Hi everyone,
I was reviewing the comments section in the Guardian article about Skinner's theory, and saw that " Sierranorth" had made the following contribution:
"Consider this:
Wilfred Voynich was a brilliant man whose ‘seductive’ personality, facility in languages, wide ranging knowledge, and keen entrepreneurial skills made him a highly successful book dealer. Voynich might have owed his continued success more to his knowledge as a chemist than to his other skills and personality. He graduated from Moscow University with a degree in chemistry and was a licensed pharmacist. Not long after he opened his bookshop he began finding previously unknown rare manuscripts. He was said to have acquired supplies of unused medieval paper from Europe and to have used ‘his knowledge as a chemist to replicate medieval inks and paints, thus enabling him to create “new” medieval manuscripts to order’. Readers’ tickets from the British Museum Library reveal that his associate Sydney Reilly (Reilly, Ace of Spies) had presented himself as a ‘chemist and physicist’ interested in the study of medieval art. Among the books that he studied were Some observations on ancient inks and A Booke of secrets, shewing divers waies to make and prepare all sorts of Inke and Colours."
I was not aware that Voynich and Reilly had such a close connection... yet an old BBC You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. seems to say they frequented the same bookshop, and another You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. claims that Reilly may have frequented Voynich's wife at one time, but not much more.
Are any of these claims verified?
If the statements about them checking out books about how to mimic medieval inks at the BM library is true, I have to say that might give some weight to the modern hoax theory...
(07-07-2017, 02:07 PM)VViews Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Are any of these claims verified?
If the statements about them checking out books about how to mimic medieval inks at the BM library is true, I have to say that might give some weight to the modern hoax theory...
Hi VViews, I think it would be more accurate to say that those books are about medieval ink-making. I guess any serious dealer in ancient manuscripts has an interest in the subject. I know several users of this forum do and I don't think they are forgers
(07-07-2017, 02:36 PM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Hi VViews, I think it would be more accurate to say that those books are about medieval ink-making. I guess any serious dealer in ancient manuscripts has an interest in the subject. I know several users of this forum do and I don't think they are forgers
Marco,
you are quite riight. I rather suspect Voynich was involved in Secret Service operations, a would be revolutionary turned around by the Russian and then the British Services, it would explain much of his personal history including his ascent to the top of the antiquarian booktrade, a brilliant way of covert financing.
This is, of course, the modern forgery hypothesis, much investigated and promoted by H. R. Santa-Coloma on the vms-list.
Here is the problem I see with that scenario. Wilfrid Voynich tried to connect the manuscript to Roger Bacon, but couldn't make it stick. However, in the VMs on f71r, there is an interesting historical connection. If the pair of blue-striped tub patterns are interpreted as heraldic insignia, and along with the red galero, various hierarchical and heraldic positionings, and the papelonny pun are considered as identification for the origins of the cardinal's red galero in Roman Catholic church tradition, then there is a problem. History records that there was a personal connection between Ottobuono Fieschi, the younger of the Genoese popes, and Roger Bacon.
If the VMs is a modern forgery (say early 1900s), then some modern forger needed to either copy or create the illustration found on f71r. And yet Wilfrid Voynich, to my knowledge at least, made no use of the very information that would provide support to his Bacon hypothesis or ever suggested that heraldry might be a topic for further investigation. It seems strange to suggest that Voynich might have created the forgery and yet be ignorant of its contents.
I note that leading Voynich skeptic Rich SantaColoma is giving a talk on this very subject at the NSA Cryptology symposium in October. He may touch upon these points.
I haven't seen the comments on the Guardian article, but the quote from "Sierranorth" is from a 2005 web article that may be found You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. .
This also addresses the supposed relationship between ELV and Reilly.
Followed up from You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. ....
Blevins' comments about Wilfrid's business are a combination of some factoids that have been taken together and woven into a story, but some of these are incorrect, and there are important omissions.
Quote:Not long after he opened his shop he began finding previously unknown rare manuscripts.
In his early days, Wilfrid was not dealing with manuscripts. His sole interested was in early printed books.
As Arnold Hunt (previously curator at the British library) explains, one particularity of Voynich is that he loved rarity for its own sake. He collected unique and previously unknown printed books, regardless of their real commercial value.
It has been suspected that these previously unknown and unique books might be fakes. This could make sense. However, what happened is that of many of them, additional copies turned up later ( You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. ).
Needless to say, this proves beyond reasonable doubt that he did not fake them.
His interest in the unique may have played a role in his choice to buy the Voynich MS from the Jesuits as well.
Thanks ReneZ!
I see that quote was in fact lifted from the Blevins article. You mention that among the factoids in the article, some are false: could you point out the ones that seem furthest from the truth?
You mention that "these previously unknown and unique books might be fakes. This could make sense. However, what happened is that of many of them, additional copies turned up later "... that actually makes me wonder about the ones for which additional copies didn't turn up: it would be interesting to see the manuscripts that Voynich might have created himself!
Hello VViews, I'm not sure I follow.
The fact that he managed to find all these previously unknown books was a reason for suspicion.
That he didn't have his legendary capabilities of finding them, but he made them himself.
When it turned out that many of these were indeed genuine old books, it was clear that he *did* have this
uncanny capability, and the suspicion was unfounded.
This is regardless of the fact that of some books possibly no other copies were found.
I don't know any numbers, just that the collection of (at the time) unique books in the BL that has his name has about 137 items.
Much of what Blevins writes are just suspicions: "might have owed...", "he was said to have acquired...".
The real trouble with Voynich is that he was a bragster who loved to exaggerate.
That applies both to his personal life and to the importance of the books he had for sale.
Add to that the secrecy surrounding his deal with the Jesuits, and one has a truly confusing situation.
I can recommend reading the chapter in Millicent Sowerby. It gives a first-hand report of Voynich as a person.
I know quite a few people in the antiques business (books and other items) and most of them are treasure hunters. They have neither the time nor the skills to create fakes, but they are passionate about "finds" and will go to extraordinary lengths to get their hands on new treasures.
The feeling I get is that if there are any fakes among W. Voynich's books, then they must be pretty good ones that may have fooled him as well as other people, rather than having been expressly crafted by him or any purported accomplices.