03-04-2024, 05:47 PM
Hi, Koen:
You relate two of the many reasons experts and their opinions are dismissed, and I don't necessarily disagree with either of them. But we do have a wide range of experts, with many very targeted skills and experience, the vast majority of which didn't think the Voynich was circa 1420. If the "right" expert... a "better" one, such as you describe, was brought on board... a specialist in medieval dress as you say... would THAT expert have declared "definitely 1420"? Maybe, we can't know. But I also tend to think that the dress of the medieval era was somewhat considered by the art historians, and experts in the history of the botanical and herbal, and so on. And if they had better copies? I don't know if that was the case... some saw the original, others were privy to the good B&W film strips. I believe those would be sufficient. Besides, until the 2009/10 C14 announcement, there were already some pretty good copies... and experts in medieval dress, for that matter... and still there were no experts thinking "circa 1420"... or, few, if any.
So yes, we can tinker with the list, and conditions over the years, and access, and blame the lack of expert support for 1420 on those. And that is what has been done, and that is one of the major points of my post.
Well, like everyone... but to a far, far lesser extent... I do not agree with each and every point made by every expert, past and future. I don't agree with some of the points of Tucker and Janick, and actually have had long... and pleasant... email discussions with Mr. Janick (and others on these subjects). He knows I disagree with him on several points, including the one you mention. But even if that signature is there, if Janick is correct, it does not alter the possibility that the Voynich is a modern fake... at all. Many fakes/forgeries/hoaxes are (falsely) signed. Even the Voynich! JK... sort of.
Why would Wilfrid make a Mexican (Meso-American) work, then try to sell it as a Roger Bacon? I don't think he did. What I do think happened was that he was creating a manuscript to look as though it came from the Court of Rudolf II, as per his faulty perception of that court which he learned through one of his favorite books, "Follies of Science in the Court of Rudolf II". The inclusion of New World plants, animals, and other features, would have been quite appropriate for such a work, as there was a great fascination for all things New World in the early 16th century. Rudolf's "Kunstkammer" was filled with plant samples, animals (armadillo!), and artifacts from the Americas. The Bolton book mentions many such things, as studied by Horciciky, who as you know, "signed" the Voynich.
I believe that this first iteration of the Voynich... circa-1909/10... didn't "pass muster", for one thing. And there was a growing media "buzz" about Bacon, as his 700th birth anniversary was fast approaching (1914). I think it possible that the rebinding and loss of pages happened for this reason: To "erase" most of the more "Rufolfesque" content, and "make it" pass as a Roger Bacon. Just a theory, but to explain "why"... to answer your question, in my opinion.
Related posts on these subjects:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(23-03-2024, 09:20 PM)Koen G wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The only conclusion one could have drawn before the carbon dating was that people seemed to have had a hard time agreeing on a dating for the MS. If they had brought on board someone specialized in medieval dress, they would have certainly pointed to the first half of the 15th century.
What was the background of the people offering date ranges for the MS, and what were those assessments based upon? A look at a few black and white scans? A specific part of the MS? All of these things matter.
You relate two of the many reasons experts and their opinions are dismissed, and I don't necessarily disagree with either of them. But we do have a wide range of experts, with many very targeted skills and experience, the vast majority of which didn't think the Voynich was circa 1420. If the "right" expert... a "better" one, such as you describe, was brought on board... a specialist in medieval dress as you say... would THAT expert have declared "definitely 1420"? Maybe, we can't know. But I also tend to think that the dress of the medieval era was somewhat considered by the art historians, and experts in the history of the botanical and herbal, and so on. And if they had better copies? I don't know if that was the case... some saw the original, others were privy to the good B&W film strips. I believe those would be sufficient. Besides, until the 2009/10 C14 announcement, there were already some pretty good copies... and experts in medieval dress, for that matter... and still there were no experts thinking "circa 1420"... or, few, if any.
So yes, we can tinker with the list, and conditions over the years, and access, and blame the lack of expert support for 1420 on those. And that is what has been done, and that is one of the major points of my post.
Quote: As for your support for Yanick and Tucker, I am greatly confused. They claim that "the Voynich is a 16th century codex associated with indigenous Indians of Nueva España educated in schools established by the Spanish". If I recall correctly, they even had an author in mind, a 16th century painter known for his work decorating churches.
I just don't get it. Why would Wilfrid Voynich make something that looks like it is made by Mexicans and then try to sell it as the Roger Bacon cipher manuscript?
Well, like everyone... but to a far, far lesser extent... I do not agree with each and every point made by every expert, past and future. I don't agree with some of the points of Tucker and Janick, and actually have had long... and pleasant... email discussions with Mr. Janick (and others on these subjects). He knows I disagree with him on several points, including the one you mention. But even if that signature is there, if Janick is correct, it does not alter the possibility that the Voynich is a modern fake... at all. Many fakes/forgeries/hoaxes are (falsely) signed. Even the Voynich! JK... sort of.
Why would Wilfrid make a Mexican (Meso-American) work, then try to sell it as a Roger Bacon? I don't think he did. What I do think happened was that he was creating a manuscript to look as though it came from the Court of Rudolf II, as per his faulty perception of that court which he learned through one of his favorite books, "Follies of Science in the Court of Rudolf II". The inclusion of New World plants, animals, and other features, would have been quite appropriate for such a work, as there was a great fascination for all things New World in the early 16th century. Rudolf's "Kunstkammer" was filled with plant samples, animals (armadillo!), and artifacts from the Americas. The Bolton book mentions many such things, as studied by Horciciky, who as you know, "signed" the Voynich.
I believe that this first iteration of the Voynich... circa-1909/10... didn't "pass muster", for one thing. And there was a growing media "buzz" about Bacon, as his 700th birth anniversary was fast approaching (1914). I think it possible that the rebinding and loss of pages happened for this reason: To "erase" most of the more "Rufolfesque" content, and "make it" pass as a Roger Bacon. Just a theory, but to explain "why"... to answer your question, in my opinion.
Related posts on these subjects:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.