Amid the me-too Voynich blog repost deluge of recent days comes – at long last – some genuinely new information courtesy of the Yale Daily News. From talking with the Beinecke’s Assistant Curator of Early Modern Books and Manuscripts Kathryn James, we now learn that:-
- Andreas Sulzer (the film maker) was originally utterly convinced that the VMs was 17th century, and so had to completely rewrite the documentary script when the 15th century radiocarbon dating came through.
- Similarly, Kathryn James had to drop her own (16th century Paracelsian) Voynich theory for the same basic reason.
- Kevin Repp suggests that a DNA test on the vellum might help locate the where the cow (assuming it is neither a goat nor a gnu, etc) came from, while Kathryn James “anticipates [that Andreas] Sulzer will offer to finance [this] testing sooner or later”.
Actually, until such time as a Quattrocento animal DNA database gets constructed (and I’m personally not holding my breath for that), I suspect a far better test would simply be analyzing a minute scraping of ink from every folio. The documentary mentioned in passing that ink variations between batches were detectable – so, follow that simple idea through to the end, and you should end up peering back through time to the original bifolio nesting, ordering, and the construction methodology. This is such a simple process to execute, but I’m certain it would yield a fascinating high-level codicological picture, quite independent of (for example) contact transfer evidence or other art history evidence.
Would any Yale History students care to step forward for an interesting afternoon’s project?
“Andreas Sulzer (the film maker) was originally utterly convinced that the VMs was 17th century, and so had to completely rewrite the documentary script when the 15th century radiocarbon dating came through.”
I’ve wanted to point this out a few times to you in the past, but you got the scoop yourself… that rather than putting in “colorful but inaccurate” theories, or, as you put it, “…to summarize Voynich researchers as a group of foolish straw men (and women) being collectively blown away by the mighty radiocarbon dating winds”, quite the contrary: Andreas put in theories he found compelling… mine included. In fact he had long thought, as I do, that the cylinders are close to microscopes. But yes, most of my theory ended up on the cutting room floor… rightly so… when the dating made it less likely. The parts which were kept were my points about the microscope not being developed enough, in Roger Bacon’s time, to allow that he was involved… if they are microscopes… and that it would have to be a 17th century document if they were sophisticated optics. I like the balance… I mean, it was the dating which put my theory on the back burner, and so it made sense that the documentary did not showcase it to a greater degree. They did use some of my suggestions for microscopic comparisons, which I like… because whatever the Voynich is, these are still pretty striking, in my opinion…
Rich: the point where almost all Voynich theorists go wrong (Andreas included) is starting from an idea rather than from the evidence, which – as I’ve pointed out for years – points strongly to Northern Italy in the 15th century. The microscopy was fun, sure: but it seems to me that it was Andreas’ overall methodology that made the documentary such a missed opportunity. Basically, the evidence should have been the starting point, not the final 2-3 minutes of VT. *sigh*
Hello,
Please could someone ask my question:
why did it take so long to date the manuscript?
Radiocarbon dating is not a *new* technique.
Can I adda puzzled frown here too? The C-14 dating was done quite a while ago, wasn’t it?
All the recent items – including Huff post and a “Gee-whiz-with-pianos” video – suggest it’s only just happened.
In that case, I must be psychic, since I put the 15thC date in my blog’s preamble more than a year ago.
For the record,Nick. Could you please post exact details of theC-14 dating here?
(or link to yr early posts on the matter?)
PS – I’ll never agree with you that the content – as opposed to the manuscript – was first invented in 15thC Europe.
and I feel a bit glum that no-one has mentioned that I asked for a DNA dating quite a while ago. Just to determine the animals’ species, not to date the ms. of course.
It’s to do with locating a region, not a period, for the ms construction, that’s all. Different regions used different critters.