Hi René:
"... you probably also consider that the 1903 reference to the Voynich MS is presented as "evidence" that it is genuine."
No, that was not said nor implied by me. Whether it is genuine or not is irrelevant to this issue, and was not my point. What I did say, and do still contend and stand behind, is simply this: Your opinion that the 1903 reference actually refers to the Voynich Manuscript, is fine for you to propose, as long as people understand it is your personal opinion only, and that it is based on very slim evidence: That the reference
does not specifically describe the Voynich over any other vellum 15th century manuscript, and there is no evidence it does. And therefore, to state it as fact in the Yale book is wrong, and damages the field of Voynich research, because as I also demonstrate, your comment in the Yale as fact has been picked up as fact in ensuing press, blogs, forums, and so on.
The Yale people relied and rely on you, that what you say is a fact, is indeed a fact and not your personal speculation. And more importantly, that you will relate the problems the Voynich has, with provenance, content, imagery, etc.. They cannot all go to sources, and learn the details. And I use this particular incident to show others how damaging this is, and relate it to past, similar incidents by others, going back to 1912. Much of what people here, and everywhere, think are known facts about the Voynich, are not at all... and often based on slim to no evidence, and even, in some cases, can be shown to be outright false.
My struggle is making anyone aware, who is interested in knowing, is just how far they have been led down the primrose path.
But I note that you are not addressing this issue, specifically, in your rebuttals above. This is why I came here: You mentioned me, my blog, and then used to make a vague generalization about how it, "... made me realise how little is know about progress on this particular topic." Well René, with all respect, my point is that progress is halted, and then reverses, when opinions and practically baseless speculations are claimed to be factual, in respectable works like the Voynich Yale book, by respected researchers, such as yourself. So to:
I wrote, "… and of course, as to be expected, the unwary Raymond Clemens, in his talk circuit, has possibly been adding the myth to his repertoire."
Well he seems to be, since the website announcing a talk of his clearly states that the Voynich was listed in 1903. But I was not at the talk, so (as I said on my blog, which you didn't quote) I don't know. Was anyone on this forum in attendance? Did he? If he did, it was not his fault, as I point out. I'm not blaming him.
But anyway, you wrote that my comment "... is not being factual, and I consider it offensive to [Clemens] who has forgotten more about medieval books than you (or I) will ever know."
I highly respect the past works of Raymond Clemens, and have used as a reference, for years, my copy of You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. (the copy of which, by the way, I brought to the Voynich book announcement at Yale, and had him also sign). And I often use his very own book to understand the Voynich itself. And I was very proud to have a conversation with the man at the Beinecke wine and cheese, standing by the Voynich (behind glass, wouldn't do to spill wine on it). The problem is, Mr. Clemens cannot have spent the time with the Voynich that you nor I or others have, or know the vast amount of minutia that one needs to acquire to form any realistic personal opinions of it.
So he, like millions of others,
must trust others to give him a complete, unbiased, truthful, factual, picture of the Voynich, so that when he signs his own name to that book, he knows that the contents of that book will reflect the standards he himself has long upheld. He needed to trust that when a fact was stated in that book, such as your assertion that it was the Voynich listed in that 1903 reference, that such a claim was backed up by the very same standards he himself upheld in his own career and work.
And it was not. And that is my point. It was not a slight against Clemens to point that out, and you know it was not. It was a reflection of the danger of having wild speculation slip into a respected journal, stated as fact.
Just how much Clemens was unaware of the many problems and anomalies of the Voynich was stunning to me, in our brief discussion... How many times he repeated, "I didn't know that", I could not count. No, not his fault of course. He did not have ten nor twenty or more years to learn all that you and I did... but certainly, he should have been given a complete and unbiased overview of the Voynich... he clearly was not. No, I don't blame him, I respect him highly.
To morph my criticism of the book (my copy, proudly signed by him) into a criticism of him, is inaccurate, and unjust.
But that is a deflection, by you, here... blaming the messenger. But what else could be done? To resolve the real issue would be for you to explain why you know, for a fact, as you stated in the Yale book, that the Voynich was the work being referred to in the 1903 reference, and you and I know that is impossible. It was unfounded, it is damaging to have done so: that is my only point, and I stand by it.