14-07-2021, 11:30 AM
Hi proto57, just wanted to say I followed your link in order to find out what the heck you were talking about, and I found your forgery argument very compelling in many respects. I'm surprised it isn't pinned because newer members such as myself should be able to see the more comprehensive theories without having to stumble upon them by accident.
I actually believe the ostensible history of the VMS is so full of questionable characters (particularly those surrounding Rudolf's court), that it could have been forged at any time over a 600 year period. My personal fave would be it was produced as a joke on Kircher, in line with another prank played on our erstwhile Egyptian hieroglyphic decipherer.
But your Voynich 1910 theory makes a lot of sense, and I loved your list of the top ten reasons to suspect a forgery, and how Voynich's discovery fits in neatly to that list. I also really appreciated seeing the actual carbon dates on the actual pages. Your suspicion that people thought, from the flat carbon dating of 1404-1438, that the vellum was all from one source and matched up datewise is very true in my case.
So your theory joins my very small, open list of "most plausible".
That said, it wouldn't be much fun if your theory were true, obviating the need for analysis or discussion really, so I will continue as a "1420 genuinist" for now, always leaving the date open however. Just wanted you to know I appreciated your well-researched and well-stated arguments.
I actually believe the ostensible history of the VMS is so full of questionable characters (particularly those surrounding Rudolf's court), that it could have been forged at any time over a 600 year period. My personal fave would be it was produced as a joke on Kircher, in line with another prank played on our erstwhile Egyptian hieroglyphic decipherer.
But your Voynich 1910 theory makes a lot of sense, and I loved your list of the top ten reasons to suspect a forgery, and how Voynich's discovery fits in neatly to that list. I also really appreciated seeing the actual carbon dates on the actual pages. Your suspicion that people thought, from the flat carbon dating of 1404-1438, that the vellum was all from one source and matched up datewise is very true in my case.
So your theory joins my very small, open list of "most plausible".
That said, it wouldn't be much fun if your theory were true, obviating the need for analysis or discussion really, so I will continue as a "1420 genuinist" for now, always leaving the date open however. Just wanted you to know I appreciated your well-researched and well-stated arguments.