what we know about the VMS' creation time

["Gabriele Ferri" <fif3336@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

First of all, I'd like to introduce myself. My name is Gabriele Ferri and
I'm an Italian student in Literature and Sciences of Communication. Right
now, I'm studying for an exam in ancient Italian Literature and, in the
past, I've passed an exam in Latin Literature, so I hope I'll be useful to
the list on some topics.


I understand that you've been discussing all that matter for years, so I
don't suppose at all to come up with some brand new ideas. I just thought
that it could be useful to suggest a method that is used frequently by
researchers. (just my 0.02$ worth...)

>
>
>Dennis wrote:
>         Our best indicators to date:
>>
>>         1)  Julie Porter, who has been a costumes mistress at
>> several Renaissance festivals, notes that the nymphs'
>> hairdos date them 1480-1520.
>>
>>         2)  Jim Reeds talked to Prof. Sergio Toresella about
>> the influence of the "humanist hand" on the Voynich
>> script.  The "humanist hand", the bridge between the
>> Gothic script of the Middle Ages and the Italic script
>> of modern times, was used only for a few decades in the
>> 15th century.
>
>I hate to shoot holes in data without any better alternative to
>offer (actually I love it), but there are some problems with
>these ideas.  I don't say they are wrong, but I always like to
>point out the uncertainty factor in any data.
>

<snip>

Usually, when you've got a manuscript and you want to know when it has been
written, you follow a pretty standard procedure:

*PHASE 1*
you can do this for a first idea of the manuscript, it works for most common
writings and it doesn't require access to any other external source.
1 - you look for an explicit reference in the text
1a - lacking an explicit reference, you look for an implicit one (that is,
for example, the nymph' hair)
2 - analysis of the language and the style, and also of the illustrations

*PHASE 2*
you use this when phase 1 is not successful
3 - you research the history of the manuscript, looking for an account of
when and where it did appear
4 - you compare the writing, the style and the illustrations with other ones
from different periods and places (that is, for example, the "humanist
hand")
4a - you start a accurate philological and semantic research, looking
especially for words or informations or illustrations that couldn't be done
before a specific period of time

*PHASE 3*
this include laboratory analysis, which is often completely useless but in a
few cases can unveil some technique (for example engraving or some kind of
ink) which is specific of a century. It can, in some case, unveil a forgery.
I'm not very familiar with phase 3, but it's mostly a microscope analysis
and UVs, but I've also heard that some techniques used for the restoration
of pieces of art can be used in this phase.

So, obviously step 1 cannot be used for the VMS. Steps 1a and 2 can be used
for image-analysis, but, sadly I cannot recognise any specific style in the
illustration. (Anyway, I'm going to show them to a friend in the History of
Art department in my University). Step 2 can also mean that we should look
for encoding / phonetical translation / artificial language as complex as
the VMS, so we should be able to determine in which century such a complex
work was possible.

I think that step 3 points to Prague and Rudolph II, isn't it? That should
be a strong evidence. Step 4 cannot be applied, but step 4a can (if there's
a sunflower painted).

Of course we cannot use phase 3, but it could be interesting to know if such
techinques of analysis has been already used on the VMS.


Gabriele Ferri