Re: what we know about the VMS' creation time

[Zandbergen@xxxxxxxxxxx (Rene Zandbergen)]

Gabriele Ferri wrote:

> 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

There seems only to be the ownership signature of Jacobus de Tepenec.

> 1a - lacking an explicit reference, you look for an implicit one (that is,
> for example, the nymph' hair)

This is the list maintained by Dennis, of which some items are more
relevant
than others. Already before our mailing list started, the period 1470 -
early
years of 16th Century was the tentative conclusion.

> 2 - analysis of the language and the style, and also of the illustrations

Similar to above, but the experts have been very hesitant, stating that
there
is not really a good basis for comparison.
 
> *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

This did not add much to the 'Tepenec' evidence. Earliest known
reference
is the purchase by Rudolf II.

> 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")

Indeed, but the reliability of this is again limited as for point (2)
above.

> 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

Cannot be done for the VMs text. Possibly a new clue is at is
the bottom of the famous f79v. This has a 'pool' with various
animals. On the right is a heraldic-looking lion (with a not
too heraldic head :-) ) and above that is a very indistinct,
oddly crumpled animal which looks suspiciously like the
golden-fleece emblem as worn by Rudolf in his various
portraits and busts. This order (and presumably its emblem) was
started in 1430 so here we'd have a 'terminus post quem'. Like
almost all such identifications it is highly contestable.

> *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.

The laboratory analysis has not been done, but various experts
have looked at the manuscript itself. Nobody seems to have ever
found anything at odds with the time frame mentioned above, and 
a 'central European' provenance. One recent statement by the
Beinecke library curator responsible for the Voynich MS (Dr. R.
Babcock) is:

   "The color, the way it?s prepared, the thickness.... 
    It doesn?t look at all out of place with other
    sixteenth-century manuscripts." (In: Lev Grossman, When words
    fail, Lingua Franca, April 1999.)

To:

    > 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.

Jorge Stolfi replied:

> Yes, that would be useful. However the vellum could have been imported
> or carried in someone's luggage; 

I can't resist :-)
There are some places where no sensible person would bother carrying a 
pile of parchment. In Dutch there's the expression 'carrying water to
the sea'. 

Cheers, Rene