01-05-2024, 06:45 PM
Andrew,
in case there were an argument about whether any page in the Voynich MS was written by a left-hander or a right-hander, you have two more or less equivalent positions, in terms of likelihood. Both can be called theories, or hypotheses, I suppose.
The question between genuinely old or modern fake is a completely different situation. Considering it a fake is a highly exceptional position, which requires some convincing evidence before it can even be considered. I am quite surprised to see you use the term '15th century theory'. This is not a theory, it is the default.
It has been strongly reinforced by all the tests that did not show any unusual substances.
About the Marci letter, in addition to Lisa's response, indeed, there are quite plausible reasons why Marci would not mention Barschius' name, but we don't know for certain, and guesses cannot be used to draw any further conclusions. Just to point out that it would be equally unusual for a faker to leave out the name. This whole question has no impact on anything.
If the Marci letter were radio-carbon dated, would that change anything? Already the dating of the MS itself is not stopping Rich from advocating his Voynich-faked-it theory.
The fact that almost all the sources confirming the information in the Marci letter is correct were in a completely sealed-off collection, not accessible to Voynich, and way too large to just stumble upon it, is also completely ignored.
Can you at least agree that Voynich never had this information? Honest and serious question.
The evidence presented by Rich, that the letter should be a fake is the observation that it has too many (or unusual?) folds.
It is the same problem again: if this is unusual for an original, it is also unusual for a fake.
Basically, this is a complete non-sequitur.
The fact that it has multiple different folds does not lead to the conclusion that it is a fake.
We don't know how Marci folded it when he sent the letter to Kircher.
Someone (perhaps the Jesuits) folded it such that it just fitted inside the MS, perhaps attached to the inner front cover.
Voynich may have carelessly refolded it, and so may Kraus.
That it is genuine is shown by the fact that the handwriting is the same as in a contemporaneous letter from Marci that only became available to non-Jesuits after 1930.
in case there were an argument about whether any page in the Voynich MS was written by a left-hander or a right-hander, you have two more or less equivalent positions, in terms of likelihood. Both can be called theories, or hypotheses, I suppose.
The question between genuinely old or modern fake is a completely different situation. Considering it a fake is a highly exceptional position, which requires some convincing evidence before it can even be considered. I am quite surprised to see you use the term '15th century theory'. This is not a theory, it is the default.
It has been strongly reinforced by all the tests that did not show any unusual substances.
About the Marci letter, in addition to Lisa's response, indeed, there are quite plausible reasons why Marci would not mention Barschius' name, but we don't know for certain, and guesses cannot be used to draw any further conclusions. Just to point out that it would be equally unusual for a faker to leave out the name. This whole question has no impact on anything.
If the Marci letter were radio-carbon dated, would that change anything? Already the dating of the MS itself is not stopping Rich from advocating his Voynich-faked-it theory.
The fact that almost all the sources confirming the information in the Marci letter is correct were in a completely sealed-off collection, not accessible to Voynich, and way too large to just stumble upon it, is also completely ignored.
Can you at least agree that Voynich never had this information? Honest and serious question.
The evidence presented by Rich, that the letter should be a fake is the observation that it has too many (or unusual?) folds.
It is the same problem again: if this is unusual for an original, it is also unusual for a fake.
Basically, this is a complete non-sequitur.
The fact that it has multiple different folds does not lead to the conclusion that it is a fake.
We don't know how Marci folded it when he sent the letter to Kircher.
Someone (perhaps the Jesuits) folded it such that it just fitted inside the MS, perhaps attached to the inner front cover.
Voynich may have carelessly refolded it, and so may Kraus.
That it is genuine is shown by the fact that the handwriting is the same as in a contemporaneous letter from Marci that only became available to non-Jesuits after 1930.