New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"

[proto57]

Hi René!

Just to stay away from all the speculation, there is one important error in the graph, and there are two interesting omissions.



The error is with Panofsky, whose range is shown as 1510 (blue) - 1520 (orange).

However, his first assessment after seeing and handling the MS in the 1930's was: 1410-1430
Some 30 years later he gave a new assessment, 1470 or 1510 - 1520. The correct range from all this is not 1510-1520. It is 1410 (blue) - 1520 (orange).

I disagree with you on this, René: Well, yes, as I stated in my post, Panofsky's first opinion, on his brief, two hour visitation with the VMs, was 1410-1430. And yes, on further thought, consideration, what have you, he changed his opinion to 1510-1520. So I don't agree that it would be correct to spread his entire history of opinion on this in order to incorporate his first opinion of dating... he changed it, so his earlier opinion should be dropped. I think he made it clear, in his later assessment, as quoted in D'Imperio,

"Were it not for the sunflower [as identified by O'Neill]... I should have thought that it was executed a little earlier, say about 1470. However, since the style of the drawings is fairly provincial, a somewhat later date, even the first years of the sixteenth century, would not seem to be excluded. I would not go lower than ca. 1510-1520 because no influence of the Italian Renaissance style is evident. The above date is based on the charter of the script, the style of drawing and on such costumes as are in evidence on certain pages. For example folio 72 recto [probably referring to the costumes in the Gemini representations]."

The first interesting omission is Richard Salomon, who stated: "it was written in the 15th century, possibly as late as 1450, possibly earlier in the century"

So that would deserve a bar of 1420 (blue) - 1450 (orange).

I had trouble finding Salomon's opinion, and it does not appear in D'Imperio (although other observations he made are in that book). I think you may be quoting, not Salomon, but Anne Nill's recollection as to what Salomon told her in person.

But that is a fair observation, second hand or not... I also trust Anne Nill's recollections... and so, "possibly earlier" could reasonably be construed as bringing 1450 back to the C14 date range. I'll make a note on my blog reflecting this.

The second omission is interesting in a very different way, but Rich may not have these details. 
Theodore Petersen had written to one of his contacts in the Vatican (A. Strittmatter), who consulted the respectable Mgr. August Pelzer about Roger Bacon in general, and Voynich's Bacon MS. Petersen had sent along some photostats. 
The answer came:

"You will be interested also to know that in the course of our first conversation Msgr. P. remarked: 
"Die Voynich HS ist sicherlich nicht von Bacon. Sie stammt aus dem späten 16. oder frühen  17. Jhdt, höchstwahrscheinlich aus der Tschecho-Slowakei oder aus Polen." As I understand it, he considers the drawings representative of interests utterly alien to Roger Bacon."

The German part means: The Voynich MS is certainly not by Bacon. It dates from the late 16th or early 17th century, most probably from Czechoslovakia or Poland.

This could rate as probably the worst of all estimates, from a respectable expert.
Of course, he did not see the MS. Only some B/W photos.

So considering our disagreement over Panofsky's date range, Richard Salomon's hitting the C14 squarely, then Pelzer's thinking much later, the modifications to the tally are somewhat a draw. Basically, respectfully, I would say my point still stands: The overwhelming majority of experts and expert opinions, pre-C14, placed the possible date of origin for the Voynich decades to centuries away from what those radiocarbon results give for the calfskin.

Here is another thought I've had about this, over the years... and, I think, it goes to the most important lesson here, which is also in my post, but not touched on: Imagine for a moment if the case was reversed: If the majority of experts actually gave a date range of, say, 1400 to 1450. That is, that the content DID actually match the C14 range? Of course... and rightly so... a case for authenticity would have further evidence in its favor. For one to think the Voynich may be circa-1910 as I do, then, I would have to consider it a great coincidence that the "right" parchment "happened to be chosen" by my imagined forger.

And that would be true. So in that light, consider the other point I make in my blog: According to the majority of the experts, the "right" aged parchment was not chosen. That is, it is exactly the blind choice of materials we would expect a pre-radiocarbon test age forger to make. That is a key point here... as the winnowing of the list of experts had/has, really, this one goal: To make the list short enough to include only those experts with opinions close enough to the C14 dates, in order to then (improperly, illogically) claim that the "right" parchment was chosen, and done so, pre-C14, thus showing it was not a forgery... because a forger "couldn't have known".

No, the right age parchment was not chosen. It cannot be claimed that it was. I wanted to add that, because it has been overlooked by the commenters here, so far, and I think it is probably one of the most important points to acknowledge.

Rich.