Expert Opinion

[Mark Knowles]

as you would say this person should be able to read and identify the Voynich.

But I would ask, while I have you, would you consider a book cataloger an "expert on the Voynich"? Because on my list of pre-C14 experts, all are now off the list except for Lehmann-Haupt, book cataloger.

As for Lehmann-Haupt, his credentials, career, experience and work are clearly outlined in his Wikipedia page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellmut_Lehmann-Haupt

It is really impressive. I won't copy the whole thing here, it is unnessarary. For the sake of my question, and your wanting to know more before answering my question, I've linked it. He is mentioned two times in D'Imperios, on 2.3.4, where he opines on a southern Italian origin. As for his opinion on dating of the Voynich, that is recalled on 2.4.2, "Helmut Lehmann-Haupt (bibliographical consultant to H.P. Kraus) stated in a letter to Tiltman dated 1 November, 1963, that, there is a near agreement on the date of the CIPHER manuscript as around, or a little after, the year 1400".

As for, "Have you consulted relevant specialists on forgery? If you had a number of specialists in forgery who endorse your analysis I for one would find that persuasive."

A few things about that: No, I am not aware of the specific qualifications of those individuals who have and/or do believe the Voynich is a modern forgery, as I do. But you see, your asking that is another example of the use and misuse of expert testimony. I mean, of dozens of experts (specialists, knowledgeable, however you describe them) believe the Voynich is of a half-dozen other years of origin than you do, and they do, then wouldn't any such specialist who believed the Voynich a modern fake be similarly dismissed?

For instance, to use poor Charles Singer again, you would argue that, although he is a specialist in the History of the Herbal and the history of medicine, and more, he was wrong in his dating and origin for the Voynich. I mean, you believe the Voynich is over a hundred years older than he did.

Do you see my point? It is this same issue again, playing out, again. The use and misuse of experts, to fulfill a preconception. On the surface, your request seems in the line of, "If the right person tells me the Voynich is a forgery, then I will think it is a forgery". But the right people have told you a great many things other than what you and others think it is, and all have been rejected. Some pretty amazing people... whom we are now to believe are not "experts" in their fields, nor the Voynich.

So what, exactly, would be the point? Wouldn't you... and again, you have every right to do so, as you do for me, or anyone else... to judge their opinions on your own standards? What would you need to see from this person to know that it is a forgery? I would say, "what more" would you need? Not sure if you understand me here, but that is an important point: Your request, compared with how so much opinion has been given, from so many capable people, tells us that "qualifications" are not really what is being sought.


Well that was (necessarily) wordy, to make this point, spurred by your suggestion that if a forgery "specialist" agreed with me, that this was a modern forgery, then you might agree.

what this hypothetical forgery specialist could show you, that would convince you?

Anyway, now that Lehmann-Haupt, his background and Voynich geography and dating opinions are revealed, what would you think about his input? Do you accept it, or reject it?

Thanks, Rich.

My reason for dismissing certain people is not, because of their conclusions, but because on the basis of their specific qualifications they cannot be said to be specialists in dating the Voynich. Newbold had an excellent academic record, but he qualifications made him little better qualified to date the Voynich than the layman. So I would not dismiss experts on forgery if they had the relevant specialism on the subject. If for example if they were a specialist in identifying biblical forgeries they may not have the skills to identify medieval manuscript forgeries. You list some people as experts who I think are nothing of the kind that is my reason for excluding them.

I have read the Wikipedia page for Lehmann-Haupt. He clearly has an impressive CV. Whether he has the knowledge to be reliable at dating the Voynich is another question. I would have to know more. It would also be useful to know his argument for his dating. To me his associating the manuscript with Southern Italy is concerning as I think other opinion is more inclined to associate it with Northern Italy or Central Europe. It may have been a lucky guess on his part or he may have had a well reasoned argument for it; I don't know.

I should say in all honesty I doubt many of those people you cite as experts are experts and more importantly I don't think you really listen to them anyway as they have come to quite different conclusions from you. To the extent that you do listen to them, it is very selectively; observing a lack of consensus on dating and on that basis making the logical leap to the manuscript being a forgery. In fact the overwhelming consensus now and in the past appears to be that the Voynich is not a forgery, so why pretend that you are really listening to those people you fundamentally disagree with. The only thing I think one can say with confidence is that there has been a lack of consensus amongst academics and laypeople about many aspects of this manuscript that sadly is not an endorsement of any specific theory.