I'm not going to wait too long, will send out the questions this afternoon. Here's what we got so far:
1) To what extent do you follow Voynich-related publications? Is there a chance you might publish something about the Voynich manuscript at some point in the future?
2) Do you think a more traditional herbal manuscript was used as a source for the Voynich plant images? If so, are there any indications for the type of manuscript that could have been used?
3) In your talk of 14 October, you say that the poor application of colors in the VM suggests that it is not an iatrosophion. Does this include later medieval notebooks such as family handbuchs? Did you just use the term iatrosophion as an illustration, or do you see any Greek influences in the VM?
4) For many people, the most surprising part of your talk was your considering the possibility that the VM could be a forgery, including Rich SantaColoma's theory that Voynich himself made the manuscript. In discussions about the VM, terms like "fake" and "forgery" are often used with different meanings. It can be a medieval document that pretends to be something it is not. It can be a forgery made relatively close to the 15th century carbon dating of the vellum (16th, 17th centuries) or it can be "modern", forged around the time Voynich supposedly discovered the manuscript - possibly by Voynich himself. When you say the VM could be a forgery, which of these options do you think is most likely, and how certain do you feel about this?
If you want any question added or my phrasing changed, please let me know!
1) To what extent do you follow Voynich-related publications? Is there a chance you might publish something about the Voynich manuscript at some point in the future?
2) Do you think a more traditional herbal manuscript was used as a source for the Voynich plant images? If so, are there any indications for the type of manuscript that could have been used?
3) In your talk of 14 October, you say that the poor application of colors in the VM suggests that it is not an iatrosophion. Does this include later medieval notebooks such as family handbuchs? Did you just use the term iatrosophion as an illustration, or do you see any Greek influences in the VM?
4) For many people, the most surprising part of your talk was your considering the possibility that the VM could be a forgery, including Rich SantaColoma's theory that Voynich himself made the manuscript. In discussions about the VM, terms like "fake" and "forgery" are often used with different meanings. It can be a medieval document that pretends to be something it is not. It can be a forgery made relatively close to the 15th century carbon dating of the vellum (16th, 17th centuries) or it can be "modern", forged around the time Voynich supposedly discovered the manuscript - possibly by Voynich himself. When you say the VM could be a forgery, which of these options do you think is most likely, and how certain do you feel about this?
If you want any question added or my phrasing changed, please let me know!