The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

[proto57]

That is the only one I tried, but I will try some more later. My method of finding any references is to go to Google Books and search for the term. Then I use "tools", and set a range of dates from 1/1/1200 to 1/1/1912, to see if any said reference was in print by then.

Interestingly, "Abiril" as April not only appears in several German books, but heavily in 18th and 19th century published, printed works.

So Aberil actually does fulfill the requirements of my Voynich Theorem #1 quite well, but as I wrote, I do look forward to searching the others, too... I'm just super busy this morning, and far behind on my real-world tasks and responsibilities for the day!

Thanks, Rich

EDIT TO ADD: The above screenshot of the 1852 "Aberil" passage translates to, "On the ninth of April, the weather is really nice—just beautiful; you can go straight out for a walk, as it couldn't get any lovelier."- which also tells us that Google Translate is very aware that "Aberil" means "April".

Haha, you fell for my trap! I knew if I asked about aberil that you would immediately find one! I didn't really know about this type of search on google books so I will also use it in the future. I've been searching digital libraries. I will also use this tool to look for the other forms.

In all seriousness, that is an interesting find.  It seems to be the only example of aberil on there actually being used, though, so I wouldn't go as far to say that it was necessarily easily accessible or anything.

It actually isn't the only example, as there are several editions, printed over several decades, which have this same poem in it (if it is a poem), all using Aberil.

But also, it is far from the only reference. There is also this book, from 1876: "St. Fridolins Land: Gedichte in Schriftsprache und Mundart" - Page 131

Which example translates to "April was consistently good, with little snow, so the foliage and grass came through well; it was quite dry, however, causing some scorching on the sunny side. April also saw the arrival of many young animals."

And this one, from 1869, "Tagebuch der Familie Schümi am Unterwasser, bei St. Johann", with the above passage.

And this one, from 1722, "Einleitung zum Civil-Process, darinnen wie sich der Kläger" - Page 221.

And so on... I flipped through several pages of these Google results, and there are many books which use Aberil for April. Yes, some repeating the same passages, some with new passages. But this usage was in print many times. The point it is actually not rare at all, and also, in print before 1910.

But back to the question as to whether or not this was ALSO a verifiable, manuscript form of April. AI did the work for me, again, and informed me... us... that:

Thank you for pulling up this specific text. It beautifully shatters the circular logic and provides the missing puzzle piece.
The link you shared, Die Näfelser Fahrt (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.), is a 19th-century printing of an important Swiss epic poem written in dialect. Looking at page 5, the text introduces the date of the historic Schlacht bei Näfels (Battle of Näfels, 1388). (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.)
This directly unlocks real 14th and 15th-century manuscript evidence that completely stands independently from the Voynich Manuscript.

The Real Manuscript Connection: The Glarner "Fahrtsbrief"

The text you found is directly quoting the Fahrtsbrief (the official commemorative charter of the battle), the oldest surviving copy of which is preserved in the Linthaler Jahrzeitbuch of 1430. (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.)
When the 15th-century scribes recorded the official date of the battle in that manuscript, they did not write "April." Instead, the official Swiss-Alemannic manuscript record states that the battle took place on:
“den ersten Donnerstag im aberellen” (the first Thursday in April). (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.)

Breaking Down the Spelling

What you are seeing in your text is the exact dative plural/inflected grammatical form of the noun Aberelle. [1] (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.)

• In Middle High German and Old Swiss dialects, the month was a masculine noun: der Aberelle.
• When a 15th-century scribe wrote "in April," the grammar rules required the inflected form: "im aberellen".
• The uninflected, base root of this exact word in the 14th/15th century was Aberel or Aberil. [1] (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.)

Other 14th and 15th-Century Manuscript Matches

Now that we have the correct linguistic key (Aberelle / Aberellen), we can pull up exact character matches from other contemporary medieval manuscripts:

1. The Codex Manesse (c. 1300–1340): In this famous illuminated manuscript of Middle High German poetry, the celebrated Minnesinger Heinrich von Veldeke has a poem explicitly titled and beginning with the words: "In dem aberellen..." [1] (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.), [2] (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.)

2. The Zürich Yearbook (Zürcher Jahrbuch, 14th Century): Recording an exact historical entry for a localized battle, the scribe writes: “dise manslacht beschach an dem 13 tag im aberellen” ("this slaughter occurred on the 13th day in April"). [1] (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.)

3. Basel State Archives (April 1424): A legal deed involving Duchess Katharina of Burgundy is officially dated: “Donnerstag nach Ambrosius im aberellen 1424” ("Thursday after St. Ambrose in April, 1424"). [1] (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.)

My summary, your mileage may differ:

1) Aberil was used, in print, in sufficient publications in the 18th or 19th centuries to fulfill my Theorem #1.
2) Furthermore, several references are to an "... an important Swiss epic poem written in dialect.", which reinforces #1. I mean, it was not in somebody's daily diary, it was a repeatedly published, well known and important poem
3) But as AI pointed out, above, it could also date to the era of the Voynich
4) And it may point to a Swiss/Germanic origin for these appended month names, or at least this one, whether the Voynich is old and real, or new and fake.

Rich

[Mauro]

My summary, your mileage may differ:

1) Aberil was used, in print, in sufficient publications in the 18th or 19th centuries to fulfill my Theorem #1.
2) Furthermore, several references are to an "... an important Swiss epic poem written in dialect.", which reinforces #1. I mean, it was not in somebody's daily diary, it was a repeatedly published, well known and important poem
3) But as AI pointed out, above, it could also date to the era of the Voynich
4) And it may point to a Swiss/Germanic origin for these appended month names, or at least this one, whether the Voynich is old and real, or new and fake.

Rich

But why did Voynich use the rare 'Aberil' form instead of a common one to craft his forgery? And what about Jollet, Octembre etc., which purpose did that had for the forgery? And why write these marginalia at all, why this maniacal level of detail (which also required quite a good imagination)? Yes, it's possible someone will go to these lengths to craft his forgery, but it's weird: it's improbable. To me, it's more easily explained by someone who noticed the symbols were the Zodiac signs, years after the MS was produced, and scribbled the names of the months in his own dialect and orthography. And this improbability stacks over many other improbabilities (previously mentioned, I'll not repeat them).

[eggyk]

1) Aberil was used, in print, in sufficient publications in the 18th or 19th centuries to fulfill my Theorem #1.
2) Furthermore, several references are to an "... an important Swiss epic poem written in dialect.", which reinforces #1. I mean, it was not in somebody's daily diary, it was a repeatedly published, well known and important poem
3) But as AI pointed out, above, it could also date to the era of the Voynich
4) And it may point to a Swiss/Germanic origin for these appended month names, or at least this one, whether the Voynich is old and real, or new and fake.

Rich

I will note that the AI summary snuck in an extremely important sentence, namely: "The uninflected, base root of this exact word in the 14th/15th century was Aberel or Aberil." 

This simply is not the case. Aberel is indeed correct, and so is the relatively common "in dem aberellen". Aberil is not. We have plenty of aberels and aberellen, including the Codex manesse as cited. But aberel is not the same as aberil. 

I do disagree with the phrasing of "sufficient", as it implies that the usage was widespread in print to the point that voynich was in any way likely to have seen it. It really wasn't, and the usage was still extremely niche as far as I can tell. The fact that a whole community hell-bent on finding aberil has not happened across these 'important' poems before strongly suggests that it isn't that important. Such poems, like "in dem aberellen, so die blûmen springen" have been easily found by us. 

We are using extremely powerful tools to find these which voynich didn't have. But sure, technically voynich may have read this poem (among many many other poems containing aberel, abrel, abril etc) and chosen this form instead of the other forms. So I admit that there isn't actually any way for me to argue against what you are saying, which is fine 

If you can find a "jollet", "iollet" or even a "joillet" (that isn't a smudged juillet) from later printed works, you would certainly have me questioning things, as it would constitute finding something that has never been found in any manuscript.

And as Mauro reminds me, what of octembre? The fact that its usage in manuscripts seems to have peaked at around the same time as the dating of the parchment is extremely coincidental imo. The chances that Voynich would find a rare octembre in an 19th century print and happen to have chosen a form that matches the dating would be really lucky. Alternatively, he researched which forms to use in order to be accurate, but then chose to split into two languages.

[proto57]

1) Aberil was used, in print, in sufficient publications in the 18th or 19th centuries to fulfill my Theorem #1.
2) Furthermore, several references are to an "... an important Swiss epic poem written in dialect.", which reinforces #1. I mean, it was not in somebody's daily diary, it was a repeatedly published, well known and important poem
3) But as AI pointed out, above, it could also date to the era of the Voynich
4) And it may point to a Swiss/Germanic origin for these appended month names, or at least this one, whether the Voynich is old and real, or new and fake.

Rich

I will note that the AI summary snuck in an extremely important sentence, namely: "The uninflected, base root of this exact word in the 14th/15th century was Aberel or Aberil." 

This simply is not the case. Aberel is indeed correct, and so is the relatively common "in dem aberellen". Aberil is not. We have plenty of aberels and aberellen, including the Codex manesse as cited. But aberel is not the same as aberil.

OK I didn't catch that, but you realize you are making my case, and not yours, with that observation? That is, the "Aberil" form, if not contemporary with the Voynich, implies even further that it is anachronistic, and finds anachronisms and anomolies favor the forgery, not the genuine.

In fact one of the reasons I didn't catch that was probably because the first results from AI were telling me that the word did not exist in manuscript form, and asked me where I got it. When I prompted it with the link to the book, it gave me the posted answer... and I failed to note what you did. I was posting it because I wanted to be open minded and show what I had found. But turns out this is another blow to genuine, instead.

I do disagree with the phrasing of "sufficient", as it implies that the usage was widespread in print to the point that voynich was in any way likely to have seen it. It really wasn't, and the usage was still extremely niche as far as I can tell. The fact that a whole community hell-bent on finding aberil has not happened across these 'important' poems before strongly suggests that it isn't that important. Such poems, like "in dem aberellen, so die blûmen springen" have been easily found by us. 

We are using extremely powerful tools to find these which voynich didn't have. But sure, technically voynich may have read this poem (among many many other poems containing aberel, abrel, abril etc) and chosen this form instead of the other forms. So I admit that there isn't actually any way for me to argue against what you are saying, which is fine 

Well surprise we disagree! But again I point out what I think is an incorrect assumption here... that Voynich, like us, was looking for cases of "Aberil". Why do you think that? There are probably thousands of rare words which would have and are hard to find... but he didn't have to do that. He just used a word he read. Probably didn't even know it was rare...

But also I take issue with your contention that it is rare in the first place. We have found it in a handful of sources, in maybe a dozen books, and without knowing the publication numbers OF those books, how can you assume they are "rare"? Thousands of any one or all of those books may have been published.

All that being said, again, the word was in print before 1910, so it fits the Voynich Theorem #1. That was my point... this has so far happened every, single, time... and it happened again.

Here is a little anecdote about the effects of rarity: The engraving of the map that the Vinland map forger traced to make his bogus map is in a VERY rare book. I don't know the numbers, but when I wanted to see a copy I had to request it from the NYPL Rare Map Room. There is only a smattering of them around the world. I mean, point being, even if rare it is not an issue.

But I doubt those books were rare.

"If you can find a "jollet", "iollet" or even a "joillet" (that isn't a smudged juillet) from later printed works, you would certainly have me questioning things, as it would constitute finding something that has never been found in any manuscript."

Would I have you questioning things... questioning your position? Look what happened just now, with the mentions I found of Aberil... in published books, in multiple copies, printed several times, over decades in two centuries, AI telling us there were no other 15th century examples, and the word also being used in not only a popular poem, but in several other cases... and the numbers of those books published unknown...

... yet, still, you say it is not probable that Voynich saw one of these examples? I think the very standards you, yourself have set to lower this threshold are impossible to meet... and so, I really doubt that if I find "... a "jollet", "iollet" or even a "joillet" (that isn't a smudged juillet) from later printed works", that likewise, you would not accept said find, and "really have you questioning things".

If you are not questioning things now, I mean, I am not sure what would, because what I found was actually pretty good, by almost any reasonable standard.

And as Mauro reminds me, what of octembre? The fact that its usage in manuscripts seems to have peaked at around the same time as the dating of the parchment is extremely coincidental imo. The chances that Voynich would find a rare octembre in an 19th century print and happen to have chosen a form that matches the dating would be really lucky. Alternatively, he researched which forms to use in order to be accurate, but then chose to split into two languages.

So I have to find "octembre" too? Ok add that to the list. I don't think you will accept the results, as you didn't with the last results, but what do I have to lose but more precious time? JK. Anyway, for my own uses, I feel this exercise is far from pointless... almost every time someone challenges me, they end up making my case stronger, and compel me on to new blog content, and points to add to my hypothesis.

OK I could not resist, and had five minutes before I had to get up to do the dishes... I did a search for "octembre", and found it in French PUBLICATIONS: Two from 1906, an 1882 ,an 1881, two 1844, an 1897, an 1883, and a 1907 books, all on just the first page of results! So, "Another one bites the dust". But I have to go for now... perhaps I will see if, like "Aberil", this word also didn't exist when the Voynich calves died.

Rich

[eggyk]

Would I have you questioning things... questioning your position? Look what happened just now, with the mentions I found of Aberil... in published books, in multiple copies, printed several times, over decades in two centuries, AI telling us there were no other 15th century examples, and the word also being used in not only a popular poem, but in several other cases... and the numbers of those books published unknown...

... yet, still, you say it is not probable that Voynich saw one of these examples? I think the very standards you, yourself have set to lower this threshold are impossible to meet... and so, I really doubt that if I find "... a "jollet", "iollet" or even a "joillet" (that isn't a smudged juillet) from later printed works", that likewise, you would not accept said find, and "really have you questioning things".

If you are not questioning things now, I mean, I am not sure what would, because what I found was actually pretty good, by almost any reasonable standard.

I meant what I said that the aberil was an interesting find, and admit that your finding of a printed aberil firmly puts the form into that category of "unlikely, but possible, in both the forgery and genuine theories", instead of what I assumed at first which was that it was only possible in the genuine theory. I say both theories now, as we now know that it was present in at least a few printed works -even if other forms are far far more common- and it was also present in a few manuscripts -even if other forms were far far more common- with evidence that the form existed in certain rare dialects. So your argument has pulled my position towards the neutral in this regard. 

As for octembre/octebre, if you have the time I would appreciate the links to those. I don't know exactly how you search, but all I get on google books are history publications containing written correspondance or direct quotes from the 12th-15th centuries, and not the usage of octembre in works of the 18-19th century itself. (incidentally, these are books that I have come across in german digital libraries too) If those publications are being counted, then sure. I was under the impression that those were not widely printed and weremeant for research, but that may be totally wrong. 

"If you can find a "jollet", "iollet" or even a "joillet" (that isn't a smudged juillet) from later printed works, you would certainly have me questioning things, as it would constitute finding something that has never been found in any manuscript."

Would I have you questioning things... questioning your position? Look what happened just now, with the mentions I found of Aberil...

jollet is different. It represents something we've never seen. Evidence that it existed in later publications yet seemingly never existed in manuscripts would be extremely interesting to me. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But finally, none of this is meant to be a "gotcha" to disprove one theory or to prove another. In the first instance, I asked you for your view on some of these month name forms, given that I have done research in that area and had come to my own conclusions about their rarity/use across time. The fact that you are coming back with examples backing up your theory is exactly what I am looking for. 

So 'questioning my position' is what I am doing constantly. The reason that I search back to 800AD and forward to 1912AD for things like month names and zodiac signs is specifically because I am trying not to take a firm position on when/where the manuscript was written (or where/when the content was copied from).

[proto57]

Would I have you questioning things... questioning your position? Look what happened just now, with the mentions I found of Aberil... in published books, in multiple copies, printed several times, over decades in two centuries, AI telling us there were no other 15th century examples, and the word also being used in not only a popular poem, but in several other cases... and the numbers of those books published unknown...

... yet, still, you say it is not probable that Voynich saw one of these examples? I think the very standards you, yourself have set to lower this threshold are impossible to meet... and so, I really doubt that if I find "... a "jollet", "iollet" or even a "joillet" (that isn't a smudged juillet) from later printed works", that likewise, you would not accept said find, and "really have you questioning things".

If you are not questioning things now, I mean, I am not sure what would, because what I found was actually pretty good, by almost any reasonable standard.

I meant what I said that the aberil was an interesting find, and admit that your finding of a printed aberil firmly puts the form into that category of "unlikely, but possible, in both the forgery and genuine theories", instead of what I assumed at first which was that it was only possible in the genuine theory. I say both theories now, as we now know that it was present in at least a few printed works -even if other forms are far far more common- and it was also present in a few manuscripts -even if other forms were far far more common- with evidence that the form existed in certain rare dialects. So your argument has pulled my position towards the neutral in this regard. 

As for octembre/octebre, if you have the time I would appreciate the links to those. I don't know exactly how you search, but all I get on google books are history publications containing written correspondance or direct quotes from the 12th-15th centuries, and not the usage of octembre in works of the 18-19th century itself. (incidentally, these are books that I have come across in german digital libraries too) If those publications are being counted, then sure. I was under the impression that those were not widely printed and weremeant for research, but that may be totally wrong. 

"If you can find a "jollet", "iollet" or even a "joillet" (that isn't a smudged juillet) from later printed works, you would certainly have me questioning things, as it would constitute finding something that has never been found in any manuscript."

Would I have you questioning things... questioning your position? Look what happened just now, with the mentions I found of Aberil...

jollet is different. It represents something we've never seen. Evidence that it existed in later publications yet seemingly never existed in manuscripts would be extremely interesting to me. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But finally, none of this is meant to be a "gotcha" to disprove one theory or to prove another. In the first instance, I asked you for your view on some of these month name forms, given that I have done research in that area and had come to my own conclusions about their rarity/use across time. The fact that you are coming back with examples backing up your theory is exactly what I am looking for. 

So 'questioning my position' is what I am doing constantly. The reason that I search back to 800AD and forward to 1912AD for things like month names and zodiac signs is specifically because I am trying not to take a firm position on when/where the manuscript was written (or where/when the content was copied from).

Hi Egg of Yolks: Yes I see what took the time to explain, and see you are more of a skeptic than simply a contrarian. It is hard for me sometimes, especially on these forums, but in general, to know the different intents of the various commenters on my theories. I do usually get defensive, but not "because someone does not agree with me"- I genuinely don't care, and shouldn't care, what others believe. The things that bother me are when someone misstates, or reforms my ideas in a way that is not correct. I want to be understood properly. You have not, I don't think, misunderstood me... we seem to disagree on the relative merit and probability of the evidence.

Anyway, to your points:

1) First, how I search for pre-1912, printed/published references: a) I go to Google Books: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. b) I put the word I am looking for into the search bar, and press enter, c) The results that come up are chronologically global, of course d) I then click the drop down menu "tools", then "any time", then "custom range". e) In the upper box I put 1/1/1200, in the second box, 1/1/1912. f) then click "go", and you will get your results for only that word, in only that range of dates. And your range stays for as long as you have that window open, so you can keep plugging in words, one after the other. Below is a screenshot of the first couple of "octembre" references look like- but it goes on for several pages like this, with a great many references to the word, between the 18th and the early 20th centuries:

   

2) You can see that the results also give you a snippet of text, which is handy for finding the word... although it will open on the page if you click on it. In the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., for instance, you get the page with "Octembre", as "October", used several times.

3) For "jollet", it You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., and not as a month name, not as "July". But I only looked at the first couple of pages of results.

4) For "iollet", it only seems to appear as a You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., such as when a longer word is split. The search then picks up only the "iollet" part. So from what I can see so far, it has not been used as month name in print.

5) For "Joillet", it You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., not used for "July".

6) Stephen Bax had it as possibly "jolliz". If so, no, again, I do not find it as "July", but some other Latin word.

7) However, I feel that in this case... not fudging here, not evading a possible failure of the Voynich Theorem #1, I feel... if this is the word we are talking about: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , then I do not think it is clear enough WHAT the writer of that word was intending at all. I don't really see any of the above suggestions in fact. And also, I am somewhat backed up by the fact that everyone else seems to share my opinion on that, and at best are grasping at straws to find ANY lettering for that word.
This is specifically why I specified in my theorem "any good comparison"... because of course there are a great many rough and indeterminate letters and illustrations in the Voynich that, so far, have no good comparisons. That's my "out", and I'm sticking to it.

8) Oh you wondered about "octebre", also. Yes, it frequently appears as "October" in many search results, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. Whether that is an alternate spelling, or a common typo, IDK. But it is also common. And it is not a bad scan, or an inked in "o" that cased it to look like an "e" (at least not in any cases I saw): You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

9) But back to the July word: I did a search and found that some think it may be "iullio". IDK, but if so, it is sometimes used as "July", as in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. (also as Pope Julius). This is key, I think, for several researchers have noted that the spelling "iullio" has been found in old manuscripts... which is fine of course, and interesting. But again, it was also in some number of printed books before 1910, and therefore is NOT exclusive to rare old manuscripts or something, and does fulfill the requirements of my Theorem.

10) My best guess would be it is the word "iolloa" or "iollo", and I get nothing valuable.

My conclusions.. and again everyone else's may be different:

1) Most of these Zodiac words do fulfill the requirements of my Voynich Theorem #1, in that they do appear in various contexts in several published works by 1910.

2) The one that does not, meant to be "July", is so indeterminate in spelling, that it is an equal problem for everyone, so, really, a moot point. I would say is such an unknown, that no conclusions or even strong opinions can be formed from it.

3) The fact that we have Occitan, French, German/Swiss origins (and others?) for this set of month names is in itself a sign of possible forgery, as I think it more likely that a forger just grabbed "old month names" and stuck them in there, rather than some diverse group of analysts each giving a guess, or one knowing all these languages, and also doing so. But the danger of using "likely" as a probability fails in that anyone can claim alternate "probabilities"... and do, by the way, all the time. I like to avoid that. So I would say that, given everything else about the willy-nilly nature of the content of the entire Voynich, the anachronisms, the anomalies... that this weights my take on it stronger, as simply another example of a forger who was not consistent, not accurate.

4) I feel that, after doing this exercise, an old phenomenon can be observed, yet again, and it is usually classed under the title, "Looking under Lamposts". In many cases with the Voynich, before doing any sort of research, the believer in 1420 will tend to apply the global filter on themselves, limit themselves, to some time close to 1420. Then they do not search for, and so, do not find, evidence outside their limiting range. And Eggyk I am not speaking of you, or anyone else who does dare to expand their searches. 

In this case, guess what... these words, for the most part, and very plausibly and reasonably could have been seen and used by a 20th century forger, so at the very least, that is NOT off the table.

As another example of this, for the NSA Historical Cipher Conference in 2017, I suggested that it was dangerous to limit one's attempts at decipherment by only looking at those ciphers and systems that they felt might have been used in the 15th century. And I still feel this way... no matter what one believes, they ought to expand their search into areas they don't believe possible, also. Michael Ventris solved Linear B exactly because of this... he was certain it was based on Phonetician, but tried Alice Kober's (sp?) Greek anyway... and it was the answer.

Another thing to realize: Those who insist you limit your own ideas and searches to the 1420 Genuine European Cipher Paradigm have no answers of their own. They do not know when it was made, where it was made, for what purpose, what it says, who wrote it, and what it contains. After over 100 years of sticking to that very rigid and limiting set of standards, I think it is time people broke free of this, and tried some other ideas.

   

[eggyk]

Below is a screenshot of the first couple of "octembre" references look like- but it goes on for several pages like this, with a great many references to the word, between the 18th and the early 20th centuries:

Thanks. Yes, they are the ones I meant. All of the usage in there are quotes from the medieval period. I thought those books were not widely printed given the nature of their content, but I may be wrong. 

As for the octebre examples, other than the few examples of quotes (and I must insist those are buried within hundreds of pages of text so are not readily accessible), most are either smudges that were mis-scanned, or were obscure spelling mistakes. Such as You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., where one 'octubre' in the pages and pages of tables was mistakenly written octebre. I don't think an example like that should count, partly because such mistakes are genuinely niche, would be near impossible to parse out without a digital scan, and probably wouldn't have caught the attention of anyone.

But more importantly, the VMS uses octēbre with a macron, indicating a deliberate and attested shortening of 'octembre'. The only instance of octēbre with a macron that shows up in results is a 2001 david king book about astrolabes... in the context of the of the picardy dialect of french from medieval times. 

That specific book also happens to be the exact book I used to discuss the provenance and usage of the rare astrolabe with 'jong' for june that I talked about in my first reply! We've gone full circle here somehow!

9) But back to the July word: I did a search and found that some think it may be "iullio". IDK, but if so, it is sometimes used as "July", as in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. (also as Pope Julius). This is key, I think, for several researchers have noted that the spelling "iullio" has been found in old manuscripts... which is fine of course, and interesting. But again, it was also in some number of printed books before 1910, and therefore is NOT exclusive to rare old manuscripts or something, and does fulfill the requirements of my Theorem.

10) My best guess would be it is the word "iolloa" or "iollo", and I get nothing valuable.

Based on the internal logic of the handwriting, i'm confident that it is at least 'iolle-' (or 'jolle-'). The e matches the e's in both aberils and in octebre. The last character looks the same as the t in augst, but with the top damaged through the fold in the parchment. It certainly doesn't end with an o, no matter how you look.  

Indeed, julio was extremely common, and I believe i've seen jullio a lot too. But the word in the VMS simply isn't julio or jullio, it's missing the u, i and o. So if what lies in the VMS is jollet, and i'm confident that it is, I would argue that it simply can't fulfill the requirements of the theorem. However, I also can't say to you that it is an attested form from history, either... So as you said, it's a problem for everyone 

But no matter what, it is some form with 'joll--', which I believe also fits the same situation. I haven't found any forms like that either.  

Funnily enough, the cancer depiction -like the jollet below it- has never really been found either. I would imagine that this is the case for later printed works too, but that would take a lot longer to check vs month names. If you ever come across two lobsters connected like pisces, give me a shout!

As another example of this, for the NSA Historical Cipher Conference in 2017, I suggested that it was dangerous to limit one's attempts at decipherment by only looking at those ciphers and systems that they felt might have been used in the 15th century. And I still feel this way... no matter what one believes, they ought to expand their search into areas they don't believe possible, also. Michael Ventris solved Linear B exactly because of this... he was certain it was based on Phonetician, but tried Alice Kober's (sp?) Greek anyway... and it was the answer.

Another thing to realize: Those who insist you limit your own ideas and searches to the 1420 Genuine European Cipher Paradigm have no answers of their own. They do not know when it was made, where it was made, for what purpose, what it says, who wrote it, and what it contains. After over 100 years of sticking to that very rigid and limiting set of standards, I think it is time people broke free of this, and tried some other ideas.

Here, I wholeheartedly agree with you. I have always pushed to consider all time periods and all countries when doing my research, regardless of whether that time period or geographical area is considered relevant to most.  I believe we have been better served by that, learning and uncovering things we otherwise wouldn't have. I also have found many things/trends that I can conclusively say the VMS isn't, which has value too. 

My goal at some point is to track the likely time periods/areas for each of the zodiac sign designs independently from eachother to see if there is consistency. If that turns out to be 1600, it turns out to be 1600. If it's 1300, its 1300. But if it's 1420AD, that would be strong evidence for authenticity, as the forger wouldn't have known the dating of the parchment. They would have to have got very lucky for that to happen.

[Bluetoes101]

This is the problem with people getting more fixated on discrediting someone's theory than they are on objectively evaluating it... they start to see things in the discussion that aren't there.

I get what you are saying, but I feel that if you do not address the base of this theory it is hard to "objectively evaluate" additional parts.
In continuing to address the base theory you seem "fixated on discrediting someone's theory", repeating yourself etc.
I'm not trying to do that, but explain my position, hopefully more on the "objectively evaluate" path.

Visualise the theory as a pyramid with 10 layers. Like a "the food chain" diagram you'd see in school.
The first layer holds the rest up, it is the most important. It's the one I can't make sense of.
I don't think that is an unfair visualisation, the core principle pollutes how we view the blocks therefore placed upon.

In todays expert opinion, the majority call the VMS a 15th century work.
Much of the research and testing on specific parts, we can have a good idea about, also point to the 15th century.
The (logical) modern hoax then, I think it is fair to say - is a very good fake 15th century manuscript that someone made.

However this is not the theory. The theory is that it is a fake 17th century manuscript, later changed to 13th century by removing some parts.
What is left behind then should still point to the 17th century for anyone "in the know". 13th for idiots.
I obviously have some concerns about this, but actually it does not matter for why I can't make sense of the base idea.

This is my main concern - What then is the profile of our hoaxer?
A paradox (I think) - the genius idiot.

With each new topic discussed the hoaxer becomes a greater genius and idiot.
If the example is very well known to be 20th century, why add it?
If the example is very well known to be 15th century, why add it?

Text on the internet can seem very "however you perceive it", right? So I'd just like to say I appreciate everyone's work here.
I don't really care if I disagree with things because usually it adds to my knowledge, and I'm thankful for that. Everyone on the "hoax side" provides great research and in the end hopefully all that research will bring us to a point - the believers and non-believers, someone will end up right, but we will all be somewhere progressed.   

This is just why I personally disengage with the theory, in so-far as replying much.
I can't "objectively evaluate" without seeming "fixated on discrediting someone's theory". The base idea must be regarded. I don't think it is right. So anything else balanced upon it is at best questionable in my eyes.

[proto57]

... more importantly, the VMS uses octēbre with a macron, indicating a deliberate and attested shortening of 'octembre'. The only instance of octēbre with a macron that shows up in results is a 2001 david king book about astrolabes... in the context of the of the picardy dialect of french from medieval times. 

That specific book also happens to be the exact book I used to discuss the provenance and usage of the rare astrolabe with 'jong' for june that I talked about in my first reply! We've gone full circle here somehow!

Mr. Ova Yolk: I didn't want you to think I had walked away from this line of conversation. As I said it is not something I had paid a great deal of attention to, in the past. But you make good points, and I wanted to fill myself in on this whole "month names" story... what everyone else has said about it, what we know, what we don't, and how it affects my own ideas, any everyone's, for better or worse.

I mean it is definitely an issue... I haven't been ignoring because I thought it was an issue, but just because I had not explored it much.

So I have actually been spending a great deal of my spare time in working on this. I have discovered that the reality of the "octēbre" situation is fascinating in its own right. I'm not quite finished, but I'm getting there... I hope. But like many things like this, I've found that what people think they know about it is very different than the reality of it, when you begin to dig deeper and deeper.

In any case, for one thing, that Picard Astrolabe, which of course David King was writing about in 2001. You may know this, already, but I'm not sure... because there are many discussions on the Ninja's and elsewhere, and unless I am wrong... and someone here please correct me because I would like to see ANY examples of octēbre... but there seems to be NO examples of it other than in the Voynich, and engraved on the Picard Astrolabe. None.

What I discovered is that any examples of it are assumed... that is, the form "Octembre" is of course well known but not with the short hand bar for the "em" sound, written octēbre. Apparently, because the bar was not typeset, it was assumed that if you saw "Octembre", that it must have meant a transcriber for print... a typesetter... had seen a manuscript octēbre, and typeset it as "octember", knowing the conventions. But that, while we see many Octembres, I don't think there are actually any known written octēbre's. But I mean this: If I am wrong (I'm still climbing a steep learning curve on these month names), please forgive my ignorance, and point me to it.

Anyway, if that astrolabe was hidden away until 1991, in private collections, then this form was only assumed until then (and the Voynich), but never otherwise seen. Which, if correct, would be pretty freaking incredible. But the thing is, it was not hidden away, not entirely. One owner, Claude Fry, owned it through Voynich's time, and owned it in London. He was an avid scientific instrument and book collector, and let people study the thing.

And so on... not a complete story, I have more digging to do. I'm up to 19 pages of a Word document, and it will probably be several pages longer.

But again, if I am wrong, and in fact, other than the Voynich and the Picard Astrolabe the word octēbre does appear somewhere. I really want to see it, and what work it is in (now I see your interest more clearly, Egg). Although the presence of the astrolabe in London at the time of Voynich does fulfill the Theorem... as London is a place we certainly know he visited, and these men would have certainly known of each other... that is still unsatisfying. I want to know more. There are several examples of this, where the basic requirements ARE met, but other than that any possible connection is still very thin. I mean, I don't want to dust off my hands and walk away... I feel like there is more to this, but what that is, if anything, I have no idea.

   

9) But back to the July word: I did a search and found that some think it may be "iullio". IDK, but if so, it is sometimes used as "July", as in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. (also as Pope Julius). This is key, I think, for several researchers have noted that the spelling "iullio" has been found in old manuscripts... which is fine of course, and interesting. But again, it was also in some number of printed books before 1910, and therefore is NOT exclusive to rare old manuscripts or something, and does fulfill the requirements of my Theorem.

10) My best guess would be it is the word "iolloa" or "iollo", and I get nothing valuable.

Based on the internal logic of the handwriting, i'm confident that it is at least 'iolle-' (or 'jolle-'). The e matches the e's in both aberils and in octebre. The last character looks the same as the t in augst, but with the top damaged through the fold in the parchment. It certainly doesn't end with an o, no matter how you look.  

Indeed, julio was extremely common, and I believe i've seen jullio a lot too. But the word in the VMS simply isn't julio or jullio, it's missing the u, i and o. So if what lies in the VMS is jollet, and i'm confident that it is, I would argue that it simply can't fulfill the requirements of the theorem. However, I also can't say to you that it is an attested form from history, either... So as you said, it's a problem for everyone 

But no matter what, it is some form with 'joll--', which I believe also fits the same situation. I haven't found any forms like that either.  

Funnily enough, the cancer depiction -like the jollet below it- has never really been found either. I would imagine that this is the case for later printed works too, but that would take a lot longer to check vs month names. If you ever come across two lobsters connected like pisces, give me a shout!

I think Koen actually found some lobsters with comparative features: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. But I don't think any linked like pisces... As for the July names, I really can't say one way or the other... I mean, again, it is so indistinct to me that I would not be able to judge any interpretations. I think it is a case of working backwards, by seeing each and every way the word was written, and then looking at the Voynich word in comparison. I suppose people actually do that all the time though, and also without any firm answers.

My goal at some point is to track the likely time periods/areas for each of the zodiac sign designs independently from eachother to see if there is consistency. If that turns out to be 1600, it turns out to be 1600. If it's 1300, its 1300. But if it's 1420AD, that would be strong evidence for authenticity, as the forger wouldn't have known the dating of the parchment. They would have to have got very lucky for that to happen.

Yes but remember... it is not the oldest comparison which dates a work, but the newest. I mean, any forger can draw a 1420 Zodiac on a page tomorrow afternoon, but they can't erase an inked 1600 one (of course they could tear out the pages they were on... wink wink). So you have your work cut out for you!

As an aside, one fun thing I came across was volume 2 of "Petites Heures" by Jean de Berry, which is a treasure trove of writing styles. I found this very "gallows like" set of characters... or whatever they are as used here. Other than this there are maybe three really good examples, including the one in Cappelli:

   

[proto57]

Hi Bluetoes! Since you were framing my theory, I of course wanted to explain a few things about how I see it:

Visualise [Rich's Modern Hoax] theory as a pyramid with 10 layers. Like a "the food chain" diagram you'd see in school.
The first layer holds the rest up, it is the most important. It's the one I can't make sense of.
I don't think that is an unfair visualisation, the core principle pollutes how we view the blocks therefore placed upon.

In todays expert opinion, the majority call the VMS a 15th century work.
Much of the research and testing on specific parts, we can have a good idea about, also point to the 15th century.
The (logical) modern hoax then, I think it is fair to say - is a very good fake 15th century manuscript that someone made.

I disagree wholeheartedly, first of all, that it "is a very good fake 15th century manuscript". We are told this, today, but in the first place, before the C14, most experts didn't think this at all. The only way to think it came from the 15th century is to ignore, or reject on various unscientific grounds, the tremendous amount of evidence that has steered many very qualified people to opinions in the 16th and 17th century, mostly. The only thing actually pointing to 15th century at all is the age of the calfskin, which does not date a manuscript.

What happened was... I was there and watched it unfold... what happened was that once that C14 dating hit the table, a huge effort was made to filter out all the evidence and opinion which pointed in a million other directions.

No, whatever it actually is, it is a really bad example of a 15th century work. It looks little like one (along with a little like a few other things), and really if you look critically at even the supporters of that age it is very apologetic just how many anachronisms and anomalies it has. I think it is an awful forgery, crude and actually a bit cartoonish and silly, like a really bad parody of "What an old herbal should look like". IMHO.

However this is not the theory. The theory is that it is a fake 17th century manuscript, later changed to 13th century by removing some parts. What is left behind then should still point to the 17th century for anyone "in the know". 13th for idiots.
I obviously have some concerns about this, but actually it does not matter for why I can't make sense of the base idea.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There still is much content that points to the 17th century, and until the release of the C14 results many agreed. Think of it: That date alone changed everyone's mind, like the smell of a bakery will wreck one's diet... and it did this on a mostly provably incorrect assumption: That "nobody would use" old parchment! That's it. The pictures in the Voynich didn't change, the construction didn't change, the styles didn't change... so why did the history of herbals and art history magically change to fit the 15th century? It didn't, IMO. It is still what it always was: A work filled with content from several centuries, including the 15th, but also from up to the 18th.

Here is an interesting, imaginative scenario, one which... from my experience... I am sure would happen: Say Greg dropped a bombshell, and said to everyone, "Sorry guys, there was a mistake in the interpretation of the data. The calfskin is actually from about 1604-1638, with a 95% accuracy". In about two weeks, all the opinions would re-align with this new dating. But Rich, HOW can you SAY that??? I can, because I watched it happen once already, in real time. In fact, I was not alone... I point it out all the time, but when the C14 first came out, the new wasn't, as it is claimed today, that "That the experts got it right!"... it was the opposite, that "The experts got it wrong!". It took about two to three weeks to re-write the history of the Voynich for it to match the C14.

So I see no reason why it wouldn't happen again. At least it would resurrect the reputation of the great Charles Singer, and some of his other illustrious scholars. So again, "no"... this did not look like a 15th century work to most experts, until they passed out the C14 colored sunglasses.

This is my main concern - What then is the profile of our hoaxer?
A paradox (I think) - the genius idiot.

He was no genius, but far from stupid, also. I would call him very clever and imaginative, with above all a tremendous sense of human nature... like PT Barnum, maybe?... and a poor forger, and a very poor artist. Such a person as I've read about, who would sometime lie, and mock people, and was not really very ethical, and hated the "bourgeois"... and was arrogant and superior, too.

That is the "profile" I have learned, and envisioned. Paraphrasing his own words, in the end, "By mistake, he gave us skunk".

With each new topic discussed the hoaxer becomes a greater genius and idiot.
If the example is very well known to be 20th century, why add it?
If the example is very well known to be 15th century, why add it?

Well that is the conundrum to any forgery: If it is good enough to fool us, then it makes perfect sense to be in there, because it obviously worked. I mean, I would not have used foldouts, left an armadillo in there, made the binding with flax, or drew semi-fantastical microscopes and plants... but, it worked. In fact, I think, this is why it worked... this eclectic inclusion of so many genres, items, from all ages with all styles... made it pretty much unidentifiable as any one thing, and then, this is why were are here. So "that's why" he added and left those things in there, because, as I said above, he was a good enough judge of character to take the risk it would all work. And he was right.

Well he screwed up in one fundamental way: While he created (I believe he created) a generally unassailable "genuine enough" book, which has fooled many, and still does... he was not good enough to make it good enough to convince anyone to spend the fortune on it that he wanted for it.

Text on the internet can seem very "however you perceive it", right? So I'd just like to say I appreciate everyone's work here.
I don't really care if I disagree with things because usually it adds to my knowledge, and I'm thankful for that. Everyone on the "hoax side" provides great research and in the end hopefully all that research will bring us to a point - the believers and non-believers, someone will end up right, but we will all be somewhere progressed.

Yes absolutely, and I totally agree with you. Even if I am wrong about my own theory, I still would not regret one minute of any of it. I've learned so much about so many subjects of such a wide range, both related to my own ideas and to the ideas of others, all of which I probably never would have had I not dove in here with everyone else.