Comments on: First Voynich clues from Austria…

By: nickpelling

nickpelling — Fri, 25 Dec 2009 09:16:15 +0000

It is the nature of anagrams that you would be doing badly if you could not find a decent Aramaic anagram in each page of Moby Dick. But that doesn’t mean that was how Moby Dick was constructed.

By: Sean Bentley

Sean Bentley — Fri, 25 Dec 2009 03:57:49 +0000

What do you think about her theory of anagrams? The examples she posts seem pretty convincing …

By: nickpelling

nickpelling — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 11:18:08 +0000

As long as you don’t dream in CaMeLcAsE, that’s OK!

By: Vytautas

Vytautas — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 10:50:55 +0000

I remember what Steve said, even when I am sleeping

Vytautas

By: Michelle

Michelle — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 08:42:14 +0000

So after all this time, Yale actually let someone do the carbon dating? I’m confused, hadn’t it been said that they didn’t want to?
I reckon it’s even older, the little ladies look so much like Trotula’s drawings in her manuscript on women’s health ( 13th century). But then the castle drawings would be out of date I suppose. The link says that Rene thinks the writing might just be decoration- can you elaborate Rene ? I’m curious.

By: rene zandbergen

rene zandbergen — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 08:01:42 +0000

Ah, I see that my post from yesterday evening here is definitely lost.
Anyway, I put essentially the same post at Elmar’s site this morning.
So, the centre of the date range is 1421, which is 40-50 years below
the earliest mainstream group of theories.

A little bit of hype may be forgiven, I think

By: nickpelling

nickpelling — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 07:46:16 +0000

It’s easy to call mid-Quattrocento dating “mainstream” in retrospect.

Actually, I’d say that (thanks to Gordon Rugg) late 16th century hoax dating has been more “mainstream” (culturally) than anything I’ve ever written. Thank goodness that particular nightmare seems to be over, at least. :-/

By: Elmar

Elmar — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 07:42:24 +0000

Ah, now we see… The spectacular news is that the VM is… Two or three decades older than mainstream previously guessed.

Oh well, 21st century journalism. Anyway, at least now we have something more solid to work upon than the last onehundred years had.

By: Rich SantaColoma

Rich SantaColoma — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 03:43:08 +0000

Hi, Nick:

“…was made between 1404 and 1438″… which you found out and added after Elmar posted his response… which I point out because we can now note (as he would have) that it is not “older than all existing theories”… as it is not before Roger Bacon. So that is a little confusing.

But maybe they meant to exclude Bacon from all existing theories, as he has been pretty much eliminated as a contender.

At any rate, this dating fits pretty well with the “early herbal” group of ideas, such as Sergio Torresella (sp?), who I think believed about 1420 to 1460. If the documentary dating is correct… and correctly reported, then this is basically an unusual herbal or pharma of some kind, from this time, which seemed to be the bulk of the opinion.

Wow. Rich.

By: nickpelling

nickpelling — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 15:25:12 +0000

I really wasn’t sure how subtly to interpret this, given that Roger Bacon hasn’t really been a proper suspect for decades. On balance, I decided that it was safer to push the date back to 1400, but flag Bacon-era crypto as a possibility. Either way, we’ll see soon enough…