The Voynich Ninja

Dear members

Re-reading the the valuable technical essay in Yale's facsimile edition of the Vms,  I came across one of the inserted editorialised bits, and in this case it said something for which I have never been able to find an historical source.  I'd be glad of help in providing it with some sort of footnote.

The item states that the manuscript was 'known to have been in Rudolf's library'.  


To avoid error, I'll include the passage as an image.




To save waste of time, here are the only two bits of documentary evidence that I know about.  Both are taken from Philip Neal's transcriptions and translations (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.)

First, the letter of Ioannis Marcus Marci (in Prague) to Athanasius Kircher (in Rome), dated 19 August 1665: 

Quote: Doctor Raphael, the Czech language tutor of King Ferdinand III as they both then were, once told me that the said book belonged to Emperor Rudolph and that he presented 600 ducats to the messenger who brought him the book. He, Raphael, thought that the author was Roger Bacon the Englishman. I suspend my judgement on the matter.

It was also Philip Neal who made the observation that Mnishovsky (Raphael) could not have witnessed that event himself.  So Raphel was already apparently repeating hearsay, which makes Marci's non-committal report of it hearsay at third remove.


Secondly, as we consider the weight due to this off-hand, third-hand rumour, it is important to remember that within sixteenth months of that letter's date, a mutual friend informs Kircher that Marci has lost his memory of 'almost everything'.  Such conditions normally develop over years, and not in any linear way, but sufferers (my GP informed me when I asked his opinion) do not shift from normal to extreme states within a mere sixteen months.  

from Godefridus Aloysius Kinner (Prague) to Athanasius Kircher (Rome). Letter dated 5th. January 1667.

Quote:Dominus Marcus has lost his memory of nearly everything but still remembers you. He very officially bids me salute you in his name and he wishes to know through me whether you have yet proved an Oedipus in solving that book which he sent via the Father Provincial last year.

I have nothing else which connects Rudolf himself, let alone his library to the Vms.  Does anyone have details of the research which led to the statement that the manuscript was known to have made it to Rudolf's library?  If so please add details so I can bring myself up to date.

Thanks.  (Perhaps I should have put this in requests to experts?)

PS I am also trying to find out who should be contacted to get permission to reproduce a picture on a page from Rene's website.  It shows the Vms' binding but the only footnote reads 'from my talk....' etc., with no copyright holder listed.  Anyone happen to know who took the photo? Another, with it, was evidently taken by one of the scientific labs whose work is part of the same technical essay in the Yale facsimile.  Information gladly received.

"Such conditions normally develop over years, and not in any linear way, but sufferers (my GP informed me when I asked his opinion) do not shift from normal to extreme states within a mere sixteen months."

Depends on the cause. A CVA or stroke can do it overnight. If you are talking Alzheimers, average time from diagnosis to death is 5 years but it can be half that or twice that. There are many different types of similar conditions as well. One feature is that lucidity can vary greatly from one day to the next.


Marci obviously remembers an event from one year ago so still has some marbles left.

My memory is still fine, and I remember that this very same question has already been discussed here in two threads, both of which were locked by the moderators:

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


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


I am not sure what it will bring to re-open this discussion. Anyway...

First of all, if the request is for references, these can be provided:

1) The reference that states that the MS was acquired by Rudolf II is, of course, Marci's 1665 letter to Kircher, preserved as MS 408A in the Beinecke Rare Book and MS Library of Yale University.

2) A reference that shows that Mnisowsky could very well have known about Rudolf's acquisition of the MS is his 1630 letter to Ferdinand II, preserved in Vienna, Haus- Hof und Staatsarchiv, Hausarchiv (Fam.Korr.A, Kart. 8, ff.279-84)
 
3) A reference that clearly states that Marci's memory was fine in 1665 is:
Servít, Zdeněk: Jan Marek Marci z Kronlandu, zapomenutý zakladatel novověké fysiologie a medicíny, Bratislava, Veda, 1989, page 57.

Notes:
- the statement that Mnisowsky "could not have known" something is very difficult to maintain. It is almost impossible to prove. It is countered by evidence that he "could very well have known". No need to prove that he did know.
- Servit, generally seen in the Czech repubic as the ultimate specialist on Marci (e.g. by his surviving co-researcher Josef Smolka, and by modern historians such as Petr Svobodny), was fully aware of the relevant letters by Marci and Kinner, which he quotes. He also considers the cause of Marci's death to have been a stroke.
 

Secondly I have two points to criticise about the  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. .

1) The main question isn't phrased very accurately:

Quote:The item states that the manuscript was 'known to have been in Rudolf's library'.

Actually, it states (more correctly) that it was known to have been in his 'collection'. This just means he owned it. He had at least three collections of books, of which only the imperial library in Vienna is well documented. More about this very relevant topic can be read in:
Richterová, A.: Alchemical Manuscripts in the collections of Rudolf II. In: Purš and Karpenko (2016), pp. 249-291.

2) I seriously doubt the attribution of the statement: "It was also Philip Neal who made the observation that Mnishovsky (Raphael) could not have witnessed that event himself". Until now, this has always been stated as: "It was Philip Neal - I believe - who made the observation....".
I don't know why this belief is now a statement and I would appreciate a reference. Knowing Philip, he is very accurate and reliable in his statements, and the best and most accurate version of this statement would be that it is unlikely that Mnisowsky witnessed it. Again, a reference is needed.


Lastly:
while in the context of the Voynich MS Marci is not much more than one of its historical owners, and not a great deal is known about him by Voynich MS researchers, in the context of Czech history he is a person of great importance and interest.

While the scientific revolution in Europe took place, Bohemia was quite isolated and did not play any significant role in this. The main exception is precisely Johannes Marcus Marci. His fight with the Jesuits about embryology and his work on the refraction of light are two examples. His enlightened methods as a practicing physician are another.

His life has been studied for over a hundred years now, and this study picked up significantly at the 300-th anniversary of his death, leading to the publication:
Nový, Luboš and Jaroslav Folta (eds.): Acta historiae rerum naturalium necnon technicarum. Special issue 3, Prague, 1967.
This has contributions from Zdenek Servit and Josef Smolka, who were already mentioned above.
Smolka went to Rome and was one of the first (perhaps even the very first) to research the letters from Marci in Kircher's correspondence. He took with him a complete microfilm, which was also used by Servit.

Most of the key references for Marci are listed You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , and there are more, e.g. Garber (2002), Smolka (1970), Smolka (2014), all of which are listed on my page of references.

I believe that none of these references can be found on-line in Google books, archive.org or JSTOR, and they require a trip to a library, probably involving inter-library loan (this was the case for me).

One can of course write anything one likes about Marci, but without having read *any* of the above sources, this will not have much weight.

Coming back to the statement by Zdenek Servit on Marci's memory, on page 57 of the book quoted in my previous post he writes (approximate English translation):

Quote:Even in 1665 - or perhaps 1666 - he sent Kircher a Roger Bacon manuscript with a cover letter that did not show any disturbances of intellect.

and:

Quote:It was not until the end of 1666 that Marci's health began to get worse, and he wrote down a will he could not sign for the weakness of his eyesight.

It is worth going through the chronology:

August 1665

Marci sends a letter to Kircher which Servit judges not to show any deterioration of his mind. This is easy to establish. Following are points from this letter that have been verified to be accurate (Philip Neal translation):

- "This book was left to me by a close friend in his will".
Demonstrated by reference to Marci's 1662 book "Philosophia Vetus Restituta", where he writes that Barschius left him his library.

- "The then possessor of the book once sent you letters seeking your judgment about a part of it which he wrote down and sent to you"
Demonstrated by the Barschius letter of 1639 that has been preserved, and two references to an earlier letter of 1637 that has been lost.

- "Doctor Raphael, the Czech language tutor of King Ferdinand III as they both then were"
Dr. Raphael has been identified as Raphael Mnisowsky. His tutelage of Ferdinand III is confirmed by Pelzel (1773-1782).

This already settles the matter completely, but there is still more.

January 1666

Kinner asks on Marci's behalf if Kircher has made any progress with the book that he sent the year before. This is an accurate memory. Furthermore, Kinner says no word about any mental problem of Marci.

December 1666

Marci draws up his last will and testament. While his eyesight is gone, it is witnessed by several University professors and doctors. It seems extremely unlikely that he would have been allowed to do this if he had really lost his memory.

January 1667

Kinner again asks on Marci's behalf on progress about the MS. Here, Kinner writes that Marci has lost memory of almost everything. However, this statement is immediately followed by: "but still remembers you. He very officially bids me salute you in his name and he wishes to know through me whether you have yet proved an Oedipus in solving that book which he sent via the Father Provincial last year and what mysteries you think it may contain. It will be a great solace to him if you are able to satisfy his curiosity on this point."
So, there are plenty of things that Marci remembers very well, including the agent who sent the book in 1665. If there is anything at all that could be described as an "off-hand remark" it is only the statement: "Dominus Marcus has lost his memory of nearly everything".

April 1667

Marci dies.

Rene
Yes, I know the subject has been raised before but when I tried to post to it, the thread was closed. It has since been re-opened.

Another passage from the same essay and the same editorial hand doesn't say 'collection' but 'library'.

The short answer seems to be that there is no documentary evidence to support the idea that the manuscript was ever in Rudolf's library or any of his various 'collections'.

I realise that all expressions of that idea, including extrapolations from it, are without other documentary support than the single paragraph in Marci's letter.  So too, of course, decisions made about Marci's memory at the time.  I note another discrepancy which appears to add to the evidence that Marci's memory was failing already and certainly accept that your own memory is still functioning well.  However, since you have replied to this, may I remind you of the other point mentioned - who should be asked for permission to reproduce the image of the manuscript which appears on your site. (Details given above).

Please do not discuss the provenance, copyright or content of third party websites on this forum. It is fine to quote them as references, but specific content enquiries should be directed to the website owner, not posted here.

Indeed, at the present time there are not two references stating that the MS was owned by Rudolf, but only one.

The credibility of this source is not any worse than that of any other 17th century written record, as I think has been sufficiently demonstrated above.

(While Servit does not go into the details of the letter, they are briefly addressed, without casting any doubt on it, by Josef Smolka in:
Smolka and Zandbergen: Athanasius Kircher und seine ersten Prager Korrespondenten. In: Bohemia Jesuitica 1556-2006, ed. Petronilla Cemus (Würzburg: Echter, 2010), pp. 677-705 )


The copyright of all images of the Voynich MS lies with the Beinecke library. I was specifically allowed by the library to use this image in the presentation in the frame of the Folger / Beinecke event about cryptography and Friedman. I have no right (I believe) to transfer this right. (Sorry David).

A reference to Philip Neal's statement would still be appreciated.