery by Voynich is also a hoax, while my idea with a hoax would be an original hoax; some medieval writer made up a document. For the 15th century that seems unlikely because of time and costs and the lack of making it famous in those days. For the early 20th century that hoax/forgery makes much more sense.
-> when I observed the VMS, from the images (the dressing style of the people) I got the idea that it was 15th century. But from the vellum and the state of it I wouldn't say so. Apart from some "wormholes", it doesn't look old at all, certainly not 600 years. Time always has an effect on things and here it seems to have been in a well-ventilated vault for centuries.
Crime investigation
1 - Means
-> Voynich had the means to do this; he possessed thousands of books and manuscripts over the years and could have obtained the empty vellum from many sources. Ink and paint are also not a problem to purchase if you're working in that area (books, antiquities, etc.)
-> he had time to do it (with good preparation, the writing and illustration time can be a couple of months)
2 - Motive
-> a financial motive is of course the first candidate, outlined by SantaColoma
-> a secondary motive is fame, the result of it is that it worked out; we call it the Voynich Manuscript...
3 - Location
-> we "have to" take Voynich's word in believing he has purchased the VMS from the jesuits. We have to believe him (or not) that he really obtained the VMS from Italy (or an "Austrian castle")
-> Voynich had many other books and that must have included herbals, astronomy books and old texts that could have served as basis for his forgery
For me, this hypothesis by SantaColoma (and maybe others) makes the most sense; the observations on the manuscript itself and the lack of publications about it for so many years makes it an interesting idea.
What are serious objections to this idea?