René had suggested, on another thread, that he would like to address the reasons he believes the 1665/6 Marci letter is not a fake, and almost definitely real. This refers to my original work and ideas suggesting otherwise, as seen here:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
That blog post goes into more detail, and the entire post should be read to fully understand my points. But here is a summary:
1. Voynich said he paid little attention to it, at first:
"His claim is somewhat implausible, considering how stunning and mysterious the Voynich Ms. is, and seemed to be to him. So of course any included documents would have also been of tremendous interest."
2: He walked out of the Villa with it:
"... that no Jesuit took the time to examine the work he was offering to purchase from them. At least, well enough to notice one of their precious Kircher letters was inside."
3: Marci held back information?:
"When reading the other letters to Kircher which are presumed by many to describe the Voynich Ms.,... ... i.e., the Baresch, Kinner and other Marci letters, it is clear that these men are very interested in getting an opinion from Kircher about this work. So then why would they not mention [the important clues the 1665/6 Marci letter contains, until shortly before Marci's death]", and etc.
4: That Latin:
"Many who are proficient in Latin have had difficulty with various aspects of the Latin phrasing and/or grammar in the letter.", etc.
5: The Folding: This is to me the most damning trait of this letter, because the fold lines, placement of seals, and so on, do not in any way resemble either the other letters of the Carteggio, or really any letter of this type, from this time.
"I think these anomalies suggest that the 1666 Marci letter was created from another source sheet, which was possibly trimmed down. This source may have had seals on it for some purpose, perhaps as an unmarked envelope. Perhaps an original address was trimmed off, or erased. This source had some folds, but others may have been added to create what we see today… an odd format with seals and folds that cannot be made sense of."
There is a video under this topic on the post, which demonstrates some of the above problems.
6: The “Signature” & Date:
These line up perfectly, as in a perfect overlay, with another, genuine, Marci letter from the Carteggio... with only minor alterations: The addition of a small line to convert the year "5" to a "6", and the date "10"'s "0" having a tail added, to make it a 9. Well, that is the implication, as I see it. Otherwise, why are these so perfectly aligned like this, except for those to anomalous differences... the first of which still causes consternation, confusion, and alternate opinions?
There are other issues, not mentioned, which relate to the seal itself, the dimensions of the paper, the chain and line counts, and so on. But these would involve an examination of the letter in person, which I have not had the opportunity to yet do.
And lastly, that letter does not actually describe the Voynich we know today, very well or completely. But that might not be related to whether or not it is a genuine letter, as none of the other letters come close to an adequate or logical description of the manuscript, given the purpose for them being written in the first place.
The Berry Apocalypse is an interesting manuscript. Can't see where it might have been mentioned here previously.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
It is interesting in part since it appears to be painted with colors that are almost pastels.
It is relevant to the VMs because there are several illustrations where a cosmic boundary in the form of a cloud band is rendered through the use of a nebuly line with almost no embellishment. For any who might question the interpretation of similar lines used in the VMs Cosmos and the VMs Critter. Proof of concept, as they say.
And it is further interesting and potentially relevant because it belonged to Jean, Duc de Berry <again>. Also connected with the c. 1410 version of the Oresme cosmos and with the Myth of Melusine.
It was printed in Paris, as above texts plus the de Metz text in the version of Harley 334.
It was printed in 1415. And that's right in the target zone. That's what the provenance says.
Provenance is the key to this investigation. Contributions are appreciated.
The myth of Melusine has a long history and different variations.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
It also has potential ties to the VMs through the "mermaid" illustration of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. which has been discussed previously. One aspect concerning the representation of mermaids is that the division between woman and fish is generally around the woman's abdomen, while the division in the VMs illustration is almost at the woman's knees. In fact, one investigator had said it was as if the woman was stepping into or out of a costume of sorts. And this sort of potential for changing back and forth matches well with the myth of Melusine.
In the Wikipedia article it says: " Her legends are especially connected with the northern and western areas of France, Luxembourg, and the Low Countries."
And at the time of the VMs parchment dates, many parts of the Low Countries belonged to the Duchy of Burgundy. Luxembourg was also added to the duchy.
The VMs representation is also tied to the representation found in Harley 334 f. 57 in another way by the similarity of cosmic diagrams.
Furthermore, the author Jean d'Arras, is connected to Jean, Duc de Berry.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
The duke of Berry was the brother of Philip the Good, duke of Burgundy. The duke of Berry was the initial owner of the c. 1410 Oresme manuscript, BNF Fr. 565, which also connects to the VMs cosmos. The caption in the first article cites "Illustration from the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. work, Le livre de Mélusine (The Book of Melusine), 1478" showing that the myth was still a current topic at that time.
Sure there are various ways this might be interpreted. However, this appears to be another example with ties to the VMs and potential connections to the Duchy of Burgundy.
Note Added from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.'s 1454 You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. featured as one of the lavish 'entremets' (or table decorations) a mechanical depiction of Melusine as a dragon flying around the castle of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Hey guys, since half of the world is in quarantine, David and I are planning to resume our interview series. Lisa Fagin Davis has kindly agreed to participate in the near future.
Now of course Lisa is active on the forum so you could ask any questions to her directly. But still you may like to suggest some questions or topics you would like to see us discuss during the interview. So post your ideas here and we will include them.
It is not important, but there are a few examples of objects that have been attached to the ends of leaves and so dangling from them. I was just curious as to what they are. I don't need to know, but it seems a bit odd to me.
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]These may be the only examples. Though there are other objects attached to plants, I think.[/font]
I can think of examples where they seems to be something like a ring around the "trunk" of the plant above the roots. I don't know what they are either.
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]Are they to protect the ends of leaves or encourage leaves to grow longer or absorbing something from the leaves or feeding the leaves or .....[/font]
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]What is the name of these? When and where were they used?[/font]
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]In case it isn't clear what I am referring to I have reattached the images with the parts highlighted in red.[/font][/font]
Hello, Ms. Davis: I read with interest your Washington Post article, and have followed your theories about the Voynich Manuscript for some time. I found your critique of Mr. Cheshire's offering one of the best, in fact... although I also rate Koen's biting commentary pretty highly, and one of the more amusing. We all share in common that unfortunate experience, and I've no doubt there will be others in short order. But about your article:
"By beginning with their own preconceptions of what they want the Voynich to be, their conclusions take them further from the truth."
The preconceptions are not usually "what they want the Voynich to be" at first, but do morph into that, either through general intransigence, or by painting themselves into a reputational corner. One thing to realize, and remember (although most don't even realize it), is that the most common preconception is that the work is old and genuine. That is a heavily promoted "starting point", so people can't be blamed. It is the base premise of almost 100% of every article (even yours) and book, even many of the claimed translations. With that as such a powerfully projected preconception, it is not the fault of many that they accept it as factual, without ever really questioning "why?" they think this.
That is, people do not, as they should, start with the blank slate of "What is it?", but rather, "What genuine early 15th century European cipher manuscript is it?". And then all ensuing investigation begins as a self-fulfilling quest, a circular investigation. And this tendency to not question is strongly supported because all encouragement and support are within that paradigm. Anything outside of it, and anomalies and inconsistencies within it, are usually not even considered, certainly not satisfactorily explained, and often ignored. That is what paradigms do to protect themselves when challenged (T. Kuhn). And at the same time, anyone, or anything, that supports the paradigm is encouraged, heralded, and even nursed along.
"... I’ve been increasingly called upon by the media in recent years to comment on various theories."
That is exciting, to be asked to do this. It is part of a powerful dichotomy, driven by the paradigm, both to only look at 1420 Genuine European; and reject modern and fake, or all other possibles. And it is easy to do, too, with so many poor "translations" being offered. But it is my contention that if one does not really care about having "a seat at the table", and is likewise somewhat immune to the powers of rejection, if they can be truly introspective, they will be freed to see it as what it probably is: A particularly bad forgery, made in modern times, a laughable mockery of the genuine history of herbal literature.
"Recent chemical analyses, however, concluded that the oak gall ink and the mineral and botanical pigments are consistent with medieval recipes, and Carbon-14 analysis has dated the parchment to between 1404 and 1438. That rules out Roger Bacon (who was already dead), da Vinci (who hadn’t been born), and the peoples of post-contact Mesoamerica."
The ink is "consistent" with inks of the age of the parchment, but the ink is not dated. It could have been prepared and applied at any time up until 1912. And in fact, in the McCrone report there are questions, such as the presence of copper and zinc, and a "titanium compound", and also a gum binder that was not in the McCrone database. There are other points within that report which have not been answered or addressed. The lack of scrutiny can be explained by the preconception I've outlined: "It must be old, and it must be genuine, therefore those things which might offer alternatives must be unimportant."
This claim about the inks dating the manuscript is often used to support "old", but it is only one of dozens of such "projections as truth" which are either still undecided, unknown, arguable, or outright incorrect: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
"I regularly receive Voynich “solutions” by email with requests for feedback. That feedback and my public comments are not always accepted in the constructively critical spirit in which they are given. I recently received an ugly and threatening direct message...".
Yes so have I, when critiquing these various theories and "translations". I actually commiserated with you back when we both... we all, probably, here... came up with very similar opinions on a certain recent theory, and suffered the wrath for doing so. Ironically, I get it from all sides, when critiquing these failures, and when discussing my own theory! So I know both sides of the sword, believe me. The critics, except for you and a few others, are often as hostile as the proposers of bad theories.
But that is the paradigm, again, protecting itself. It has a personality of its own, in defending itself against all opposing views... good, bad... none indifferent, though, in this field it seems.
"As executive director of the Medieval Academy of America, the largest organization in the world dedicated to the study of the Middle Ages..."
You are highly respected, and clearly deserve your reputation. Unfortunately, the Voynich being the "Perfect Storm of Obscure", there is a great deal of heated disagreement among a great many other qualified experts as to what the Voynich is, why it was written, when it was written, by whom, and what it contains. And the language... is it a language, a cipher, a code, or gibberish? And what language, if a language? Expert after expert disagree. My point here is, that with this problem, a degree in any of the related disciplines and about $2.50 will buy you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. The reason is clear: If you have a thousand experts with a thousand theories, only one of them can be correct... which means that nine hundred and ninety-nine experts are wrong.
So it is often claimed that this expert is better than that one, or has the correct experience, or the right discipline, to really know what the Voynich is, and what it is not. But most experts must be wrong because most disagree with each other, and it is impossible to discern which one is correct, or in fact if any are. If they are wrong on A, and we know they must be, then why should anyone assume they are correct on B? But more importantly, one of the most indicative "red flags" of forgery is a high level of disagreement among experts. Genuine items simply do not have anywhere near the level of contentious debate as forgeries, and when they do have disagreement, it is usually explainable in some context. In the Voynich, this expert disagreement is not otherwise explainable, as the item appears to come from several well documented disciplines. It should be "expertly identifiable", but it is not. This one phenomenon screams "forgery!", but there are many others.
"... undercooked solutions presented without context lead readers down a rabbit hole of misinformation, conspiracy theories and the thoroughly unproductive fetishization of a fictional medieval past, turning an authentic and fascinating medieval manuscript into a caricature of itself."
Well I would counter that the 1420 Genuine Paradigm is "undercooked", because as I pointed out, it has many contrary anomalies which remained unaddressed, and relies on items stated as facts, which are anything but. But yes, I do agree with much of what you say, although I also note that in almost all of the discussions I've had over the years, the other parties do not, or cannot through lack of study, compare the Voynich in the context of the world of historical forgeries.
But yes, of course, no one can "turn" an object into something it is not. The theorists cannot, whether they theorize it is genuine, and 15th century, or a fake modern like me, or anything in between. But I see the 1420 Genuine Paradigm as an attempt to "turn it" into that, because on the contrary, it looks all the world to me like a "caricature" of a genuine Medieval work, of a popular culture impression of what a mysterious ancient grimore would have looked like to the mindset of an early 20th century anybody. It is as though this was all very clumsily cobbled together, from a widely varied, and grossly incompatible raft of sources, mostly improperly copied, as it was poorly understood, and then rudely and crudely assembled in an amateurish sort of "Katsenjammer Kids" cartoon style. It is, in my opinion, already very much a caricature: Not of itself, but rather, of anything remotely real.
I've seen the arguments, from experts and professionals alike. My own ideas as to "what genuine thing it might be" have varied over the years, until I gave them up, one after the other. I could not "turn" the Voynich into those things, and certainly had no interest in trying to do so. And I've arrived here, at Modern Fake, probably by Wilfrid, precisely because of that, and coming to realize that the reason is that what it most looks like, when one clears their heads of the preconceptions you warn against: A really cheap fake, that should have been rejected out of the starting gate in 1912, but which has been long propped up by wishful thinking, beloved romantic notions of ancient mysteries, and an unwillingness to admit to a failure of judgment on the part of probably hundreds of individuals.
"When we approach an ancient object such as the Voynich Manuscript, we tend to bring our preconceptions with us to the table. The more we burden the manuscript with what we want it to be, the more buried the truth becomes."
I agree with you, except for the idea this is ancient. So I hope you don't mind, in the spirit of free and open discussion, that I rebut the positions you hold, and encourage you to shed all preconceptions, and look at the Voynich Manuscript again. I think that like many, you might begin to come to a different conclusion than you have, perhaps even, mine. If not, that is wonderful, too. I appreciate opposition possibly more than agreement, it is the engine that keeps me engaged.
Hi all,
I hope this hasn't been discussed here already, at least I specifically searched for the appropriate keywords but could not find any related topic.
There have been theories about the VMS having some pagan content which, for obvious reasons, should be hidden both in text and in the images. That got me thinking: If I wanted to hide pagan (or any other scientific, philosophical, etc) ideas that would surely get me in trouble in a strictly christian society, I would try to make it look very christian to the uninformed viewer.
Maybe the issue here is the other way around: A christian book which had to look like it has nothing to do with christianity. So what if the author originated from central/southern europe, but lived e.g. in the Ottoman Empire or any other place where there was a certain persecution of christians, and tried to make his work look like something that may have been more tolerated in that area?
That would fit well with the theories about hidden christian motives in the images of e.g. the plants/roots or nymphs.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is a copy of the « Somme le roi » or « Livre des vices et des vertus ». It contains an image of the Jardin des Vertus, an allegorical representation. The seven fountains/springs/wells represent the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and the trees represent virtues. The tall one in the middle is Christ. The virtuous ladies are using cups to water their virtues with the "gifts".
When I first saw this, I thought it was similar to certain VM folios, namely You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and maybe to a lesser extent f84r . When I compared them in more detail, I thought, "nah, it's nothing". And now I think that still there may be some conceptual similarity.
The similarity is that you've got a number of female figures in a row, each flanking a stream of water. In the VM, these are labelled, suggesting that they may each stand for something specific. The direction of the water is different in the VM, where it seems to come from the sky (?) and whatever is going on in f84r.
Here is an older example from Ms 870, Bibliothèque Mazarine. The relation between the women with their cups, the water and the trees is clearer here. I like how the cups are basically circles or watery rings
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
These also exist in the VM, though they are almost always connected to tubes and the nymphs kind of put their hand inside them.
I was too tired to do any actual research this evening, so I decided to try and trace the pen lines of some of the small-plants vessels in Photoshop. Keep in mind that in some areas this is an interpretation. The lines are really ruined by the horrendous paint job, and in some areas your best bet is to kind of guess what's going on under the green and (especially) blue layers. I think decorative details in some sections are entirely obscured. Someone else doing a similar exercise might get some details differently.
What I noticed is:
- In these containers, not only the shapes but also the decorative patterns are variable. One vessel is even adorned with some kind of curly, question mark-like shapes I hadn't noticed as such before.
- The drawings are a bit more well-made than I gave them credit for.
- At least one of the containers is certainly placed on a pillar-like pedestal.
![[Image: marci_signature_compare.jpg]](https://i2.wp.com/www.santa-coloma.net/voynich_drebbel/general/marci_signature_compare.jpg)
