my suggestion about the author of MV

[Anton]

Well I did not say exactly it's not true, what I mean is that I think truth is less likely to be lying in that direction and that there should be some underlying methodology in approaching the VMS provenance. Different researchers pursue different threads, and that's perfectly OK, the more people are involved and the more lines of investigation they work through, the sooner the VMS puzzle will be solved.

But with gradually reading more through the forum you will find out that many things were discussed in the past with good arguments, and referring to that really saves a lot of effort. Many things have been already done. Many things have not.

[rasiratros]

Well I did not say exactly it's not true, what I mean is that I think truth is less likely to be lying in that direction and that there should be some underlying methodology in approaching the VMS provenance. Different researchers pursue different threads, and that's perfectly OK, the more people are involved and the more lines of investigation they work through, the sooner the VMS puzzle will be solved.

But with gradually reading more through the forum you will find out that many things were discussed in the past with good arguments, and referring to that really saves a lot of effort. Many things have been already done. Many things have not.

Are there significant facts to believe that the author lived in the 15th century and did not use drawings from books in 16th (clothing)?

[Koen G]

Agrippa lived and worked in Cologne. From the current border with the Netherlands it is 50 km. At that time it was one country.

You're right that Altkölnisch would have been closer to Middle Dutch than Middle High German is, but I read it still had High German influences. And the page you posted is really just Dutch - I'd be very surprised if this was the dialect from Cologne. Probably Helmut can confirm.

[Anton]

Are there significant facts to believe that the author lived in the 15th century and did not use drawings from books in 16th (clothing)?

I'd say there are no significant grounds to believe the contrary. That's what the Ockham's razor is about: "frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora".

If one presents such grounds by unveiling some new facts in confirmation or, perhaps, by revealing that the "15th c theory" has some inherent contradictions, then, of course, that would be quite a different thing.

[-JKP-]

...


Are there significant facts to believe that the author lived in the 15th century and did not use drawings from books in 16th (clothing)?

1. Exemplars that are most similar to the VMS zodiac figures are mostly late-14th and 15th century (I've posted maps to show location and time periods, numerous others have posted examples and specifics).
2. Clothing fits very closely with the zodiac symbols (I've posted articles on tunics and hats, and Koen has posted research specifically on the time period for the overall fashion styles).
3. Radio-carbon dating indicates c. 1404 to c. 1438.
4. The 116v text is consistent with early 15th century scripts (I base this assessment on locating and comparing more than 1,000 similar scripts).
5. The quire numbers are consistent with late-14th-century and 15th-century numeral styles.
6. The labels added to the zodiac figures are harder to assess because there are so few words, but they are probably mid- or late-15th century.
7. T-in-O diagrams died out when people became more familiar with the rest of the globe and with magnetic compasses and were pretty much gone by the mid-16th century.

Those are the ones I can think of quickly while I have a short (very short) lunch break.

[bi3mw]

As far as I remember, according to the McCrone Research Institute report in 2009, the ink was added not long after the vellum was made. Some say, however, that this information is not correct. Unfortunately, the report is no longer available online.

[ReneZ]

There is no statement in the McCrone report (I have a full copy) hat the ink was added not long after the vellum was made.

This statement was unfortunately made during a press briefing (at which I was present) by a representative of the Austrian TV (ORF). It is, however, not based on any scientific analysis.

At the same time, it is a highly reasonable assumption.

Only the summary report was published on-line by the Beinecke library before. It is indeed no longer there, but this looks like a 'standard' web re-organisation.  If I find it again, I will post the link here.

[Anton]

Unfortunately, the report is no longer available online.

Why, it is: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

[bi3mw]

@Koen: You are definitely right, the text is in Latin and Dutch. This is also noted in the description of MS517.

28.ff. 202v-251v Miscellaneous alchemical, chemical, magical and technical receipts and notes, in Dutch and Latin

As far as I know Agrippa von Nettesheim did not write in Dutch. So it's definitely no work by him. There remains only the possibility of a translation.
I found only one hint that in the 17th century a work was translated into Dutch. ( Joachim Oudaen ) [1]. One can not find references to previous translations, neither printed nor handwritten. Of course, that does not mean that there are none. Especially because of the location Cologne.

[You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.] Dutch Culture in a European Perspective: 1650, hard-won unity by Willem Frijhoff, Marijke Spies, Page 37

[nablator]

Are there significant facts to believe that the author lived in the 15th century and did not use drawings from books in 16th (clothing)?

I'd say there are no significant grounds to believe the contrary. That's what the Ockham's razor is about: "frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora".

If one presents such grounds by unveiling some new facts in confirmation or, perhaps, by revealing that the "15th c theory" has some inherent contradictions, then, of course, that would be quite a different thing.

There is considerable quantitative evidence (shifts and jumps in glyph n-gram statistics, autocopy, LAAFU, PAAFU, entropy, ...) that the text is not what it appears (superficially) to be: written in an unknown but not-too-weird natural language. If the VMS is inherently deceptive about the nature of the text, either because it is strongly coded or encrypted (an anachronism in the 15th century), or because it represents something else than language, then everything else prima facie about the VMS (an otherwise unremarkable herbal/astrological/medicinal manuscript) including its apparent age is probably nothing but deception and misdirection too. It would be inconsistent to go through the effort of creating a unbreakable system for the text and then label objects and give precious hints about the subject in illustrations, giving researchers a "low hanging fruit" to attack.