Login

Mauro · (This post was last modified: 25-10-2026, 09:22 AM by Mauro.)

(24-10-2026, 10:25 PM)proto57 wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(24-10-2026, 10:09 PM)Mauro wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(24-10-2026, 09:17 PM)JustAnotherTheory wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Poxleber as a word is only recorded in literature after 1500.

But 'poxleber' is a marginalia, you need to assume it was written by the original author of the VMS for this to be relevant.

Well you know it was written by the "original author", or one of them, right? The 2009 McCrone tests revealed that this last page marginalia, with a possible "Pox Leber", is written in the same ink as the main text of the Voynich. This find obviates the previous contention that this marginalia was written "In another hand at a later date", analyzed by some to be at least 150 years later.

I have no doubts both the ink of the main text and the ink used for 'poxleber' are the same, in the sense that they are both inks fit for use with a quill on parchment, so presumably 'iron-gall ink' (excuse me the generic term, I know not everybody agrees on this). Then I frankly don't know exactly what McCrone analyzed and what the report says (if you have a link at hand, I'd be grateful, so I can check).

Surely if 'poxleber' was written with an ink which is recognizably the 'same' as the ink of the main text, in the sense of allowing to attribute the two writings to the same author, that would be important news. Joined with 'poxleber' not appearing before 1500 it would rise the probabilty of the VMS being from 1500 or a little earlier up to when poxleber went out of use, instead of being from 1420 or a little later. It would also rise the probability of MFT (~1920) of course, but not as much. I can grant you the forger wanted to add some marginalia to improve his forgery, notwithstanding the fact that there are so many 'improvements', such as different kinds of marginalia (*), stains, pages removals, out-of-order binding, the binding itself (with at least one rework), all this over an already overly complicated book, to make the idea of all these being 'forgery improvements' weird. But anyway, let's say the forger also wanted to add some marginala. Why a barely readable 'poxleber'? Yes he could have come to know the word through his deep knowledge of ancient books (but possible does not mean probable, much less proved), but then he failed to realize it was an anachronism? And why not use a random word of a Bacon-era book instead of a strange 'poxleber'? It's weird... so the MFT probability improves, but not as much.

If you can reference me to McCrone's paper, thanks Smile