09-10-2025, 02:44 PM
(09-10-2025, 01:08 PM)LisaFaginDavis wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It often seems to me that some Ninja contributors are desperately looking for material evidence that can't be easily explained and therefore "proves" that the manuscript is a modern forgery.I obviously do not think it is a forgery. But why wouldn't it have been restored at some time in the past?
By the time Jacobus and Baresch got it, the book was already more than 200 years old. They (and who knows how many previous owners) had the resources and motivation to pay for a careful restoration of the whole manuscript. Marci probably held the book for 10 years or so; he too had the means, and we know that his eyesight was failing in his last years...
In fact, the restoration (like the "dark" painting) probably happened before the book was sent to Kircher. While the Jesuits apparently had some interest in the book, I can't imagine them spending much time or money on such a restoration.
Today, retracing faded parts of a manuscript would be considered forgery. But obviously that was not the case even as recently as 150 years ago. Consider Wilfrid's smearing of chemicals on f1r. Much more drastic restorations are still considered acceptable for paintings, frescoes, buildings...
All the best, --jorge
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)