24-08-2019, 12:26 AM
A more important thing comes to mind. The You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.describes the 1404 - 1438 period as terminus post quem and terminus ante quem for the manuscript. These dates are of course based upon the infamous You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..
I agree that this describes the terminus pq for the manuscript (the parchment cannot have been made earlier, excluding a carbon dating error). But it is not the termius aq for the manuscript, only for the death date of the parchment animal - which is a very different thing.
Now I think the German underneath describes this, but it still isn't the terminus aq. According to the timeline, the terminus aq would be .. 1608*? When the provenance starts, as the manuscript could have been penned at any time between 1404 and it's appearance at sale in 1608.
(*sale date not know - this is only the earliest date at which de Tepenec's signature could have been inscribed).
I agree that this describes the terminus pq for the manuscript (the parchment cannot have been made earlier, excluding a carbon dating error). But it is not the termius aq for the manuscript, only for the death date of the parchment animal - which is a very different thing.
Now I think the German underneath describes this, but it still isn't the terminus aq. According to the timeline, the terminus aq would be .. 1608*? When the provenance starts, as the manuscript could have been penned at any time between 1404 and it's appearance at sale in 1608.
(*sale date not know - this is only the earliest date at which de Tepenec's signature could have been inscribed).
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)