The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

[proto57]

... more importantly, the VMS uses octēbre with a macron, indicating a deliberate and attested shortening of 'octembre'. The only instance of octēbre with a macron that shows up in results is a 2001 david king book about astrolabes... in the context of the of the picardy dialect of french from medieval times. 

That specific book also happens to be the exact book I used to discuss the provenance and usage of the rare astrolabe with 'jong' for june that I talked about in my first reply! We've gone full circle here somehow!

Mr. Ova Yolk: I didn't want you to think I had walked away from this line of conversation. As I said it is not something I had paid a great deal of attention to, in the past. But you make good points, and I wanted to fill myself in on this whole "month names" story... what everyone else has said about it, what we know, what we don't, and how it affects my own ideas, any everyone's, for better or worse.

I mean it is definitely an issue... I haven't been ignoring because I thought it was an issue, but just because I had not explored it much.

So I have actually been spending a great deal of my spare time in working on this. I have discovered that the reality of the "octēbre" situation is fascinating in its own right. I'm not quite finished, but I'm getting there... I hope. But like many things like this, I've found that what people think they know about it is very different than the reality of it, when you begin to dig deeper and deeper.

In any case, for one thing, that Picard Astrolabe, which of course David King was writing about in 2001. You may know this, already, but I'm not sure... because there are many discussions on the Ninja's and elsewhere, and unless I am wrong... and someone here please correct me because I would like to see ANY examples of octēbre... but there seems to be NO examples of it other than in the Voynich, and engraved on the Picard Astrolabe. None.

What I discovered is that any examples of it are assumed... that is, the form "Octembre" is of course well known but not with the short hand bar for the "em" sound, written octēbre. Apparently, because the bar was not typeset, it was assumed that if you saw "Octembre", that it must have meant a transcriber for print... a typesetter... had seen a manuscript octēbre, and typeset it as "octember", knowing the conventions. But that, while we see many Octembres, I don't think there are actually any known written octēbre's. But I mean this: If I am wrong (I'm still climbing a steep learning curve on these month names), please forgive my ignorance, and point me to it.

Anyway, if that astrolabe was hidden away until 1991, in private collections, then this form was only assumed until then (and the Voynich), but never otherwise seen. Which, if correct, would be pretty freaking incredible. But the thing is, it was not hidden away, not entirely. One owner, Claude Fry, owned it through Voynich's time, and owned it in London. He was an avid scientific instrument and book collector, and let people study the thing.

And so on... not a complete story, I have more digging to do. I'm up to 19 pages of a Word document, and it will probably be several pages longer.

But again, if I am wrong, and in fact, other than the Voynich and the Picard Astrolabe the word octēbre does appear somewhere. I really want to see it, and what work it is in (now I see your interest more clearly, Egg). Although the presence of the astrolabe in London at the time of Voynich does fulfill the Theorem... as London is a place we certainly know he visited, and these men would have certainly known of each other... that is still unsatisfying. I want to know more. There are several examples of this, where the basic requirements ARE met, but other than that any possible connection is still very thin. I mean, I don't want to dust off my hands and walk away... I feel like there is more to this, but what that is, if anything, I have no idea.

   

9) But back to the July word: I did a search and found that some think it may be "iullio". IDK, but if so, it is sometimes used as "July", as in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. (also as Pope Julius). This is key, I think, for several researchers have noted that the spelling "iullio" has been found in old manuscripts... which is fine of course, and interesting. But again, it was also in some number of printed books before 1910, and therefore is NOT exclusive to rare old manuscripts or something, and does fulfill the requirements of my Theorem.

10) My best guess would be it is the word "iolloa" or "iollo", and I get nothing valuable.

Based on the internal logic of the handwriting, i'm confident that it is at least 'iolle-' (or 'jolle-'). The e matches the e's in both aberils and in octebre. The last character looks the same as the t in augst, but with the top damaged through the fold in the parchment. It certainly doesn't end with an o, no matter how you look.  

Indeed, julio was extremely common, and I believe i've seen jullio a lot too. But the word in the VMS simply isn't julio or jullio, it's missing the u, i and o. So if what lies in the VMS is jollet, and i'm confident that it is, I would argue that it simply can't fulfill the requirements of the theorem. However, I also can't say to you that it is an attested form from history, either... So as you said, it's a problem for everyone 

But no matter what, it is some form with 'joll--', which I believe also fits the same situation. I haven't found any forms like that either.  

Funnily enough, the cancer depiction -like the jollet below it- has never really been found either. I would imagine that this is the case for later printed works too, but that would take a lot longer to check vs month names. If you ever come across two lobsters connected like pisces, give me a shout!

I think Koen actually found some lobsters with comparative features: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. But I don't think any linked like pisces... As for the July names, I really can't say one way or the other... I mean, again, it is so indistinct to me that I would not be able to judge any interpretations. I think it is a case of working backwards, by seeing each and every way the word was written, and then looking at the Voynich word in comparison. I suppose people actually do that all the time though, and also without any firm answers.

My goal at some point is to track the likely time periods/areas for each of the zodiac sign designs independently from eachother to see if there is consistency. If that turns out to be 1600, it turns out to be 1600. If it's 1300, its 1300. But if it's 1420AD, that would be strong evidence for authenticity, as the forger wouldn't have known the dating of the parchment. They would have to have got very lucky for that to happen.

Yes but remember... it is not the oldest comparison which dates a work, but the newest. I mean, any forger can draw a 1420 Zodiac on a page tomorrow afternoon, but they can't erase an inked 1600 one (of course they could tear out the pages they were on... wink wink). So you have your work cut out for you!

As an aside, one fun thing I came across was volume 2 of "Petites Heures" by Jean de Berry, which is a treasure trove of writing styles. I found this very "gallows like" set of characters... or whatever they are as used here. Other than this there are maybe three really good examples, including the one in Cappelli: