(16-04-2021, 01:30 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Well, this is just a personal observation, but if you jump from a position of the VMS being a modern "fake" (or whatever word you prefer) and then start adding medieval examples, then it either erodes your current argument or it makes it look like you are unsure and hedging your bets without overtly coming out about it.
I don't agree with this at all, and I think you will understand why when I point this out: Of course a modern fake (or any construction at all) can have "medieval examples" in it. Fakes can be copied and/or influenced from any time before they were created, at the whim of the faker. Why would it only have those examples copied from just before it was made? Why should those be the only ones I point out?
"Hedging my bets"? Why? As I see it the Voynich has many influences from all eras, why would I leave them out? They are often ones that people on these forums think are very good, and I think they are very good, also... like Koen's lobster. I do agree that the VMs lobster (crayfish, whatever) is most likely copied from the sources Koen and the rest believe they are probably copied from. And my hypothesis includes such medieval comparisons also, just as the 15th century genuine theories do.
There is no "hedging of bets"... and I admit you now have confused me with these issues. The Voynich is, I believe, a modern compilation of illustrations from a great many sources, a great many times, copied and interpreted in some exact, and many imaginative ways. It was created to give the illusion of being an old compendium, and as such it will include illustrations from many eras. There is no logical reason I can conceive why I should stop as some date backwards, and not include illustrations before that date. Voynich didn't. They are there.
Think of it this way... in these images contemporaneous, or pre-dating, your timeline, we have agreement. I think that is nice, don't you? Welcome me here! I'm agreeing... I often agree... with many of the great discoveries and observations genuinists make.
(16-04-2021, 01:30 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
So... putting that aside, because that's a personal impression, and approaching this in a more academic and pragmatic way... if you are going to include examples like Koen's example, then in order to be consistent you have to add the hundreds of other medieval examples (some on these threads, some on blogs) that are excellent representations of the imagery in the VMS, otherwise we cannot be sure exactly what your point is.
Well you are welcome to approach discussing and supporting your hypothesis in any way you deem fit, of course. But I feel, first of all I am quite pragmatic, and at the same time choose not to spend my time listing somewhere each and every illustration that I and hundreds of others have found. First of all, it would be a pointless exercise, as no image before 1908 affects my theory in a negative way, as a 1908 forger can of course copy anything in it from the first Neanderthal cave art, to Christmas 1908.
Secondly, although no image detracts from my theory, as above, the more I use actually strengthen my argument for the reasons I stated earlier in this thread, and weaken genuine*. My point there is that I am not sure why you want me to list them, when I don't need to, and it only makes the case for genuine/old thinner and thinner.
Anyway, I appreciate the suggestion, but I will continue to explain my hypothesis in the way that I find most descriptive, and add image comparisons as I feel necessary.
Rich
* That one of the great, and constantly increasing problems for the 1420 Genuine Paradigm IS the constantly increasing mass of likely sources, which come from a very wide range of eras, artists, scribes, disciplines, and geography. This is because it becomes increasingly unlikely that a 15th century scribe or scribe had access to all these sources. And at the same time, it becomes increasingly likely that a modern person, such as a scholar or bookseller, who would have had access to all these sources due to modern ability to travel, combined with the mass of material in print by then, would have had access to all of them, to copy and serve as influences.
This is in fact why genuine literature and art from all eras up to the modern one tend to have a very consistent content and style, and why forgeries are inconstant, with anachronisms and other anomalies. The former usually can't; the latter, can. The Voynich is admittedly a mess of all eras, all disciplines, with art styles of all types, ranging throughout Europe, with possible influences from almost the entire globe. It is a glaring example of this phenomenon. Almost every discussion among genuinists, of these sources, self-consciously discusses this problem, but only in through the prism of old/genuine: Each time this happens, it creates a conundrum. A great example are the comments on Koen's crayfish post, in which the discussion is mostly about "how?" did the Voynich scribe see this? Or did he/she see a copy of it? But it was so old... but the copies are rare, and so on. It is a problem, in the context of genuine/old, each time, which rarely gets satisfactorily explained, or must be rationalized in convoluted ways. But gets worse when pulling back, and looking a the vast corpus of great comparisons all at once. The problem is frankly insurmountable. These 15th century scribes would have had to have been very mobile, which they were not. Or they would have had access to some vast, historically unknown collections, which they did not.
Or, far more simply, a modern era, 1908 person, with piles of books from all over the world stacked like the walls of a fortress around them, and even had access to trains, and even cars, to rapidly visit the libraries and collections of Europe, therefore having access to all the sources observed in the Voynich.