Hi Lisa:
You write, "Thank you so much for these thoughtful and extensive comments. I hope you noticed that I was, and am, very cautious in speaking about the XRF testing on the inks and pigments - I didn't say the inks and pigments ARE medieval, I said they are CONSISTENT with medieval recipes. Certainly those results, and the C14 dating, are not sufficient to absolutely prove that the VMS is not a modern forgery. But there is so much additional physical evidence that needs to be considered. When you consider not only the inks, pigments, and parchment but also the layers of use and provenance and history (missing leaves, Tinapius signature, later foliation, later quiremarks, later annotations, bifolia bound out of order, evidence of multiple bindings, wormholes, waterstains, the Marci letter, and on and on), the idea that the VMS is a modern forgery becomes less and less convincing. It's one thing to convincingly forge ancient writing and illustrations on old parchment, but it's quite another to successfully forge all of the codicological and historical evidence. It's not 100% IMPOSSIBLE, but it is so unlikely as to be ESSENTIALLY impossible."
I did catch that you were accurate in not specifically stating the inks were known to be from the 15th century. But unfortunately the fact that they are consistent with that era is used, in context, with evidence the Voynich was created then. It is and has become part of the cited list of features, which while not at all a part of the evidence for old, is used with the implication that it is. That is the problem with much supposedly supportive evidence: It is by implication, and the implication does not stand scrutiny.
The fact the inks could be mixed at any time after that (which obviates any value for dating) is not mentioned, nor are the various anomalous problems with the ink, mentioned. This leaves the common mistaken impression, by omission, for anyone not doing their own research, that the ink is evidence of old.... when it may actually is not, and may be quite the opposite.
Another "ink issue" which I failed to mention is that the last page marginalia... long considered by a different hand, and from a later date... turned out to be of the same composition as the main text. This makes little sense, and actually implies the marginalia was applied to project the impression another person, other than the author, was working on the Voynich.
As for the other things you mention, some of them are on my list of You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view., but not all:
"When you consider not only the inks, pigments, and parchment..."
As we both agree, the inks could be made and applied at any time after the parchment was made, even up to the time the manuscript was discovered. Voynich was well aware of ink formulas. He was a chemist, after all. And his friend and fellow traveler, O'Reilly (the spy), was even known to taken a book out of the library, describing Medieval inks. And of course, the McCrone report calls the copper and zinc "unusual", and does not explain the titanium compound. Also, they admit they could not identify the gum binder used, as it was not in their database... and the above mentioned problem that the marginalia inks are the same as the main text. There are, on the contrary to the ink tests supporting old and genuine, actual unanswered, and unmentioned questions relating to them. In fact, when I've tried to get these questions answered, Barabe and McCrone redirect my questions to a noted Voynich expert, and they remain unanswered.
The same with the pigments. As for the parchment, it could have come from any time, also, and forgers often use old materials. The fact that the majority of experts chose the wrong time frames for the origins of the manuscript imply that Voynich chose the wrong parchment. Radiocarbon dating had not yet been invented, so how could he? But old vellum/parchment has been long used for forgeries, let alone for very many other uses... and arguably quite available to Mr. Voynich:
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
"... but also the layers of use and provenance and history"
The Voynich Manuscript has virtually no history at all. There is no reliable reference to it, in any pre-1912 source. The letters of the Kircher Carteggio do not come close to describing the Voynich, and could better represent dozens of other works. Nor does the 1665/66 Marci letter Voynich suspiciously claimed to have found in the book. The argument those sources (let alone the very poor 1903 reference) ARE the Voynich are rife with rationalizations and inconsistencies, too long to go into, here. Suffice it to say that the Voynich does not have any history that would properly place it in the world before about 1912.
"... missing leaves... "
I'd be interested to hear how you think the missing leaves support genuine, over any other possible reasoning. I had not heard this. As for the binding, and rebinding, and so on, if one reads the reports in the recent Yale book, one finds that they actually outline many anomalies that work against an "old" dating (see my link, "Rebuttal to Nofake", below).
"Tinapius signature...".
This is not believed to be a signature, and of course it could have been forged and applied there at any time. And Voynich's word on the subject cannot be trusted in this instance, as many of his statements do not make sense. When I discovered the pre-treatment photograph, it was clear that the signature was actually visible to him. And also, there is the question as to why the men of the Carteggio didn't mention this valuable clue... and more. There are so many problems with this, it is in no way reliable evidence the manuscript is old, or genuine:
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
Jan Hurych has a wonderful analysis of the "signature", and more: You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
Edited to add: You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
"... later foliation, later quiremarks, later annotations, bifolia bound out of order..."
I've heard these as supporting argument to genuine, but each and every one of these things could not only have been easily created at any time, by any persons, but are in some cases (in a longer discussion) arguably supportive of modern, and forgery.
"... evidence of multiple bindings, wormholes, waterstains..."
See "Rebuttal to Nofake". When challenged by Mr. Zandbergen's page, which was a rebuttal to my ideas for the most part, it caused me to re-examine the Yale work, in their book. René had been claiming the above was evidence the Voynich is "centuries old", when, in fact, the reports reflect evidence of modern manipulation, at worst, and unanswered questions, at best. They say so, right in that book. So these things that you list are not evidence of a genuine Voynich at all.
Both wormholes and waterstains, etc., are often faked, and often fool experts. And also, these "wormholes" actually have problems... as listed in my rebuttal, linked below.
"... the Marci letter..."
I note that in these pages, in various comments, the Marci letter continues to be used as supportive of a genuine Voynich Manuscript, and an honest Wilfrid by implication. But that letter and its aspect are quite the opposite, and the questions surrounding it should have called this whole affair into question long ago. So in order to use this as evidence of genuine, and old, one must ignore these problems, or dismiss them on shaky grounds.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
Do you think the Marci letter genuine, or do you suspect it may not be? I would be interested if you have been aware of the above problems with it... the Voynich story about it, the Latin problems, the fold problems, the seal placement problems, and more. Or, if you are aware of those things, how you would explain them, in a context of a genuine letter?
"... the idea that the VMS is a modern forgery becomes less and less convincing. It's one thing to convincingly forge ancient writing and illustrations on old parchment, but it's quite another to successfully forge all of the codicological and historical evidence."
Well of course we disagree. I think that, when the evidence is all included, when the "codicological" evidence does not have the tremendous number of anomalous observations by literally hundreds of people, over a hundred years, being either ignored, or dismissed on flimsy grounds, and when it is realized there really is no hard evidence to place the manuscript before 1912, it is a "one two punch" to genuine.
But my overall point to all this is, again, this: The baseline for the investigation should not be, as it almost always seems to be, "What old genuine thing is this?", but rather, "What thing is this?". For anyone who seems to be based in the former, it can never be seen clearly; for anyone I've found who begins, or arrives, at the latter, they often realize this is probably not real, and probably not old at all.
My rebuttal to "nofake", which covers more ground: You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
Thank you for the discussion... and stay safe in our presently infected world.
Rich.