The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

[proto57]

Poxleber as a word is only recorded in literature after 1500.

But 'poxleber' is a marginalia, you need to assume it was written by the original author of the VMS for this to be relevant.

Well you know it was written by the "original author", or one of them, right? The 2009 McCrone tests revealed that this last page marginalia, with a possible "Pox Leber", is written in the same ink as the main text of the Voynich. This find obviates the previous contention that this marginalia was written "In another hand at a later date", analyzed by some to be at least 150 years later.

This fact, and as JAT points out, it was only recorded after 1500 (long before the Voynich, this was an issue with scholars, wondering where Hans Sacs derived his seemingly original spelling from, for Bocks Leber). I made a list of problems in my blog post, "Inking Pox Leber", from 2015: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

After looking at all the evidence I could find, I concluded we had these choices:

"1) It’s not “pox leber”
 2) It is “pox leber”, but the phrase may have existed early enough for the C14 range
 3) I’m reading the ink report of McCrone wrong
 4) McCrone must have information they did not reveal, which will show the ink is not the same
 5) I’m reading it right, but ink always looks similar enough to be deemed the same
 6) “So what?” if the Voynich author also penned the f166v marginalia? They just decided to use a different style and characters
 7) Nobody ever said the marginalia was added later, anyway, and don’t look…"

Here is my take on it, in the big picture: It is yet another of hundreds of problems for the Voynich which we must dismiss using varying standards of acceptance and dismissal, many contradictory to one another, and even hypocritically applied, and each of which, alone, if it stands, is a very strong indicator that the Voynich is either forged, or new, or both. I mean, it's not just Pox Leber and its ink, or the plump women, or the microscopic looking stuff, or the foldouts, or various characters, or the materials in the binding, or the irreconciablable descriptions in the letters, or the animals and the "fantastical" plants, or or or or... it goes on and on, in hundreds of discussions, each, like these, attempting to explain all these anomalies and inconsistencies and anachronisms and more...

... I mean, each time these elements are argued, one must keep in mind the big picture, and remember one has hundreds of such problems, all in one manuscript, to deal with. And, if any one of them cannot be explained... they all have to be... if even one stands, well, "You Know What".