- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
New video: "Is the Voynich Manuscript fake?"
- New video: "Is the Voynich Manuscript fake?"
-
RE: New video: "Is the Voynich Manuscript fake?"
Koen G > 23-11-2024, 10:01 PM
Diane pointed out to me that I should have included Panofsky and in retrospect I think she's right. The reason why I omitted a lot from my initial draft is that I wanted to limit the length of the video: it is much better that the audience watches 90% of a compact video, than 30% of a comprehensive one.
We only have a few brief and relatively informal statements from Panofsky about the VM. Upon first seeing the actual MS, he was basically spot on: 1410-1430. Note that my preferred range as expressed in the video fits within Panofsky's initial assessment: 1410-1425. So this could have been added to strengthen my point.
I didn't though, because for some bizarre reason, Panofsky then decided to change his opinion to something much more vague, explicitly influenced by botanist O'Neill's sunflower. I could not have added all this to the video without making it 10 minutes longer and that was not possible (I also scrapped a whole bunch of other things).
I frankly do not understand why Panofsky had good intuitions at first, but then decided to go along with the sunflower fantasy. Diane believes that certain societal factors were at play, which is certainly a possibility. But I simply don't know. -
RE: New video: "Is the Voynich Manuscript fake?"
R. Sale > 23-11-2024, 11:06 PM
The simplest explanation seems adequate. If the sunflower controversy is the point of contention, then it is either accepted or rejected. Accepting "New World" evidence obviously required a change in the chronology.
This whole bit about 'expert opinion' only goes to show that these evaluations are not what they were hyped up to be. And given that the VMs can be demonstrably shown to be disguised and duplicitous, all the more reason that such opinions have been rendered irrelevant, except as a historical remembrance.
Various investigations seem to indicate an artistic 'frame of reference' in the first part of the 15th C.
If the VMs artist was WMV, with his claim of a Roger Bacon manuscript, then he has knowingly or unknowingly included anachronistic material that would render his proposal false (and he never mentions it), he has also included minor details that would be supportive (and he doesn't mention that either.) -
RE: New video: "Is the Voynich Manuscript fake?"
ReneZ > 24-11-2024, 01:17 AM
(23-11-2024, 10:01 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Diane pointed out to me that I should have included Panofsky and in retrospect I think she's right. The reason why I omitted a lot from my initial draft is that I wanted to limit the length of the video: it is much better that the audience watches 90% of a compact video, than 30% of a comprehensive one.
...
I frankly do not understand why Panofsky had good intuitions at first, but then decided to go along with the sunflower fantasy. Diane believes that certain societal factors were at play, which is certainly a possibility. But I simply don't know.
I think it was a good choice to concentrate on Hellmut Lehmann-Haupt. Beside Panofsky, Richard Salomon (Panofsky's mentor) was also spot on, so whom to pick? In the case of Lehmann-Haupt, his credentials were well presented and I am not so sure that Panofsky would have been 'the better expert'. On top of that, HLH includes the statement that this opinion is shared by many.
With so much supporting evidence you necessarily had to cherry-pick and present only the most appropriate for the video.
I do agree that, most probably, Panofsky decided to trust the opinion of a herbal expert. It certainly would have been uncomfortable to publicly disagree with him. He may not have been all that certain of his first impression too. It really is not usually possible to pinpoint the date of a historical item to within a few decades. -
RE: New video: "Is the Voynich Manuscript fake?"
Rafal > 24-11-2024, 11:58 AM
I'd just like to say that I liked this video a lot and it's convincing for me that Voynich Manuscript was made in early 1400s.
If I could suggest something, could you make a similar video about the possible country of origin of the manuscript?
I realize that things become much more uncertain here but a lot of serious people suggest northern Italy or Switzerland
(which is the same region) and I have never seen a single source that would give all arguments for that location. -
RE: New video: "Is the Voynich Manuscript fake?"
Koen G > 24-11-2024, 12:45 PM
(24-11-2024, 11:58 AM)Rafal Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If I could suggest something, could you make a similar video about the possible country of origin of the manuscript?
I will probably do this in one of the months after Voynich Manuscript Day in August. For reasons. -
RE: New video: "Is the Voynich Manuscript fake?"
proto57 > 29-11-2024, 03:55 PM
(23-11-2024, 10:01 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.We only have a few brief and relatively informal statements from Panofsky about the VM. Upon first seeing the actual MS, he was basically spot on: 1410-1430. Note that my preferred range as expressed in the video fits within Panofsky's initial assessment: 1410-1425. So this could have been added to strengthen my point.
I didn't though, because for some bizarre reason, Panofsky then decided to change his opinion to something much more vague, explicitly influenced by botanist O'Neill's sunflower. I could not have added all this to the video without making it 10 minutes longer and that was not possible (I also scrapped a whole bunch of other things).
I frankly do not understand why Panofsky had good intuitions at first, but then decided to go along with the sunflower fantasy. Diane believes that certain societal factors were at play, which is certainly a possibility. But I simply don't know.
Hi Koen: But when we look at the statement by Panofsky, we can see that what you surmise is clearly incorrect. You say, "Panofsky then decided to change his opinion to something much more vague, explicitly influenced by botanist O'Neill's sunflower."
Here is Panofsky's actual statement, as related in the Mary D'Imperio book, "Were it not for the sunflower which, if correctly identified, would date the manuscript after 1492, I should have thought that it was executed a little earlier, say, about 1470. However, since the style of the drawings is fairly provincial, a somewhat later date, even the first years of the sixteenth century, would not seem to be excluded. I should not go lower than ca. 1510-1520 because no influence of the Italian Renaissance style is evident."
Yes, he did... in his revised opinion... mention the O'Neil sunflower identification. But then he clearly states, with his "however", that the sunflower was NOT the overriding, nor even a considered reason, at all, why he did revise his final opinion to 1510-1520. It was both because he realized "... the style of the drawings is fairly provincial", then cementing this observation, he hones his opinion range "... because no influence of the Italian Renaissance style if evident."
Now of course you and others have every right to dispute the final opinion of Mr. Panofsky, that is not the point. We all have the right to any opinion at all. But we don't have the right to the facts of the matter, and these facts are exactly what Mr. Panosfky's opinion ACTUALLY was, and why he felt that way:
1) His first opinion hit the eventual C14 dating on the head. This was after a cursory, two hour first examination.
2) He later changed his mind. I say again, he changed his mind... to 1510-1520. He had every right to do this, we all do, I do, change my mind. It is wrong and unfair to erase the man's informed opinion, and claim that only his first opinion should be regarded. I mean, disagree with his final opinion if you like, but it was his final opinion, and that should be, fairly and ethically, reported as his true opinion. We all have the right to change our opinions, and our revisions should be respected.
3) He didn't change his opinion based on the O'Neil's sunflower identification. If anything, in his quote he tells us that the sunflower was a sort of "back up", an "oldest possible date" (of 1492). But then, when looking at what he actually said in its entirety, we note that regardless of O'Neil, he STILL would not go earlier than 1510. I mean, the logical structure of his final statement on the matter means that in NO WAY is the sunflower ID responsible for his 1510-1520 expert opinion.
4) Although it has no bearing on the final, true opinion of Panosfky, of course you or anyone is welcome to reject O'Neil's sunflower and pepper identifications. But O'Neil actually told us that, "The most startling identification… …was folio 93, which is quite plainly the common sunflower. Helianthus Annuus L. Six botanist have agreed with me on this determination. This immediately recalls the date 1493, when the seeds of this plant were brought to Europe for the first time (by Columbus on his return from his second voyage). Again folio 101v shows a drawing which does not resemble any native European fruit, but suggests plainly Capsicum, a genus strictly American in origin, known in Europe only after the above date… …It seems necessary to consider this manuscript as having been written after 1493."
Italics and bold mine, of course: The thing is, you are not just rejecting the opinion of O'Neil, but also his "six botanists" who agreed with him. And also, many who came later, including the eminent Tucker and Janick, who added to the sunflower and pepper with up to 200 other plants which they felt were meant to be New World in origin. So even if Panofsky DID rely on the sunflower ID alone... which, as anyone can see, he did not... then one would have to argue with a long list of qualified botanists who did. In incorrectly tying Panofky's last to O'Neil, you are actually rejecting a full EIGHT expert in one fell swoop in that case, and a great many more, in addition!
Now my correction here is not to argue for the sunflower, nor any plant, specifically. My point is to once again demonstrate how your argument, or for that matter, any argument for a circa 1420 Genuine European Cipher Herbal (or some slight variation on that theme), is an article of Mass Rejection... the majority of qualified experts must be removed; the final opinion of Panofsky must be removed, and on a demonstrably incorrect basis; bad provenance, and even counter provenance must be accepted; anachronisms in content, style and physical construction, even those by the Yale team(!!!) must be rejected; several "unusual", unexplained, and finds needing further testing must be "assumed" to be incorrect; invented provenance, such as the 1903 and Wildman references, must be declared factual; the actual situation involving the true access to the Letters of the Carteggio must be re-written to avoid the reality of possible access by Voynich himself; and even the very history and base nature of Wilfrid Voynich needs to be cleansed to portray him as a changed soul, who supposedly shifted from a lying schemer to a respectable member of the Bourgeois class of eminent and honest scholars, almost overnight.
And more, when we list the great many cases of the above, and all the ones I missed in writing this.
On the contrary, each and every observation, test result, and expert opinion as to the content, construction, and history of the Voynich, every innocently blurted "I don't know", and "This doesn't fit", and "This makes no sense to me", practically without exception, fits perfectly with, and makes perfect sense, with my hypothesis of a circa-1910 forged Voynich. All these things you need to reject, because they work against 1420 Genuine... every single one of them... either fits perfectly with, or is even supportive of, my hypothesis.
So then, over and over, I see people who believe in 1420 Genuine being confused, and saying things, as you do, in this case, like, "But I simply don't know", and "... for some bizarre reason" Well the answer to this is all in one simple, logical package, which would help you "know", and so, evaporate the sense of "bizarreness" you and others state, over and over: Is all explained by a modern forgery verdict. But it is, of course, up to you whether your take the obvious, and simple path, or continue instead the laborious effort you chose, of trying to fit a thousand square pegs into a thousand round holes, in the attempt to force 1420 to (seem to) work.
This one misinterpretation of Panofsky's actual opinion is just a microcosm of this effect as a whole, one which needs to be repeated over and over again to present 1420 Genuine as an at all feasible and even plausible conclusion.
Rich.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. -
RE: New video: "Is the Voynich Manuscript fake?"
Koen G > 29-11-2024, 05:13 PM
Hi Rich,
Well, I disagree with your assessment of Panofsky's statement. Why would he make an effort to "explain" the MS as late as possible, if it weren't for the Sunflower's shadow? He clearly felt the need to respect this assessment.
Regarding the opinion of botanists, I understand that my opinion there is a bit stronger than most. If one botanist is not the right person to consult about stylized medieval iconography, then seven botanists aren't either. -
RE: New video: "Is the Voynich Manuscript fake?"
MarcoP > 29-11-2024, 07:16 PM
(29-11-2024, 03:55 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Here is Panofsky's actual statement, as related in the Mary D'Imperio book, "Were it not for the sunflower which, if correctly identified, would date the manuscript after 1492, I should have thought that it was executed a little earlier, say, about 1470. However, since the style of the drawings is fairly provincial, a somewhat later date, even the first years of the sixteenth century, would not seem to be excluded. I should not go lower than ca. 1510-1520 because no influence of the Italian Renaissance style is evident."
[...]
he STILL would not go earlier than 1510.
As I read the passage, Panofsky is using "low" in the art historical sense of "late," as in the Low Middle Ages being later than the High Middle Ages. See also entry #20 for American English in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.:
20. relatively recent a manuscript of a low date
Panofsky suggests that the manuscript appears to date from about 1470 (if one disregards the sunflower), but it may originate from a provincial area that adopted stylistic changes a few decades later: therefore it cannot be excluded that it is as late as the first years of the 16th century. However, it cannot date later than 1510–1520, as by then the Italian Renaissance had spread widely, and the manuscript shows no trace of a Renaissance influence. -
RE: New video: "Is the Voynich Manuscript fake?"
ReneZ > 29-11-2024, 11:39 PM
I fully agree with Koen and Marco, and with respect to the use of 'low' I had pointed out exactly the same in another thread, some months ago. (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.)
While Panofsky was spot on before, of course he could not know that he was.
Nobody knew until the year 2009.
He may not have been all that certain and his change to 1470 or so is an indication of that. He would only go later than that due to the Sunflower.
Lehmann-Haupt was also spot on, and he expressses more conviction of his opinion. -
RE: New video: "Is the Voynich Manuscript fake?"
Antonio García Jiménez > 30-11-2024, 11:48 AM
Since I am the member of this forum who has most defended Panofsky's ideas in this forum, I feel compelled to participate in this conversation to quote Panofsky's opinion on the authenticity of the VM in these words: the Voynich manuscript, whichever its place of origin, date and purpose, is certainly a perfectly authentic document.
Panofsky not only, with his great knowledge, certified the authenticity of the VM but also gave it a meaning within the history of ideas and art by linking it to the lapidary of Alfonso X the Wise,
And, finally, his most important contribution to the understanding of the iconography of the VM, which I reproduce in full:
So far as can be made out before the manuscript has been decoded, its content would comprise: first, a general cosmological philosophy explaining the medical properties of terrestrial objects, particularly plants, by celestial influences transmitted by astral radiation and those "spirits" which were frequently believed to transmit the occult powers of the stars to the earth; second, a kind of herbal describing the individual plants used for medical and, conceivably, magical purposes; third, a description of such compounds as may be produced by combining individual plants in various ways.