16-08-2016, 03:54 PM
Koen,
this is in principle not impossible. However, it is possible to come up with scores of similar scenarios, all of which have in common that there is no evidence for any of them. It is speculation.
Now speculation is great fun. I've done it and I'm still doing it.
But one thing I took away from the many times I have been able to talk with professionals is that they don't go into speculation a lot. When confronted with a speculative question, the answer is at the very best: "could be".
I can give a concrete example from a couple of years ago. I had been looking through many of the German MSs in the Heidelberg library, to find if there was any where the handwriting was similar to that on f116v. At the time, the best guess for the date of the MS was still 1460-1470 (Panofsky and Toresella). The most similar handwriting appeared to me to be from around 1440. Of course, having no expertise, this was just a visual thing, and I asked someone with expertise (I can't remember who it was). He basically said, "could be, not certain".
(I still think that this should be taken up by someone, by the way).
Some scenarios appear non-controversial, for example if they fit with typical scenarios for other manuscripts.
Some scenarios are, I don't know, 'unusual' for lack of a better word. All proposed solutions need some evidence
of course, but for the more unusual proposals, stronger evidence will be needed in order to convince people.
The problem is of course that the Voynich MS is unusual.
I have seen several different arguments related to that:
- It is unusual, so it is probably a modern fake
- It is unusual, so it isn't European
- It is unusual, so its author probably was unusual (i.e. mentally abnormal in some way).
Now, really, the drawings aren't *that* unusual. JKP wrote that too and I agree with him. If one looks closely at the plant drawings and those in contemporary herbals, one sees a lot of common elements.
From all the real experts who have looked at the MS over the years, I am not aware of anyone who indicated a doubt about a generally European origin. (The Talbot and Tucker paper is of course an exception, but it is finding no acceptance as far as I know, and I well remember Touwaide's indignation when he spoke about that paper).
The names of some of these experts have been mentioned many times, but there are several more that I met in Washington in 2014.
Putting it all together.... there are lots of good reasons why the Voynich MS, though a bit unusual, is a European MS from the early 15th C or the middle of the 15th C. The castle with the pronounced crenellations, the oak-and-ivy illustration, and others are clearly contemporary elements.
A direct descendance from a source of more than 1000 years before is a very challenging suggestion, and seems at odds with basically all expert opinions. Arguing for it will require very solid points.
this is in principle not impossible. However, it is possible to come up with scores of similar scenarios, all of which have in common that there is no evidence for any of them. It is speculation.
Now speculation is great fun. I've done it and I'm still doing it.
But one thing I took away from the many times I have been able to talk with professionals is that they don't go into speculation a lot. When confronted with a speculative question, the answer is at the very best: "could be".
I can give a concrete example from a couple of years ago. I had been looking through many of the German MSs in the Heidelberg library, to find if there was any where the handwriting was similar to that on f116v. At the time, the best guess for the date of the MS was still 1460-1470 (Panofsky and Toresella). The most similar handwriting appeared to me to be from around 1440. Of course, having no expertise, this was just a visual thing, and I asked someone with expertise (I can't remember who it was). He basically said, "could be, not certain".
(I still think that this should be taken up by someone, by the way).
Some scenarios appear non-controversial, for example if they fit with typical scenarios for other manuscripts.
Some scenarios are, I don't know, 'unusual' for lack of a better word. All proposed solutions need some evidence
of course, but for the more unusual proposals, stronger evidence will be needed in order to convince people.
The problem is of course that the Voynich MS is unusual.
I have seen several different arguments related to that:
- It is unusual, so it is probably a modern fake
- It is unusual, so it isn't European
- It is unusual, so its author probably was unusual (i.e. mentally abnormal in some way).
Now, really, the drawings aren't *that* unusual. JKP wrote that too and I agree with him. If one looks closely at the plant drawings and those in contemporary herbals, one sees a lot of common elements.
From all the real experts who have looked at the MS over the years, I am not aware of anyone who indicated a doubt about a generally European origin. (The Talbot and Tucker paper is of course an exception, but it is finding no acceptance as far as I know, and I well remember Touwaide's indignation when he spoke about that paper).
The names of some of these experts have been mentioned many times, but there are several more that I met in Washington in 2014.
Putting it all together.... there are lots of good reasons why the Voynich MS, though a bit unusual, is a European MS from the early 15th C or the middle of the 15th C. The castle with the pronounced crenellations, the oak-and-ivy illustration, and others are clearly contemporary elements.
A direct descendance from a source of more than 1000 years before is a very challenging suggestion, and seems at odds with basically all expert opinions. Arguing for it will require very solid points.