17-07-2017, 10:26 PM
Our knowledge of the VMS once belonging to Rudolf is based on the report by Mnišovský, which, in turn, is referenced in the letter by Marci to Kircher, in the following words:
(We discussed P. Neal's translation in #1007)
I would like to fit a Dr. Watson's coat on, and to try to deduce something from this Mnišovský's report and the very fact that it was made.
Although sometimes this is disputed, but for the sake of this thread I do not dispute three things:
First of all, Marci's reference mentions the "Emperor Rudolf" without specifying the index. So it might have related either to Rudolf I or to Rudolf II. If I am not mistaken, initially Voynich interpreted it as relating to Rudolf I. By the way, Rudolf I was a contemporary of Roger Bacon. One problem with this interpretation that I can see is that Rudolf I does not seem to me to have been particularly interested in books. So it is more likely that it is Rudolf II who is mentioned in the report, and not Rudolf I. This interpretation is currently predominant in Voynich studies. Let's hold on to it.
Next, Marci's reference uses the phrase "Regis tum Boemiae" (="at that time the King of Bohemia"). From the text it is not clear whether this "that time" relates to the time when Mnišovský reported the things to Marci or to the time when Rudolf acquired the book. However, the latter is simply not possible, because Ferdinand III became King of Bohemia in 1627, while Rudolf II died in 1612. Hence, Marci's reference is to be interpreted in the following way:
When Mnišovský was the language instructor of Ferdinand III (while Ferdinand III himself was the King of Bohemia), Mnišovský told Marci these things about the VMS.
In other words, this information exchange between Mnišovský and Marci occured in the time frame between 1627 and 1637, when Ferdinand III became the Holy Roman Emperor (technically he continued to be the King of Bohemia as well, but of course he would have been referenced as the Emperor, not simply as the King of Bohemia, from 1637 onwards). As a sidenote, Ferdinand III became King of Bohemia at the age of 19, when Mnišovský was about 47, and Marci was 32 years old. (De Tepenesz was five years dead by that time, and Baresh was between 35 and 51 yo).
In the said time period Marci, as far as I understand, resided in Prague. And, although, the youth of Ferdinand III passed in Graz, I assume that, at the moment of the Report, he - and Mnišovský with him as his tutor - also resided in Prague, since I assume that it is Prague that is the approprite seat for Kings of Bohemia.
So, the Report took place between 1627 and 1637 in Prague.
Was the Report unsolicited, or was it requested by Marci? We can't say for sure, but the latter looks more probable, because at that time the VMS was in possession of Baresh, Marci's friend, so it just looks more natural that Marci asked Mnišovský about the book than that Mnišovský decided "a propos" to tell Marci about the book without ever knowing about Baresh's and Marci's interest in that information.
So, the Report took place because it was requested (or otherwise implicitly suggested to be made) by Marci from Mnišovský.
Now we come to more interesting questions.
In the first place, why did Marci ask Mnišovský, and not someone else, to begin with?
Here it is very important to note that at the point of time when Rudolf may have acquired the book, Mnišovský himself was not at Rudolf's court (we will also use this piece of information later).
Moreover, when asking Mnišovský, Marci did not know in advance whether the book ever was or was not connected to Rudolf (otherwise he would not have credited Mnišovský as the source of this information to Kircher - he would have credited some other source instead).
Lastly, Mnišovský himself could not have been the owner of the book, and, respectively, Marci could not have had any apriori knowledge of that (which could induce him to ask Mnišovský). Otherwise, Mnišovský would have confirmed that to Marci (remember that we consider him acting in good faith) and Marci would have surely mentioned that fact in his reference, like "this book was once owned by Dr. Raphael".
In other words, the reasons for Marci to ask Mnišovský were not of the following:
A) Marci apriori knew or suspected that the matter was somehow related to the court, so he needed to ask a person from the court, such as Mnišovský was;
B) Marci did not need a person from the court specifically, he just needed to find some appropriate person in general to ask about such kind of stuff;
C) Marci apriori suspected that the matter was somehow related to Mnišovský (but Mnišovský actually disproved that in the Report);
D) Marci suspected that Mnišovský has known de Tepenecz in the past, so he expected that Mnišovský could have known something about this curious book once owned by de Tepenecz.
Let's expand option "A" first.
Rene mentions that from 1626 onwards Marci was the "Chief Physician of the Bohemian Kingdom". I do not know whether that means that Marci was at the court of Ferdinand II or Ferdinand III, but, for the sake of generality, I assume that that does not. So, several possibilities present themselves in the discussed respect:
A1. Marci simply did not know anybody at the court except Mnišovský;
A2. Marci knew several persons at the court, but he just occasionally began his inquiries with Mnišovský (and succeeded at once);
A3. Marci knew several persons at the court, but he also knew apriori that Mnišovský is the right guy to ask;
A4. Marci in fact asked several people at the court (which he just omitted from his reference to Kircher), but only Mnišovský was able to provide him with information.
Options A1 and A2 really do not take us any further. Besides, I do not find A1 very probable for a "Chief Physician of the Bohemian Kingdom".
Option A3 lacks any plausible explanation except for its possible intersection with options B and C (discussed separately below), which options imply that Mnišovský was asked not because he was a member of the court in general, but because he was Mnišovský in particular.
Option A4, if considered within the framework of "A" in general, looks plausible. Indeed, we do not know any reference to the VMS's connection to Rudolf except the Report. That means that the VMS was not something of a legend widely and publicly discussed at the court of Bohemian kings. This correlates with the assumption that noone from the court was able to say anything to Marci except the experienced and quite aged (47 yo at least!) court member Mnišovský. But the problem is that Mnišovský has never been at Rudolf's court. As suggested You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., first he studied abroad in the second half of 1600's, and then he was with Klesl in Austria. So he could not be a direct (even a more or less direct) witness of anything that happened with the VMS at the Rudolf's court. He must have extracted his knowledge from some other source - not from simple hearsay (since, as noted above, there does not seem to have been much hearsay about the VMS), but rather in some targeted fashion.
Thus, option A sums up to the following: this way or another, in seeking information at the court about the VMS, Marci stumbled at Mnišovský's information, which the latter obtained in an indirect fashion.
Now, why option A, to begin with (mind that we are within limits of option A still)? Why would Marci apply to the court for information about the VMS? Evidently, because he knew that there was some connection between the VMS and the court. How could he knew that? Two main options are there:
It has long been a puzzle why neither of the two - nor the signature, nor the circumstances - have been mentioned in any XVII c. correspondence that we are aware of. Did Marci know the circumstances of Baresh's getting hold of the VMS? Very probably, because Baresh was his friend, he performed inquiries for him, and it would be strange to perform inquiries without being enarmed with as much input data as possible. Did Marci (and Baresh) know about the signature? This is really difficult to say. Consider two options:
In the first case, of course, they knew about it, because it is situated in the very first folio and would be easy to spot. And actually, it is possible to explain why the signature, and the more so for the circumstances under which Baresh acquired the book, were not mentioned in the correspondence. Mind that we know only of the post-Report correspondence. They just could consider the circumstances of Baresh's acquiring the book insignificant against the (much more valuable) information that the book was once owned by Rudolf himself. This is quite, quite probable. The same could be said about the fact that de Tepenecz once owned the book, but... this is not that very probable. Why? Because from the very fact of de Tepenecz signature it is not clear whether de Tepenecz owned the book before Rudolf or after him. And (putting ourselves in place of Baresh and Marci), the very possibility that de Tepenecz might have owned the book prior to Rudolf definitely makes the signature worth mentioning. Of course, one can say that in correspondence with Kircher they (especially Baresh, as is evident from his letter to Kircher) were not interested in the book's provenance, only in its decipherement, so they omitted the fact of the signature. Well, well, that might be the case... but might be not.
Consider the second case: the signature was already faded out or erased when Baresh and Marci began their work with the MS. Unfortunately, after Voynich applied his chemicals, we cannot judge if it was faded or erased. Certain kinds of ink can fade very quickly, especially given that the VMS was not protected by binding back then. On the other hand, it could have been erased, but Voynich's chemicals sadly acted to obscure that. It's a pity that we don't have Voynich's own judgement on this issue. Anyway, as far as I understand, Voynich detected the signature and recognized it as de Tepenecz's one prior to applying chemicals. In other words, the signature was traceable without chemicals. However, given that it took Voynich some nine years to find it out, it is not impossible that Marci could miss it for all his life, especially given that his eyesight has been attested as poor. Was Baresh equally poor-sighted? Is it possible that two men both failed to detect the signature for decades? Yes, but I'd say, perhaps not very likely.
Suppose that Baresh and Marci knew about the Tepenecz signature, but purposefully concealed that information, as well as information about the circumstances under which Baresh acquired the book. Why? The reason on the surface would simply be that Baresh obtained the book in an illegal fashion. Suppose that Baresh stole the book (or someone stole the book for Baresh). Very likely that in that case he would not have been wery keen to share that information. Moreover, he would probably try to conceal the fact that the book ever belonged to de Tepenecz - by erasing the exlibris. And Marci, devoted to his friend, faithfully concealed that too. Does that seem probable? Not very. Because Baresh would have been a very awkward conspirator if he could not erase the signature without leaving any traces of it. He could even tear this piece off (this would not damage the text on the other side, only the image of the root), but he did not do that.
So, neither explanation looks entirely satisfactory, and we are still in the dark as to this strangely evading signature.
To sum up option A:
Baresh and Marci had reasons to believe that the book related to the court somehow - either due to de Tepenecz signature or to the peculiar circumstances under which Baresh acquired the book. They either did not notice the signature or simply omitted the presence thereof in the subsequent correspondence - due to its insignificance in the view of the fact that the book was owned by Rudolf himself or due to the fact that they were interested primarily in the book's decryption, not in the history of ownership thereof. In seeking information at the court about the VMS, Marci stumbled at Mnišovský's information, which the latter obtained in an indirect fashion.
Considerations about the signature and about the sources of Mnišovský's information aout the book do equally apply to options B, C, and D, so I won't repeat them below.
Let's move on to option B.
Why would Marci consider Mnišovský as an "appropriate" person to be asked about the VMS. Very simple: because Mnišovský was known to be (to put it in Rene's words) "strongly interested in alchemy and in secret writing", and must have been known as a specialist in that.
In that case, however, Marci would likely have shown Mnišovský the book in order to obtain his judgement. In fact, the phrase "authorem uero ipsum putabat esse Rogerium Bacconem Anglum" may refer to the results of Mnišovský's inspection of the VMS, not to the information received by Mnišovský from a third party. Like, Mnišovský had a look at the VMS, was not able to decipher it, but expressed his educated guess about Bacon's authorship.
To sum up option B:
Marci applied to Mnišovský as a known expert in alchemy and/or secret writing. He even might have shown the book (or copies/excerpts thereof) to Mnišovský. In this case, the "Roger Bacon" hypothesis might have been the educated guess of Mnišovský upon looking at the VMS.
Let's move on to option C.
Why would Marci suspect that the VMS was related to Mnišovský? I can imagine two possibilities:
The first option requires further investigation, and the second will remain a deadend unless we discover more from some Baresh's writings yet-to-be-discovered.
Now, only option D remains to be discussed, but I have just touched it above.
To those who still are reading up to this point: we thus have discussed the question of why Marci did ever approach Mnišovský about the VMS. Another question is what were the sources of Mnišovský's knowledge about the VMS, given that he was not a member of Rudolf's court himself. I do not have a ready answer, and I got tired writing all this stuff ))) so probably I will touch that question the other day. I can only note that I suspect that traces of that knowledge should be looked for in Graz rather than in Prague.
Quote:Retulit mihi D. Doctor Raphael Ferdinandi tertij Regis tum Boemiae in lingua boemica instructor dictum librum fuisse Rudolphi Imperatoris, pro quo ipse latori qui librum attulisset 600 ducatos praesentarit, authorem uero ipsum putabat esse Rogerium Bacconem Anglum.
(We discussed P. Neal's translation in #1007)
I would like to fit a Dr. Watson's coat on, and to try to deduce something from this Mnišovský's report and the very fact that it was made.
Although sometimes this is disputed, but for the sake of this thread I do not dispute three things:
- that this report of Mnišovský to Marci (for brevity, let me call it "the Report" hereinafter) indeed took place (i.e. it was not invented by Marci or distorted by him in any way);
- that Mnišovský did act in good faith - in other words, whether the contents of the Report were true or false, he believed it reliable enough to be reported to Marci;
- that they all are talking about the Voynich Manuscript, and not some other book (which is quite not self-evident).
First of all, Marci's reference mentions the "Emperor Rudolf" without specifying the index. So it might have related either to Rudolf I or to Rudolf II. If I am not mistaken, initially Voynich interpreted it as relating to Rudolf I. By the way, Rudolf I was a contemporary of Roger Bacon. One problem with this interpretation that I can see is that Rudolf I does not seem to me to have been particularly interested in books. So it is more likely that it is Rudolf II who is mentioned in the report, and not Rudolf I. This interpretation is currently predominant in Voynich studies. Let's hold on to it.
Next, Marci's reference uses the phrase "Regis tum Boemiae" (="at that time the King of Bohemia"). From the text it is not clear whether this "that time" relates to the time when Mnišovský reported the things to Marci or to the time when Rudolf acquired the book. However, the latter is simply not possible, because Ferdinand III became King of Bohemia in 1627, while Rudolf II died in 1612. Hence, Marci's reference is to be interpreted in the following way:
When Mnišovský was the language instructor of Ferdinand III (while Ferdinand III himself was the King of Bohemia), Mnišovský told Marci these things about the VMS.
In other words, this information exchange between Mnišovský and Marci occured in the time frame between 1627 and 1637, when Ferdinand III became the Holy Roman Emperor (technically he continued to be the King of Bohemia as well, but of course he would have been referenced as the Emperor, not simply as the King of Bohemia, from 1637 onwards). As a sidenote, Ferdinand III became King of Bohemia at the age of 19, when Mnišovský was about 47, and Marci was 32 years old. (De Tepenesz was five years dead by that time, and Baresh was between 35 and 51 yo).
In the said time period Marci, as far as I understand, resided in Prague. And, although, the youth of Ferdinand III passed in Graz, I assume that, at the moment of the Report, he - and Mnišovský with him as his tutor - also resided in Prague, since I assume that it is Prague that is the approprite seat for Kings of Bohemia.
So, the Report took place between 1627 and 1637 in Prague.
Was the Report unsolicited, or was it requested by Marci? We can't say for sure, but the latter looks more probable, because at that time the VMS was in possession of Baresh, Marci's friend, so it just looks more natural that Marci asked Mnišovský about the book than that Mnišovský decided "a propos" to tell Marci about the book without ever knowing about Baresh's and Marci's interest in that information.
So, the Report took place because it was requested (or otherwise implicitly suggested to be made) by Marci from Mnišovský.
Now we come to more interesting questions.
In the first place, why did Marci ask Mnišovský, and not someone else, to begin with?
Here it is very important to note that at the point of time when Rudolf may have acquired the book, Mnišovský himself was not at Rudolf's court (we will also use this piece of information later).
Moreover, when asking Mnišovský, Marci did not know in advance whether the book ever was or was not connected to Rudolf (otherwise he would not have credited Mnišovský as the source of this information to Kircher - he would have credited some other source instead).
Lastly, Mnišovský himself could not have been the owner of the book, and, respectively, Marci could not have had any apriori knowledge of that (which could induce him to ask Mnišovský). Otherwise, Mnišovský would have confirmed that to Marci (remember that we consider him acting in good faith) and Marci would have surely mentioned that fact in his reference, like "this book was once owned by Dr. Raphael".
In other words, the reasons for Marci to ask Mnišovský were not of the following:
- any kind of the book's perceived relation to Rudolf;
- supposed Mnišovský's ownership of the book at some moment in time.
A) Marci apriori knew or suspected that the matter was somehow related to the court, so he needed to ask a person from the court, such as Mnišovský was;
B) Marci did not need a person from the court specifically, he just needed to find some appropriate person in general to ask about such kind of stuff;
C) Marci apriori suspected that the matter was somehow related to Mnišovský (but Mnišovský actually disproved that in the Report);
D) Marci suspected that Mnišovský has known de Tepenecz in the past, so he expected that Mnišovský could have known something about this curious book once owned by de Tepenecz.
Let's expand option "A" first.
Rene mentions that from 1626 onwards Marci was the "Chief Physician of the Bohemian Kingdom". I do not know whether that means that Marci was at the court of Ferdinand II or Ferdinand III, but, for the sake of generality, I assume that that does not. So, several possibilities present themselves in the discussed respect:
A1. Marci simply did not know anybody at the court except Mnišovský;
A2. Marci knew several persons at the court, but he just occasionally began his inquiries with Mnišovský (and succeeded at once);
A3. Marci knew several persons at the court, but he also knew apriori that Mnišovský is the right guy to ask;
A4. Marci in fact asked several people at the court (which he just omitted from his reference to Kircher), but only Mnišovský was able to provide him with information.
Options A1 and A2 really do not take us any further. Besides, I do not find A1 very probable for a "Chief Physician of the Bohemian Kingdom".
Option A3 lacks any plausible explanation except for its possible intersection with options B and C (discussed separately below), which options imply that Mnišovský was asked not because he was a member of the court in general, but because he was Mnišovský in particular.
Option A4, if considered within the framework of "A" in general, looks plausible. Indeed, we do not know any reference to the VMS's connection to Rudolf except the Report. That means that the VMS was not something of a legend widely and publicly discussed at the court of Bohemian kings. This correlates with the assumption that noone from the court was able to say anything to Marci except the experienced and quite aged (47 yo at least!) court member Mnišovský. But the problem is that Mnišovský has never been at Rudolf's court. As suggested You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., first he studied abroad in the second half of 1600's, and then he was with Klesl in Austria. So he could not be a direct (even a more or less direct) witness of anything that happened with the VMS at the Rudolf's court. He must have extracted his knowledge from some other source - not from simple hearsay (since, as noted above, there does not seem to have been much hearsay about the VMS), but rather in some targeted fashion.
Thus, option A sums up to the following: this way or another, in seeking information at the court about the VMS, Marci stumbled at Mnišovský's information, which the latter obtained in an indirect fashion.
Now, why option A, to begin with (mind that we are within limits of option A still)? Why would Marci apply to the court for information about the VMS? Evidently, because he knew that there was some connection between the VMS and the court. How could he knew that? Two main options are there:
- he observed the de Tepenecz's signature and recognized that de Tepenecz had been a man of the court;
- he knew the circumstances of Baresh's getting hold of the VMS, and those were somehow related to the court or to the persons of the court.
It has long been a puzzle why neither of the two - nor the signature, nor the circumstances - have been mentioned in any XVII c. correspondence that we are aware of. Did Marci know the circumstances of Baresh's getting hold of the VMS? Very probably, because Baresh was his friend, he performed inquiries for him, and it would be strange to perform inquiries without being enarmed with as much input data as possible. Did Marci (and Baresh) know about the signature? This is really difficult to say. Consider two options:
- it was clear for Marci and Baresh to observe;
- it was difficult for Marci and Baresh to observe (i.e. already erased or faded out).
In the first case, of course, they knew about it, because it is situated in the very first folio and would be easy to spot. And actually, it is possible to explain why the signature, and the more so for the circumstances under which Baresh acquired the book, were not mentioned in the correspondence. Mind that we know only of the post-Report correspondence. They just could consider the circumstances of Baresh's acquiring the book insignificant against the (much more valuable) information that the book was once owned by Rudolf himself. This is quite, quite probable. The same could be said about the fact that de Tepenecz once owned the book, but... this is not that very probable. Why? Because from the very fact of de Tepenecz signature it is not clear whether de Tepenecz owned the book before Rudolf or after him. And (putting ourselves in place of Baresh and Marci), the very possibility that de Tepenecz might have owned the book prior to Rudolf definitely makes the signature worth mentioning. Of course, one can say that in correspondence with Kircher they (especially Baresh, as is evident from his letter to Kircher) were not interested in the book's provenance, only in its decipherement, so they omitted the fact of the signature. Well, well, that might be the case... but might be not.
Consider the second case: the signature was already faded out or erased when Baresh and Marci began their work with the MS. Unfortunately, after Voynich applied his chemicals, we cannot judge if it was faded or erased. Certain kinds of ink can fade very quickly, especially given that the VMS was not protected by binding back then. On the other hand, it could have been erased, but Voynich's chemicals sadly acted to obscure that. It's a pity that we don't have Voynich's own judgement on this issue. Anyway, as far as I understand, Voynich detected the signature and recognized it as de Tepenecz's one prior to applying chemicals. In other words, the signature was traceable without chemicals. However, given that it took Voynich some nine years to find it out, it is not impossible that Marci could miss it for all his life, especially given that his eyesight has been attested as poor. Was Baresh equally poor-sighted? Is it possible that two men both failed to detect the signature for decades? Yes, but I'd say, perhaps not very likely.
Suppose that Baresh and Marci knew about the Tepenecz signature, but purposefully concealed that information, as well as information about the circumstances under which Baresh acquired the book. Why? The reason on the surface would simply be that Baresh obtained the book in an illegal fashion. Suppose that Baresh stole the book (or someone stole the book for Baresh). Very likely that in that case he would not have been wery keen to share that information. Moreover, he would probably try to conceal the fact that the book ever belonged to de Tepenecz - by erasing the exlibris. And Marci, devoted to his friend, faithfully concealed that too. Does that seem probable? Not very. Because Baresh would have been a very awkward conspirator if he could not erase the signature without leaving any traces of it. He could even tear this piece off (this would not damage the text on the other side, only the image of the root), but he did not do that.
So, neither explanation looks entirely satisfactory, and we are still in the dark as to this strangely evading signature.
To sum up option A:
Baresh and Marci had reasons to believe that the book related to the court somehow - either due to de Tepenecz signature or to the peculiar circumstances under which Baresh acquired the book. They either did not notice the signature or simply omitted the presence thereof in the subsequent correspondence - due to its insignificance in the view of the fact that the book was owned by Rudolf himself or due to the fact that they were interested primarily in the book's decryption, not in the history of ownership thereof. In seeking information at the court about the VMS, Marci stumbled at Mnišovský's information, which the latter obtained in an indirect fashion.
Considerations about the signature and about the sources of Mnišovský's information aout the book do equally apply to options B, C, and D, so I won't repeat them below.
Let's move on to option B.
Why would Marci consider Mnišovský as an "appropriate" person to be asked about the VMS. Very simple: because Mnišovský was known to be (to put it in Rene's words) "strongly interested in alchemy and in secret writing", and must have been known as a specialist in that.
In that case, however, Marci would likely have shown Mnišovský the book in order to obtain his judgement. In fact, the phrase "authorem uero ipsum putabat esse Rogerium Bacconem Anglum" may refer to the results of Mnišovský's inspection of the VMS, not to the information received by Mnišovský from a third party. Like, Mnišovský had a look at the VMS, was not able to decipher it, but expressed his educated guess about Bacon's authorship.
To sum up option B:
Marci applied to Mnišovský as a known expert in alchemy and/or secret writing. He even might have shown the book (or copies/excerpts thereof) to Mnišovský. In this case, the "Roger Bacon" hypothesis might have been the educated guess of Mnišovský upon looking at the VMS.
Let's move on to option C.
Why would Marci suspect that the VMS was related to Mnišovský? I can imagine two possibilities:
- Marci observed the de Tepenecz signature and he also knew that Mnišovský was somehow connected with de Tepenecz (I don't know if the two were actually connected or not, but anyway). Actually, this simply resolves to option D;
- certain circumstances under which Baresh obtained the book were somehow connected to Mnišovský.
The first option requires further investigation, and the second will remain a deadend unless we discover more from some Baresh's writings yet-to-be-discovered.
Now, only option D remains to be discussed, but I have just touched it above.
To those who still are reading up to this point: we thus have discussed the question of why Marci did ever approach Mnišovský about the VMS. Another question is what were the sources of Mnišovský's knowledge about the VMS, given that he was not a member of Rudolf's court himself. I do not have a ready answer, and I got tired writing all this stuff ))) so probably I will touch that question the other day. I can only note that I suspect that traces of that knowledge should be looked for in Graz rather than in Prague.
