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

[proto57]

As for Lisa, she told me that, long ago, before C14 dating, she knew right away, that it was and is obvious to her, that this is an early 15th century document. Perhaps she meant it was difficult for others? If you are reading this, Lisa, it would be better than Mark and I trying to define your views on this. But when I personally asked you this, at the Malta conference, my understanding from your answer was that this was "clearly" an early 15th century manuscript, and that this should not be a difficult answer to come to.

I've stated my thoughts about this on many occasions, but I will do it again. The fact that the date and place of origin of the VMS cannot (yet) be precisely determined is not even remotely surprising nor is it unusual. Look at any medieval manuscript description or online record. Many will give only a century, or a range of fifty years, or just a question mark. Place of origin is usually a nation or region, rarely a city or specific community. Such attributions may change as more evidence comes to light or as more experts weigh in. This is what I do for a living. My job as a descriptive manuscript bibliographer is to examine the evidence and try to zero in more precisely on a date and place of origin. I do this every time I look at a manuscript that hasn't been carefully studied or attributed, and I have studied hundreds, if not thousands, of medieval codices and leaves over the last thirty years, following and researching the evidence to narrow the attribution from, say, France to Amiens, or from the fifteenth century to, say, the third quarter of the fifteenth century. These conclusions are based on stylistic comparisons to manuscripts that DO have a known date and place of origin, as well as evidence of authorship, artistic style, scribal work, and/or early ownership.

Hi, Lisa- Thank you for clarifying your views on this. The reason I was asking, is because... you may remember... I asked you this question after the Malta Conference,

"Considering that the overwhelming majority of pre-radiocarbon testing experts dated the Voynich in much later decades and even centuries than the C14 results showed, how influential was that dating on your opinions about the script? That is, would you, if there was no C14 dating, have come to the same opinions you hold, or rather come to an earlier or later date of origin?"

And you answered me that, long before the radiocarbon dating, you clearly knew that the Voynich was an early 15th century manuscript. So your current position is that it would actually not be clear, and not be the case that is so easily determined of this, nor any manuscript. That is is normal. But then doesn't this call into question almost the entire basis and identity of the Voynich AS an early 15th century manuscript?

I mean, it has been repeatedly argued to me, by many, and written about and described, a definitely having been created within from ten to maybe 30 years of the death of the calves used to make it. In fact, the very basis for "combining" the 50 to 60 year range of C14 sample results was because it was "assumed" it was penned and inked within ten years. But now we don't know that?

Please understand why I find this all interesting, if not perplexing: I see arguments for age and authenticity made on mutually contrary standards: When I point out the anachronistic evidence noted by a great many people, I'm told that "we know" this evidence is incorrect, because the Voynich is early 15th century. But when, on the contrary, my argument turns to "What about all the pre-C14 experts who identified the content as spreading over centuries, from the 13th to the 17th?", the answer is "this is normal in all manuscripts", to explain their confusion as ordinary, and not concerning.

And I've also been told, by you and others, that C14 doesn't have anything to do with it, but then, also, been told that C14 is the deciding factor which affirmed the (one or two) experts who thought it was. So in light of this, I'd have to ask the question, again, this way, "If it is ordinary for manuscripts, including this one, to cause such confusion as to age and origin, and since there was such confusion before C14, and not so much, after, doesn't this actually imply that C14 dating has been the over-riding deciding factor to the determination of early 15th century, and not the opinions, which did not say this?"

It looks to me as though the standards used to define the age of the Voynich vary, according to the counter argument presented to the 1420 paradigm.

The most prolific medieval author is named Anonymous. Most manuscripts have so far been assigned only a very imprecise date and place of origin. It does not follow that the authenticity of manuscripts without a clear date and place of origin should be questioned. Because it is not possible to prove absolutely that something is authentic, the burden of proof rests on the science to prove a manuscript is NOT authentic.

First of all, you have adding in a defining variable of authorship (with the introduction of the "anonymous" condition), which would, of course severely limit the number of described manuscripts. It is accepted that a great many manuscripts are anonymous, that is not argued here. But I disagree with you on the normal problems, and lack of them, with identifying the age, origin and content of most manuscripts. It does not take an expert to see the many cases of both real and forged manuscripts, and see that in the case of authentic ones, they understandably, logically, have fewer problems, if any, and stick to thier era and geographic origins far better than forgeries... or the Voynich.

But I see in this claim another attempt to "normalize" the Voynich, by claiming the very problems with it are normal in the world, when I have seen that they are anything but.

Therefore, I will always start by accepting that an object is what it purports to be unless I or someone else can prove otherwise. As I have stated on many occasions, there is absolutely nothing about the VMS that I find suspicious in terms of its authenticity as a fifteenth-century object. On the contrary, everything about the manuscript's physical and material properties supports the conclusion that this is a fifteenth-century object. If evidence surfaces that truly contradicts that presumption of authenticity, I will be very happy to revise my opinion.

Well that is another point I often demonstrate: It is said in discussions such as these, as you now, there is nothing out of the ordinary. But then when we go back and look at the actual, first impressions, the actual expert feedback, the impressions first given are anything but ordinary. It is of course an innocent effect to first see these things, but then filter them out later, when trying to define the Voynich as "ordinary". i can cite countless example of this, but you have done it, too. In your Welesley lecture, you noted many of them: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

- You called the Rosettes foldout pages, “Completely inexplicable”.
- For the quires, folio numbers, stitching, and such, and over and over you described how “odd” things are: The order, the reorder, and so on. For instance, you said, "You're not supposed to go back and forth by nested bifolia… that’s just STRANGE” It’s WRONG. It’s not how it’s supposed to work”
- When asked, in the questions section, "Does it looks like other books?", the end of your answer was,"... as for the Zodiac section, if they really are calendrical, nobody really knows to interpret them. But no I don’t know of any other manuscript that has this particular combination”.
- When asked, “How unusual is it to have no punctuation?”, you answered, “It’s extremely unusual. We would expect to see punctuation. To see capital letters- in a Western language, certainly, and so it’s not clear whether the lack of punctuation is… if it’s encoded, part of the coding process. The same for the quote-unquote “capital letters”: Is that part of the encoding? Is that part of the way that the language has been recorded? Maybe. I don’t know. But you would absolutely expect, in this period, to have punctuation and capital letters. It is a very unusual feature."
- Pointed out that the quire numbers are probably 15th century, but that the, “… the foliation [page numbers] is probably 17th century”

That is a sampling from this one lecture, showing that you are not alone in noting the many problems with the Voynich, which are "unusual" for the supposedly known era it is claimed it was created in. Even in your recent talk with Koen, you noted the similarity between the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. root, and the symbol for the Holy Roman Empire (I've queued to just before your noting this): You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

And that video, too, is full of observations as to just how odd, and unusual, and unexpected all the plants are. Later, in other discussions, it is described as an ordinary, run of the mill herbal, just like any other from its time.

As I said, you are far from alone in this. Everyone does this. This effect is prolific, because the reality is that the Voynich is simply sick with anomalies, anachronisms, inconsistencies of style, talent, content, and does not compare well with anything else on the planet. We all know this. We can all speculate on different reasons this is... you know mine. But the thing that is so interesting about it, to me, is just how all these observations disapear in discussions in which the opposite claim is being made: That the Voynich is just a plain-jane ordinary genuine manuscript which is obviously early 15th century. No, it isn't, and the fact it isn't is constantly noted by everyone... until they are talking about how "ordinary" it is.

And it is not just in these lectures and such we hear of these anomalies, which later are ignored. It is everywhere. The McCrone ink report describes "unusual" copper and zinc, and a binder "not in their library", among other anomolies, which they suggest be further tested... they never were, and they never get mentioned. It is said instead, wrongly, that "there was nothing unusual about the ink". You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. As you note, yourself, th Yale team likewise noted oddities and anachronisms in the materials and construction of the Voynich. Often they are described, then rationalized on some basis... but they are described. I have many of them, here, but my favorite quote from that book is this,

"The quantity and size of the foldouts in the Voynich Manuscript are very unusual for the time period; it is rare to find so many large pieces of parchment folded into a single textblock, and this seems to indicate authenticity: In the twentieth century it would be quite difficult to find this many large sheets of genuine medieval parchment in order to produce a forgery."

So that is a case in which a "very unusual", as in anachronistic feature, is noted, but is immediately dismissed on arguable terms. But note something here: It is obvious from the disclaimer that the writer was well aware that these "very unusual for the time period" foldouts are evidence of forgery. They realized it, they were thinking it, and they wrote it down... and then, felt compelled to counter it, immediately. I would, could, and have argued why this spin is incorrect, but that is not the point here:

The point is that in any discussion of forgery vs. genuine, this constant claim crops up, over and over, to defend old and genuine: That there is nothing unusual, anomalous, anachronistic, odd, whatever, in the Voynich... when past discussions, statements and writings, often by the very same people, reveal that this is not at all a correct reflection of what they have actually observed, with their own two eyes. But later, they are never explained, satisfactorily, if at all, and usually simply not mentioned again.

Rich.