proto57 > 19-11-2017, 08:14 PM
(19-11-2017, 06:18 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I would consider the possibility that the VMS might be a 16th-century forgery intended to look like a 15th -century or late-14th-century manuscript.
But a modern forgery? The person would have to have centuries-old materials, centuries-old knowledge, a year of free-time, AND would have be completely bonkers to include so many hundreds of minute and unnecessary details. Forgeries are created for some kind of gain (usually monetary). Those specific kinds of details not only are not profitable, because they are time-consuming, they aren't even the kind of thing that would pop into the head of a forger.
Take, for example, the tiny notches on the blue fan-wheel in the cosmo section. Not a detail found in other manuscripts and not the least bit necessary for a forgery to seem genuine, and definitely not the kind of detail that would appear necessary or even within the imagination of most forgers to include.
Or the great quantity of similar small-plant roots. You could cut the number of plants in that section by 40% and still pass it off as a genuine plant section. A forger wouldn't draw the root of the aquatic lily-like plant with every detail of the leaf scars or scales. That just wasn't done in the 15th century, and thus would be an unnecessary waste of time... unless it was by someone who knew and loved plants who really WANTED to record these fine points.
Maybe someone added blarney-text to drawings that were already there. It's posssible. I don't think it's what happened, but it's possible. Are the drawings forgeries? I think it's unlikely. Why would a forger choose the more rare depictions of Sagittarius and Scorpio? Wouldn't that attract suspicion, if you consider that it doesn't increase the value of the manuscript? Why would they drawn 30% more nymphs than would be needed to get the idea across? Why the anatomically incorrect animals? Why laboriously draw so many nymphs around the zodiac animals when half as many would do (or when sheer patterns would do since that's how it was frequently done in the middle ages)?
The VMS shows many signs of being a labor of love. Forgeries generally are not.
Anton > 19-11-2017, 10:11 PM
Quote:I understood from the moderator team here that they tend to agree with the good rule of not dragging issues from forum X into forum Y (in this case here).
Quote:That sounds like a plea for censorship. I can imagine you do not find it convenient having hard questions following you around the 'net. I've avoided it for the most part, and only came here to set the record straight on my relationship and opinion of the Beinecke. But isolating unanswered questions to "forum X", and then not ever addressing them, or incorrectly answering them, on "forum Y" might be helpful to keeping people in the dark, but it does not help further the investigation.
voynichbombe > 20-11-2017, 12:12 AM
-JKP- > 20-11-2017, 09:21 AM
(19-11-2017, 08:14 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.And many of these points can be used for the converse, such as "Why the anatomically incorrect animals?", or "rare depictions" of the Zodiac, or whatever- well a genuine work can have them, but error, anomalies, are actually another red flag of forgery.
proto57 > 20-11-2017, 03:52 PM
proto57 > 20-11-2017, 04:05 PM
(20-11-2017, 09:21 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(19-11-2017, 08:14 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.And many of these points can be used for the converse, such as "Why the anatomically incorrect animals?", or "rare depictions" of the Zodiac, or whatever- well a genuine work can have them, but error, anomalies, are actually another red flag of forgery.
They are anatomically incorrect, or unusually expressed, in very specific ways that would not come into the mind of a forger or benefit a forger in any way.
Absolutely no one draws two crayfish for Cancer and it would take longer for a forger to add the extraneous one, more time and energy and less profit. You will have a very hard time convincing me that this specific kind of addition is a flag of forgery, especially when some of these additions are thematically consistent with one another.
There are other examples, but this gives the basic idea of what I mean.
R. Sale > 29-11-2017, 01:06 AM
Diane > 07-12-2017, 04:59 AM
Quote:Absolutely no one draws two crayfish for Cancer
-JKP- > 07-12-2017, 06:28 AM
(07-12-2017, 04:59 AM)about Diane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.-JKP-
Could you explain a little more about
Quote:Absolutely no one draws two crayfish for Cancer
I'm not quite sure if I understand what you mean here. Is that "nobody does that today", or "no-one (so far as you know) ever did in medieval Europe"? Also when you speak of drawing did you mean to say that the practice might have occurred in other media?. I suppose you wouldn't have meant that nobody ever did so, anywhere.
Also, are you speaking from personal experience, or is that something I may have missed in Dekker or in Dolan etc.?
If I quote you, I'd like not to misinterpret. Thanks
.