The Book Switch Theory

[asteckley]

Relying on paleography to assign a manuscript to a time and place (however narrow or broad) is standard practice. You'd be surprised how often the date range provided in library catalogs is based on stylistic analysis of the handwriting alone. The most recent assessment by a professional paleographer (LFD) confirms that the marginalia were written during the (first half of the) 15th century. This is crucial and reliable information.

Well, of course, it is not at all surprising that most historical documents rely substantially—or even entirely—on paleographic analysis. But that is because most historical documents do not present other forms of evidence that contradict the conclusions suggested by handwriting analysis.

Paleography is a valuable and very useful discipline, but it remains a  fundamentally interpretive and therefore subjective process. It differs significantly from hard evidence such as scientific testing, chemical analysis, radiocarbon (C14) dating, or corroborated accounts from multiple witnesses. When such forms of evidence are available, it is not standard practice—it is not even acceptable—to rely paleography if it conflicts with other empirical data.

LFD’s paleographic analysis of the marginalia shows that the handwriting is consistent with the first half of the fifteenth century. That is useful information. Paleography can also support the compatibility of a handwriting sample with a purported author, as has been argued in the case of the Marci Letter. Conversely, it can provide persuasive evidence that a handwriting sample is inconsistent with a particular author, as has also been argued in the case of the Marci Letter. But paleographic conclusions carry limited weight when they conflict with other types of evidence. 

And in the case of the VMS, it is neither "crucial" nor "reliable". It certainly supports the popular 15th-century origin theory and may also support the possibility that the marginalia were written by the original scribes or by someone writing close to that time. But what is “crucial” to?  It is not decisive for the fifteenth-century origin theory, nor does it rule out any theory theory involving later forgery.

The VMS contains several features that appear anachronistic. (Yes -- Yes -- we get that it has a lot of things consistent with the 15th century too.) And some of its content resembles that from later writings and documents—another form of anachronism. The VMS is a singular document in many ways; it's not surprising that what suffices for many historical documents does not do a convincing job for the VMS.

All paleographic evidence has to be considered in the light of what a potential forger would attempt to do. Relying on paleographic evidence is what a forger most hopes. In fact -- and I mean no disrespect to the field of paleography whatsoever when I say this -- "Paleography may be the forger's best friend."