The Voynich Ninja

The quick answer is: I don't know, but Koen correctly pointed out:

Quote:

Quote:I have a theory about who sold the MS to Rudolf.

Hey, as the Dutch saying goes, "who says A, must say B"

I mentioned a name in my 2012 presentation in Villa Mondragone. This is the Augsburg physician, paracelsan and manuscript collector Karl Widemann.
His name is also spelled in different ways.

He is still my best candidate, but the more interesting question is: what is the likelihood that he is indeed the man.
And this is where it gets difficult.

What is certainly true is that in 1599 Rudolf asked a commission from one of his main financial advisers You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. (He did that quite frequently).
In this case it was to acquire a set of books from Karl Widemann, for 500 Taler. Geizkofler was supported somehow by Matthias Peugl, and one or the other described the books as 'selzam', which I tentatively translate as 'unusual'.
The books were sent to Hans Popp, one of Rudolf's 'Kammerdiener' in Prague.

On a side note, around 1586-1587 Widemann was in Prague working for Rudolf and in Trebon working for Vilem  Rosenberg. He also knew, or even worked together with Edward Kelly.

The "theory" part of this is that these books are the Voynich MS, still in several parts, or the MS was one of them.
At least one book that Widemann sold to Rudolf (then or at some other time) has been preserved and is now in Leiden: Voss.Chym. Q56 , and that can hardly be qualified as 'unusual'.

Anyway, several sources are still to be followed up, and it isn't going very fast

The word "theory" should be reserved for a scientific framework, well supported by facts. In common language it gets used for just about anything, including wild guesses.

I may be wrong (being unaware of all the sources and investigations) - you are the expert - but... isn't the fact that Rudolf II ever owned the manuscript about as well established as the reported opinion by the same Mnišovský in the same (Marci to Kircher) letter that the author was Roger Bacon? I mean, could they both be just guesses?

Quote:One may wonder whether both Marci and Mnišovský would have remembered the essential details correctly. [...] We may safely trust that he correctly remembered Mnišovský's words.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

I'm just wondering where you're going with that Edward Kelly remark - because that's a red flag to a bull in some quarters  

Seriously however, is there any way of crosslinking his known purchases for Rudolph with any of the catalogues of his collection?

If one were to be very precise, my 'theory' might be just a 'hypothesis', but in practice it doesn't really make a great difference.
I am critical about this theory/hypothesis, and I am still collecting evidence. There are several important sources that I have not yet been able to access, which may either help nothing at all, or provide relevant further evidence. 

With respect to the question:

Quote:isn't the fact that Rudolf II ever owned the manuscript about as well established as the reported opinion by the same Mnišovský in the same (Marci to Kircher) letter that the author was Roger Bacon? I mean, could they both be just guesses?

the answer is a definite 'no'.
The Marci letter clearly expresses the first as a statement of fact, and the second as a statement of opinion.

With respect to Kelly, there is quite some literature about Widemann, where this is reported.
I have a scan of a short notebook of Widemann with alchemical recipes, where there should be a reference to Kelly, but I have to admit that I could not identify it.

Kelly remains a difficult person, especially if one tries to find out what he really was about. However, it is well established that for a long time he was one of the most respected alchemists for Rudolf and for the Rosenbergs. Even if he most probably fooled them.

Finally, with respect to David's question about catalogues and known purchases, this is where it gets really interesting, and it is also not possible to adequately describe it. I will have to keep that for the hypothetical occasion that I do find some positive confirmation.

Rudolf basically had two book collections, there was one more (the imperial library in Vienna) to which he contributed and could claim access, and another which belonged to the Habsburgs but he had no rights whatsoever (Ambras collection).
Of the first two, there are several catalogues of one (the Kunstkammer) and none of the more interesting second one

There is a *huge* amount of archival information about his purchases of just about anything, including books. In 2012 I knew of about 20 book references (this is also the state of the information at my web site) but I have a lot more now. It is possible to link numerous of these purchases to the Kunstkammer or to the Viennese library, but of course not to the uncatalogued collection(s).

There are numerous publications about all this. A good recent article is:
Richterová, A.: Alchemical Manuscripts in the collections of Rudolf II. In: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., pp. 249-291.

The state of my research can be summarised as follows:
- Among the known records of book acquisitions by Rudolf, this very much seems to be the most likely one
- The ratio between known records and undocumented book acquisitions remains unclear, but has improved a lot since 2012
- There is only a lukewarm indication that this particular sale could be it, and I need something much more concrete before I would make more definite claims.

It all sounds very interesting! I look forward to hearing how you progress.

Regarding Rudolf, what was said in the letter was just a report of what Mnišovský allegedly said to Marci.

So for Rudolf's owning the MS to be a fact, Marci's report to Kircher must have been true, and Mnišovský report to Marci must have been as well.

That's the strict approach to the question of facts.

But on the other hand there are not many considerations, if any, to state that they were swindling each other on this matter.

How do 500 taler relate to 600 ducat?

Upon a quick wikipedia check, I recognize that at the moment in question taler was 22.91g of silver while ducat was 3.44g of gold.

Hmm... well, had it been talers, Mnisovski would have said talers, not ducats, would not he?

Fascinating ReneZ!
500 taler...
Based on the taler value quoted by Anton, that's a much better deal than the Siloe edition, especially if for that price he actually got the Voynich + a whole bundle of "selzam" manuscripts.

(20-07-2018, 01:25 AM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.How do 500 taler relate to 600 ducat?

Upon a quick wikipedia check, I recognize that at the moment in question taler was 22.91g of silver while ducat was 3.44g of gold.

Hmm... well, had it been talers, Mnisovski would have said talers, not ducats, would not he?

500 Taler was close to 600 (gold) florins. 600 ducats would be some 10% more than that.

After 1620 the Taler was deliberately deprecated, so it even makes sense for Mnisowsky not to talk about Talers.
500 Talers was much less in the 1630's than during Rudolf's time.
Anyway, this is of course speculation.

600 ducats was roughly 2 kg of gold.
When Voynich asked 100,000 dollars for the MS, he was asking *a lot* more than that.
Of course, he did not manage to sell it for that price, but he sold one of the other MS's for 75,000 dollars.

Anton, as of right now, gold price is US$1224/oz and silver US$15.35, a ratio almost exactly 80:1.
So your ducat is worth over 10 times more than your taler.

Could have been a slip of the tongue though, or perhaps an exaggeration - but if so why?

Edit: Rene beat me to it! I defer to his greater knowledge, yet I note the figures do not all add up.
Silver must have been a lot more valuable back then.