+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: Provenance & history (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-44.html)
+--- Thread: 1665/66 Marci Discussion: Locked? (/thread-3152.html)
Pages:
1
2
1665/66 Marci Discussion: Locked? - proto57 - 09-04-2020
Hi David Jackson: If you remember, back when you started this forum, my worry was that the purpose would be to limit discussion, by censorship, to only those topics that you chose... as opposed to the open and free discussions found elsewhere, such as on my voynich.net mailing list.
You strongly objected, and told me that there would be no censorship, and that your readers would be allowed to express all opinions and viewpoints, as long as no one was being rude, or threatening, or whatever.
But now you cut off the discussion on the thread I started? You wrote,
"OK, without being rude, ReneZ here develops theories based upon the physical evidence he has seen and handled.
Everything else in this thread is a hypothesis that is based the posters opinion of third party evidence.
Let's stick to concrete evidence people, instead of building castles in the air.
Thread locked before it become contentious."
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
If by "contentious" you mean negative or nasty in any way, it is clear this didn't happen, and was not happening. But if by "contentious" you mean further disagreement, then of course... that is what free discussion is about. I came back to the thread to continue that discussion, and was very surprised to see it locked. I hope you will reconsider, and unlock that thread, and place the below responses from me an others over there, if you choose... or let the discussion continue, here.
Ironically, I only the other day suggested to the writers of a new book on the Voynich, that your ninja forum link be added to that book, so that people could come here and see the free discussion that you promised, and convinced me was the case. Was that a mistake?
Rich.
RE: 1665/66 Marci Discussion: Locked? - proto57 - 09-04-2020
Hi You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.: You wrote ( on thread You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. ):
You can see some of the reasoning behind my list in this video. It is a recreation of the lecture at the NSA Conference:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
But to address your points, because you don't realize the origins of them, or the reasoning behind them:
"1) Elicits multiple, widely contrary expert opinions - welcome to manuscript studies, it’s really hard, takes decades of training and people disagree all the time. The disagreements about the VMS are nothing special in manuscript studies."
Well this is arguable, but in my experience... although an amateur... with hundreds of manscripts, but more importantly, the world of historic manuscript and art forgeries, through a great many books: The Voynich has a far greater number of expert opinions which differ on geography, age (before the C14 dating, but still even though...), origin, meaning, purpose. It is not only the number of opinions, but the extraordinary range of them, which sets it on a pinnicle in this area. Can you cite for me any genuine work with comes close?
"2) Has poor, contrary and/or missing versions of provenance - this is absolutely normal in manuscript studies; some manuscripts may only have gaps of a few decades, others may have gaps of over a millennium. A key part of palaeography training is learning to identify marks, symbols, and letterforms that can help you to date and locate a manuscript in the absence of a helpful note saying when and where it was written and all the places it has been since then. Researchers also use things like bindings, quire marks, library catalogues, letters and lots of other details to try to understand where a manuscript has been throughout its history, and sometimes the question cannot be answered. This problem extends to many other medieval manuscripts (and medieval and ancient artefacts more generally) and is not restricted to the VMS."
We are discussion two different things here: I was referring to external, written provenance, not provenance implied by internal content. The "poor, contrary and/or missing" provenance I mean are the lack of any good descriptions of the Voynich in all history previous to 1912, and the contrary versions given for origins by Wilfrid. The Voynich exists no where, with any acceptable written or oral provenance, before Voynich claimed to have found it. The other evidence of provenance is a different matter, for a different discussion than the one I meant. But the lack of written provenance is a major feature of all forgeries, because of course the thing didn't exist when claimed... so it has to be created, borrowed or implied.
"3) Contains anachronistic content - you need to define the anachronism, but to my eyes, there is nothing obviously anachronistic in the VMS."
For those who consider the Voynich genuine, even, you will read a great many comments to the effect of, "This or that looks too new for it", or "This or that looks like this newer thing", followed by "But of course it can't be, because the Voynich is newer". There are dozens of such examples: I've long seen that as a clear indication of a rejection of evidence to support preconceptions, which is the opposite of good scientific, investigative practice. Many of my own, and the observations of others, have been agreed upon as being very good comparisons to newer items, but then dismissed as being impossible. For instance, many have agreed my optical device comparisons are very compelling, but only that such devices are "too new" for the 15th century. That is one example of many: I can generalize some of it, but for a few topics: Modern (to the 15th century) optical devices; writing styles, dress, celestial observations, Rosicrucian symbolism, "plumbing", art historical styles, seeming copies from "later" works, New World plants, animals, styles, and so on.
"4) Owner/seller lies about provenance - this does happen sometimes, it’s particularly common for items looted from places like Syria, Egypt and Iraq, or for items that were confiscated from Jewish families during the Second World War. Even if it turned out that there were lies about where the VMS has been since it was made, it is still a manuscript written on 15th C parchment that looks like a product of the 15th century."
Well it is true that many dealers in art and antiquities often lie. So of course there is no way to know that Voynich was lying in this case, for this reason, or not. It is used as a reason for his known lies on provenance, and I posit that this is a red flag of forgery, because it is. But even if he was only lying to hid the improper purchase, or whatever: One must then throw out all his testimony, and not cherry pick that which we thinks supports genuine, because we do not know when he was lying, and when he was not.
"5) Contains incorrect uses of iconography - you need a strong foundation in the history of art to make judgements about the incorrect use of iconography. The VMS is definitely weird, but nothing strikes me as ‘incorrect’."
This is the thinnest forgery argument on the list, as most of the Voynich's iconography can be said to varied, and applied to both proper and improper use. There are arguable cases, but the only example I cited was the "gallows", which were a decorative element in the closest known use (cited in Cappelli), but used by the VMS author, seemingly, as meaningful characters in their own right. But I would agree with you that this is also arguable, as we don't know if the gallows are the same as Capelli, nor if they are used for meaning.
"6) Improper tools, methods, and/or materials used - the carbon dating tells us that the VMS was written on 15th C parchment, the production techniques and mise-en-page are standard for a European codex of this period, and the only way to safely test the pigments would be with various spectroscopy techniques."
Yale points out that many features of the binding imply a possible newer origin. But this is not all: The foldouts are also admitted to be anachronistic to the 15th century. They are. It was hundreds of years before such foldouts were seen again, used this way. This is totally anachronistic. But also, the carbon dating also told us that the material chosen was too old for the content: I don't know how long you have been "on the scene", but before the C14 test, the majority of expert opinion was WAY off the eventual C14 results. It is the cherry picking of opinions, and content supporting those picked opinons, post-C14, that gives the false impression the correct vellum was chosen to write on.
"7) It looks "too new” - the VMS doesn’t look too new. It has filthy pages near the beginning and the end, and mild to moderate staining and damage throughout the rest of the leaves."
There are many people who, on examination in person, have declared how surprisingly bright and new the pages look. Yes it has some staining. But the late Glen Claston, Adam MacLean, Dana Scott, and many others, have noted the very new look of the Voynich: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
See the above link for some examples. I wrote that in 2009, before I thought this could be a modern fake. Like many things, I chose not to ignore these concerns, and let them lead me to where I finally am today.
"8) There is a reluctance to produce, and/or test, original - both of these are false in relation to the VMS. The Beinecke will produce the manuscript to anyone with the credentials and a suitable research question, which is how it works for virtually every other medieval manuscript in major public collections around the world. Lisa Fagin Davis who is an expert palaeographer and belongs to this forum has seen it (at least?) a couple of times, and I believe René Zandbergen and Nick Pelling have seen it as well. You would have a much harder time seeing something like the Book of Kells (Trinity College, Dublin) or the Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry (Chantilly, Musée Condée, MS 65) both of which have heavy restrictions on who can see them and for how long and no one is using those restrictions to argue that they are fakes. The Beinecke has already consented to one round of testing, how else would we know the carbon dating results? I am sure if a suitably equipped team approached them about doing non-invasive tests such as spectroscopy they would consider it. It is not unusual for museums and libraries to refuse tests which would damage their collection by taking tiny pigment samples: in the 21st century it is more unusual to find a museum or library that will permit invasive tests like that."
Everything you say is true to some extent (not entirely, but a larger discussion on that would be necessary), but you missed my meaning here: I am referring to "the old days", when Wilfrid, Ethel, and Anne Nill strongly controlled access to the manuscript, and to photocopies of it, based on how "friendly" the person was to a Roger Bacon origin. It is in the discussions, in their letters, all of which I read, in all collections in New York and Connecticut. They didn't want any opinions of the origins or age of the Voynich that would undermine what they wanted to be the official opinion.
"9) Copy of illustrations from books and catalogs - I’m not sure I understand how this objection might relate to the VMS specifically, but to no other medieval manuscript. Medieval manuscript art borrowed from, was inspired by, and occasionally reduplicated almost perfectly other pre-existing manuscripts. Some medieval artists also invented things. One of the ways we can attempt to understand the VMS is to look at art and iconography from all over the world and see whether we can see any visual influences or similarities. I’m aware of a few forgery cases where the forger copied illustrations, and there’s a whole universe of forgery and fake provenance among the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Oxyrhynchus Papyri, but in the case of the VMS if you want to make an argument that the illustrations are copied from somewhere else, you need to present people with the original sources and see if they agree."
In two ways: Either or both of: 1) Copies that are anachronistic to the claimed age; and 2) items so varied in sources, geography, meaning, usage, that the writer would have had to had access to an impossible (for a genuine 15th century item) corpus. The former is direct evidence of forgery, the later evidence by weight of implausibility. When you see, for instance, Elihu's Seven Sister strings to stars Pleiades, and also the illustration from D'Oresme, in the same manuscript... and dozens of other such comparisons it trains the possibility that they came from one or two genuine, 15th century origin, and supports that a person or persons with access to all those varied sources at once used them. And of course, a 19th century prolific bookseller would be a good candidate, over any 15th century scribe.
"10) Financial or other incentive is offered for positive opinion:
Step 1 - Become interested in VMS.
Step 2 - Write positive thing about VMS.
Step 3 - ???
Step 4 - PROFIT!!!"
You also were unaware of the source of this: I found evidence, in one shorthand note by Anne Nill, and in a letter to Newbold... presumably seen by other researchers in the archives, but not mentioned (as much evidence counter to genuine is not mentioned), that Newbold was offered 10% of the first $100,000 sale price of the Voynich, if he, Newbold could make Roger Bacon stick in the minds of the experts. And he was offered a further 50% of the anything over $100,000. In short, Voynich was dangling a huge sum of $$$ in front of the poor expert Newbold, to nudge him in his studies. This is unethical, one, and two, a red flag to forgery, as it is often done. Provenance, when it does not exist, is often paid for.
"11) Claimed disappearance of original - the VMS is in the Beinecke where it is available to view by appointment subject to the standard manuscript research checks that all libraries undertake when you ask to see their stuff. I’m sure the poor Beinecke Librarians wish they could make it disappear, but alas, it remains available."
Number 11 is the one which does not apply to the Voynich. The only one that is not arguable, to some degree.
But while the other 10... or 9, if one does not chose to consider the iconography arguable, and I'll give you that... there is no... none, read every book you can find on manuscript and art forgeries... that comes remotely close to the Voynich in numbers of red flags here. One or two has called into question, if not condemned, many items... three or four, there is no question. Nine is practically unheard of... I don't think any historic forgery could have so many points made about it, arguable or not, and some are not (experts disagree, Voynich lied, access was limited, opinion was paid for, etc... all inarguable, and part of the record).
Rich.
RE: 1665/66 Marci Discussion: Locked? - proto57 - 09-04-2020
Hi René:
You wrote, on the locked thread: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
"There is clearly very strong, documented, historical evidence that the Marci letter found together with the Voynich MS has to be genuine. This evidence is almost entirely ignored, and the part that is represented at your blog is represented incorrectly."
Well that was the purpose of that thread, and this continuation: What is that evidence? I don't ignore anything, but I've not seen the proof you give that this is genuine, nor your countering of my list of problems with the letter as seen on my blog:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You've hinted at one or two, but you will not address the list of them, as seen there. But in the linked comment, you do give a partial point on the improper folding (without addressing the problems with folding, such as why it does not fold like a normal, contemporary letter/envelope, as seen in all other examples):
"If the Marci letter was a fake, written by Voynich, he would have written it on a plain and unfolded piece of paper."
Why? Why would he have done so? Forgers use old materials, and in this case, I contend the old paper used was folded when forged on. That is, that the fold lines existed when Voynich, or someone, reused that paper to create a fake letter.
Can you explain your contention that Voynich would have had to use a "plain and unfolded piece of paper"? I don't understand.
"So both a real Marci letter and a fake Marci letter would have started their life flat and unfolded."
First, no, as above, the forged letter would have started on previously folded paper, the genuine Marci letters, on flat, new (at the time) paper.
"So why would it be impossible for the real letter to end up folded as it is, while it would be possible for the fake letter?"
You have that backwards: Real letters DO fold properly. See my blog post, and video. That is the point of those folds... they create their own envelope, from the letter, with the address on the outside, and the seal lining up.
The 1665/66 Marci letter, on the other hand, does not properly fold along the fold lines into anything conceivable. Unless you can come up with an applicable, logical and reasonable reason those fold lines do not allow a normal folding, as in genuine, then this issue is unresolved, and I will continue to assume it is not addressable, explainable, except as reuse of old materials for the purpose of forgery.
RE: 1665/66 Marci Discussion: Locked? - proto57 - 09-04-2020
Hi, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You wrote (in the above locked thread):
"So you are going to ignore the minor differences?"
No, I don't ignore the differences (between the 1665/66 Marci letter, and last, genuine Marci letter dates and signatures). Of course there are differences. The vast majority of the content of both letters is different, so of course it would have to be. My point is simple, and clear: Large portions of these areas line up exactly, as if traced, with the notable exceptions of additional lines turning a "5" into a "6" (causing many decades of consternation), and a "0" into a "9" with a tail.
You are welcome to not consider this at least a bit troubling, but I do. And of course it is no island unto itself... these issues are endless, in the letter, the ms., and so on.
"I know people who can write the same phrase 20 times and have it so much the same you can pretty much lay them one on top of the other. Good fine-motor coordination and good muscle memory. Not everyone has it, but some do. I have come across a few manuscripts that are that way as well. One scribe was so precise you literally could drop the letters on top of each other and not see any difference. This is especially true of words and numbers that are frequently written, like the current date and a person's name and place of residence."
"To me, the examples you posted do not look the same. They DO look like the same handwriting, but each letterform is slightly different, just as one would expect for something written by the same person on another day."
Well you've given several counters to my point, but I think they may be irrelevent in the first case I noted (other writing), and contradictory in the last two: On the one hand, you point out people CAN write exactly the same; in the second, they are NOT exactly the same.
![[Image: marci_signature_compare.jpg]](https://i2.wp.com/www.santa-coloma.net/voynich_drebbel/general/marci_signature_compare.jpg)
"I don't understand the logic of your argument."
I respect you disagree on my observation, but I think the logic is clear. And it is an accepted, frequent, proper and scientific tool in forensics: Comparisons of written documents, looking for evidence of forgery. Among these are tracings, because forgers often trace genuine items.
No, I am not saying, "The handwriting is almost identical, therefore it is a forgery??? Is that what you are saying?" I think I made it clear, several times, what I am saying. Tracing is a red flag of forgery, and the "found" letter lines up perfectly, in key aspects, with a genuine letter. This, and the seemingly added tails, to change day and year, are evidence of forgery. Not "therefore", but evidence.
RE: 1665/66 Marci Discussion: Locked? - proto57 - 09-04-2020
Hi René: This is a response to your comment found here:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
"Interestingly, the argument of Rich is that the provenance information we have has either been faked (as per the Marci letter), or it actually refers to another manuscript, namely the now lost mysterious book that was once owned by Barschius and later by Marci. This means that it is actually agreed that the provenance isn't all that bad."
To be clear on what I feel about this, although you are partly correct: I do think this claimed provenance (Carteggio letters) is so bad it should not be considered as provenance at all. It is not "agreed" by me. So I am unclear on the thread of logic you follow in the above quote.
The letters do describe a book (I consider the "Barschius Manuscript", for we know it was that, for certain), but that description both leaves out significant, important characteristics of the Voynich Manuscript (Zodiac, "signature", nudes, jars, and so much more); but on the other hand, only mentions some things that easily, and more plausibly, apply to many other manuscripts. These man found many scripts and plants unidentifiable in their time, and their descriptions could fit dozens of them. If anyone attempted to use these descriptions to identify the Voynich, if found today, I doubt they would be accepted. It is only by repetition, and habit, and lack of crucial inspection, that they are accepted as provenance for the Voynich.
At the very best, those letters may have been an inspiration to create "a" Voynich Ms. (not as a Bacon work).
"There are more things to consider about the Marci letter, and its recipient Kircher.
"Clearly, Kircher kept the letter with (inside?) the MS which, at the time, probably still had its binding of wooden boards covered by leather. He did not file it with his other correspondence, which we can conclude from the fact that it is not listed in the index of the carteggio.
The same must have happened with the first letter sent to Kircher, by Th. Moretus. This is now lost and does not appear in the index. That's a pity because it would be of great interest to read it."
I'm sorry René, but this seem very apologitic for a lack of good reasoning as to why one bit of evidence exists, not another, and why we should accept one, but not another. When tortuous reasoning is needed to support flimsy provenance, then that provenance is under suspicion, or should be discarded. Which is, my point here.
If it's not in a list, it's not in a list, and it is not provenance to begin with. Everything about the provenance given, that would prove the Voynich real, is conveniently, suspiciously the exact things that are missing.
"When the MS was rebound by the Jesuits, the Marci letter was still kept inside it, but in which form is hard to tell. The shape of the letter strongly suggests that it would have been glued on top of the inside cover, folded to fit the size of the book, but was that the original binding or this later Jesuit binding?
The wax seal marks that can now be seen on the parchment wrapper (inside) are a bit of a mystery."
This is the point here, René: You make such claims, which I counter with my observations... folding, seals, etc. But you give no acceptable reason why these things should be so. Why glued? I've heard this, but no marks line up. And why folded to fit inside the cover? Is this your counter to the folding problems I outline? Because I would rebut it is not an explanation, because that was a letter, and the letter is folded in a way, not to fit in a book, nor to be a letter. The should be an explanation for this problem, and this does not suffice.
"Voynich removed the paper pastedowns. From the many books from the same collection that are now preserved in the Vatican, we can see what it would have looked like when Voynich bought it. There would have been filler material under the pastedown. There should have been a bibliographical description and a P.Beckx sticker apart from the Marci letter."
Here we agree: He removed these, and there "should have been a biographical description". These are problems, though, in so many ways. You had examined the Beinecke archives, as I later did. And I, too, noted the loosey-goosey collection of P.Beckx ex-libris labels, that Voynich took from many books. That alone is very troubling.
But what is still suspicious is that, one again, as always happens in every other case, a place that "should have" (as you and I agree) a description of the Voynich, among the descriptive labels for other books, but is not there. Again, poor and missing provenance... and again, a red flag of forgery, and zero support for genuine.
RE: 1665/66 Marci Discussion: Locked? - davidjackson - 09-04-2020
Rich, what you don't seem to understand - and I say this with the greatest of respect - is that you're not adding anything positive. You're just supposing. You're taking bits of a coherent argument at random and arguing the opposite in such a way that it's just supposition. And when somebody counter-argues your supposition, you reply but deflecting the argument to another point.
And all of these counter-arguments fail to add up, at least to me, to any coherent argument. We just go around and around in polite yet argumentative circles. And frankly, I find this bloody annoying. Which is why I locked the other thread. Because I'm tired, stressed and don't have time to hover over this thread to prevent egos being bruised and a flaming war starting.
RE: 1665/66 Marci Discussion: Locked? - proto57 - 09-04-2020
Well no worries from my direction, David, because no bruising or flaming coming from this end, and I think that all the responses to my posts have been civil, too. During these stressful times I think it is a great opportunity to escape into our investigations on the Voynich. I've heard it on the VMS-list, and elsewhere. We are mostly stuck at home, and it is one of the things left to us.
"You're just supposing. You're taking bits of a coherent argument at random and arguing the opposite in such a way that it's just supposition. And when somebody counter-argues your supposition, you reply but deflecting the argument to another point."
Of course, though, we are all "supposing". The only things known for certain are that the vellum is from the 15th century, and Wilfrid announced it in 1912. Anyone thinking... me included... that they are doing anything but hypothesizing here is fooling themselves. So yes, I am "supposing", so are you, Koen, René, Pelling, and everyone else.
The problem is if one thinks that this or that is proven, against most anything else, because then the investigation ends right there. It will never progress, once claims of proof are substituted for anyone's suppositions. So really, I agree 100% with you, and that is why I press home the unanswered questions the way I do: To cause people to really think about what they know, and realize, as you do, that it is all really supposition.
"We just go around and around in polite yet argumentative circles."
OK... I intend to remain polite, of course. But argumentative, also. I am perfectly willing to stop going in circles, but the only way to do that is to have a person answer the questions. They simply do not get answered... they get ignored, blocked, deflected from, ridiculed, and any number of alternatives to simply being answered.
My contention is that the reason they are not answered is because they cannot be answered. How would you answer the concerns on my Marci blog? For instance, why the fold lines do not make sense? I have a "supposition" for it, but have heard no other to explain it.
And thank you for keeping this thread, and conversation, open.
RE: 1665/66 Marci Discussion: Locked? - -JKP- - 09-04-2020
(09-04-2020, 03:53 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
...
Tracing is a red flag of forgery, and the "found" letter lines up perfectly, in key aspects, with a genuine letter. This, and the seemingly added tails, to change day and year, are evidence of forgery. Not "therefore", but evidence.
Yes, tracing is a flag of forgery, but text lining up is not proof of tracing. Especially when it is commonly-written items like names, place-names and dates. Things that are frequently written are frequently written the same, especially by trained scribes.
RE: 1665/66 Marci Discussion: Locked? - Aga Tentakulus - 09-04-2020
I have not dealt with the history of the VM as far as correspondence is concerned.
I only follow the clues where I also see in VM. All clues if I interpret them correctly,
1. identical in time
2. they say something about the author and his origin.
But if the Merci Brief does not fit directly to the VM, I must first assume that another book might be involved. But it does not prove a fake of the VM. It only explains its authenticity. You're trying to twist evidence in your favor.
So I don't look at the parchment itself, but at everything on it. That includes the meaning of the whole, through sketches, ink, colors, motives, and the order of the whole.
It also includes the wear and tear and the holes.
All together, I think it is impossible to fake.
RE: 1665/66 Marci Discussion: Locked? - -JKP- - 09-04-2020
I've seen a lot of text that is traced, including examples by people who had quite a bit of training in lettering. There is almost always a certain hesitancy to it. The basic forms may be similar, but the dynamics of motion are frequently different. These characteristics are subtle but they are discernible. Pens leave different kinds of marks depending on the speed of the hand.
Also, the smaller the original writing, the harder it is to reproduce by tracing. The smoother the curves, the harder it is to reproduce (some people cannot draw smooth curves no matter how hard they try).
The best forgers often do not trace. They learn the text to be written by copying it many times, so the flow of the ink and speed of the hand is closer to the original and then, when they get good at it, they reproduce the text. People who can do this are like skilled musicians, they have talent honed by much practice, and there aren't very many of them.
I think we can confidently say that Voynich's wife would find it difficult to forge text. She wrote cursive in a largish, somewhat clumsy, scrawling style (and I don't mean any offense to the memory of Ethel Voynich, but we have evidence that she didn't have the fine-motor skill to do forgeries). Anne Nill could write slightly smaller and neater, but her writing wasn't of the skill level needed to do forgery. Wilfrid's writing is slightly more florid and he handles curves better, but it's still debatable that he had the skills to do forgery.
It takes years to learn all the different 15th-century script styles and to reproduce them well. Not counting the main text, there are at least 5 distinctively different styles of handwriting in the VMS (column text, Jacobi text, 116v/17r notes, color annotations, "ven mus mel", and zodiac-symbol labels). It would require significant knowledge of palaeography to reproduce these so convincingly. The text in the Marci letters is also fairly small and thus harder to forge.