Pisces a dragon??

[bunny]

I think it is very likely a genuine 15th-century manuscript.

I still keep open the possibility that it is a 16th-century manuscript on old parchment and intended to express early 15th-century ideas, text, fashions, etc., (perhaps a copy of an early 15th-century manuscript????), but I am doubtful that it could be any later than 16th century.


The various notes added to the VMS are all in styles that were prevalent in the 15th century, as are the quire numbers. I base this on over 10 years of collecting and studying scripts that are similar to the scripts in the VMS.


The folio numbers could be anytime from latter 15th century to 17th century, but are mostly likely 16th century (this style of numbers was used for about a century and a half).

The trouble with it being like so many other examples is that it is like SO MANY other examples, and yet not quite right in the details of any, more like a mishmash.  It is almost as if elements had been pulled from many sources as examples of what would expected to be seen but not quite done right.  This is the kind of thing seen with various historical documents, manuscripts maps etc that have had their genuineness questioned that look as though they should be right for the era but not quite so.  Parachronism, prochronism and intentional anachronism may be at work.  As far as I understand it was posessed by Voynich, the parchment has been C14 dated, the cover determined to be goat skin, beyond that I believe no further statements of fact can be made or have I missed something?

Bunny