New video: "Is the Voynich Manuscript fake?"

[Koen G]

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.

That is indeed a very important point: throughout history, the most qualified people with expertise about medieval manuscripts did not see it as fake. Initially I had this quote in my script for the video but it's one of the things that got slashed in my futile attempts to keep it under half an hour.

Regarding the sunflower, do we actually have a detailed analysis by O'Neil?

[bi3mw]

Regarding the sunflower, do we actually have a detailed analysis by O'Neil?

Do you mean this article?

O`Neill. Hugh, 1944, "Botanical Observations on the Vovnich MS," Speculum Vol. 19, January, p. 126
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.


  2856859.pdf (Size: 647.33 KB / Downloads: 41)

[Aga Tentakulus]

   

Quite funny when you consider that Columbus never set foot on the continent on his first 3 voyages. And he couldn't bring back any seeds on the fourth voyage either, because sunflowers don't grow in Panama. That would only be possible in Mexico, but he wasn't there. Perhaps Amerigo Vespucci.
A sunflower has heart-shaped or drop-shaped leaves. The flower does not look upwards, but always towards the sun. You could argue about the root. Perhaps in a broad sense.
What does that tell me? 6 botanists, but none of them has ever seen a sunflower.
Panofsky was too heavily influenced in my eyes.
What it is, just a leek.

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

[LisaFaginDavis]

This is terrific work, Koen! I really look forward to your analysis of the handwriting on f. 116v. Your initial results have definitely changed my views on this. The work you are doing demonstrates the value of detailed paleographic analysis, comparing graphic components of an unknown sample to those of a known date and place of origin. If your work does indeed suggest that the script of f. 116v is roughly contemporary with the C-14 results, then it certainly MIGHT have been written by one of the scribes, although I don't see any characters that are diagnostically useful for determining WHICH scribe it might have been. It's also of course possible that those lines were written not by one of the scribes but by an early owner.

[Koen G]

Do you mean this article?

O`Neill. Hugh, 1944, "Botanical Observations on the Vovnich MS," Speculum Vol. 19, January, p. 126
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

That can't be all, right? He just says "quite plainly a sunflower" and that's it then. I'm afraid to say that Peter Tentakulus makes a better case than O'Neil & His Botanist Six. I'm not saying it must be a leek, but something like it is objectively a better option: the leaves are sheathing, narrow and with smooth edges. Sunflowers leaves are set on stalks, heart shaped, broad, with serrated edges. Basically all parameters are off. That's why I would have liked to read a deeper analysis by O'Neil apart from "it's clearly a sunflower and my friends agree". These guys were theorists.

[Koen G]

This is terrific work, Koen! I really look forward to your analysis of the handwriting on f. 116v. Your initial results have definitely changed my views on this. The work you are doing demonstrates the value of detailed paleographic analysis, comparing graphic components of an unknown sample to those of a known date and place of origin. If your work does indeed suggest that the script of f. 116v is roughly contemporary with the C-14 results, then it certainly MIGHT have been written by one of the scribes, although I don't see any characters that are diagnostically useful for determining WHICH scribe it might have been. It's also of course possible that those lines were written not by one of the scribes but by an early owner.

Thanks, Lisa! I certainly agree that it need not be one of the original scribes. This work also made me understand how tricky paleography can be. Marco and I hyper-focused on this particular sample for several weeks before we were even able to narrow down properly.

Time became clear much sooner than place.

The place were we found our best hits is unexpected, at least it was for me. It's an area nobody is looking exactly at, as far as I am aware. But some of our best hits were from the same city (one I hadn't even heard of before), and others are from nearby. Still, I don't think I'll ever feel confident about calling a place.

[RobGea]

Just a small observation, vms Botanists have less data to work with , only plant images( herbal,pharma ) than vms art-historians, they have all the images.

Regarding sunflower references Renes' site has a little bit of stuff.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

"Voynich Revisionist" has an blog post on the sunflower idea and O'Neils' contribution , "Sunflowers and ‘new world’ ideas"  --> You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

[LisaFaginDavis]

This is terrific work, Koen! I really look forward to your analysis of the handwriting on f. 116v. Your initial results have definitely changed my views on this. The work you are doing demonstrates the value of detailed paleographic analysis, comparing graphic components of an unknown sample to those of a known date and place of origin. If your work does indeed suggest that the script of f. 116v is roughly contemporary with the C-14 results, then it certainly MIGHT have been written by one of the scribes, although I don't see any characters that are diagnostically useful for determining WHICH scribe it might have been. It's also of course possible that those lines were written not by one of the scribes but by an early owner.

Thanks, Lisa! I certainly agree that it need not be one of the original scribes. This work also made me understand how tricky paleography can be. Marco and I hyper-focused on this particular sample for several weeks before we were even able to narrow down properly.

Time became clear much sooner than place.

The place were we found our best hits is unexpected, at least it was for me. It's an area nobody is looking exactly at, as far as I am aware. But some of our best hits were from the same city (one I hadn't even heard of before), and others are from nearby. Still, I don't think I'll ever feel confident about calling a place.

The biggest challenge is that the baseline data is so limited. You can only work with manuscripts with a known date and place of origin, which severely limits the comparative group.

[ReneZ]

That can't be all, right? He just says "quite plainly a sunflower" and that's it then.

Indeed, this paper does not help us at all. As I mentioned elsewhere, Petersen had additional information and refers to an "O'Neill MS" of which I have no other information (unfortunately).

[Dana Scott]

Do you mean this article?

O`Neill. Hugh, 1944, "Botanical Observations on the Vovnich MS," Speculum Vol. 19, January, p. 126
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

That can't be all, right? He just says "quite plainly a sunflower" and that's it then. I'm afraid to say that Peter Tentakulus makes a better case than O'Neil & His Botanist Six. I'm not saying it must be a leek, but something like it is objectively a better option: the leaves are sheathing, narrow and with smooth edges. Sunflowers leaves are set on stalks, heart shaped, broad, with serrated edges. Basically all parameters are off. That's why I would have liked to read a deeper analysis by O'Neil apart from "it's clearly a sunflower and my friends agree". These guys were theorists.

And then there are often other comparable examples that may be mentioned:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.