The Voynich Ninja

(18-04-2024, 08:11 PM)kckluge Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(18-04-2024, 12:35 AM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(18-04-2024, 12:21 AM)tavie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Is this theory falsifiable?  Is there anything that would persuade you that it isn't a modern forgery?

That begs the questions "Is there anything that would persuade you that it IS a modern forgery?"

There are as many ways to falsify the modern forgery theory as there are to falsify the genuine medieval manuscript theory.

A clear reference to the manuscript from a pre-19th century source is one obvious possibility that would falsify it.
[...]

Sorry, nope, the modern forgery theory could explain that away by claiming either (1) the "pre-19th century source" had also been forged and planted by Voynich, and/or (2) the forgery of the manuscript was inspired by the "pre-19th century source", and/or (3) the description in the "pre-19th century source" is not, in fact, describing the Voynich manuscript. 

In fact, Rich has already essentially played all three of those cards by claiming the Marci letter is a forgery; the manuscript was inspired by Voynich (supposedly, with no evidence to support it) coming across the references in Kircher's carteggio; and that the manuscript does not match the description of the manuscript referenced in the letters to Kircher (despite supposedly inspiring the forgery in the first place).

Note that the C-14 dating could have falsified the authenticity of the manuscript had the vellum clearly post-dated the Marci letter. It didn't. There would have been no hand-waving that away.

Wow Karl! You really came in swinging there! And gloves off, too!

1) Yes I believe the Marci letter is probably a forgery for several reasons: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
But whether or not it is real or not, it does not affect whether the Voynich is real or not. So no I haven't "played that card" in the sense you seem to mean.

2) As for the letters of the Carteggio, it was long claimed that the letters were "under lock and seal", with no evidence they were. They were certainly of interest and importance to the Jesuits, and I don't buy the idea that they were some dusty archive untouched. They were seen, considered important, and were referenced. And the photographer for Zimmern... forget her name... took pictures of the Mondragone for a travel guide. The thing is, it was lived in, used as a college... very active. The "old story" that it was some sort of sealed, dusty archive, with untouched treasures, just is not true.

3) The guy in charge, Strickland, was a long time friend of both Ethel and Wilfrid. And he sold items to Wilfrid. So the idea that Wilfrid only saw and knew about what Strickland offered him? He was known for having his feelers out all around Europe. It is not inconceivable at all that the mentions of an intractable book, with unknown characters and script, and "plants unknown to the Germans", and some stars, was not passed on to Wilfrid. I mean, on the one hand we are told, have been told, that this was Wilfrid's strength: To ferret out lost manuscripts, and no, I have no evidence this happened, but the scenario is all in place... the locations, the players, the motivations... to match his practice he was famous for.

4) No, the mentions are not a good match, not at all. But the thing is, if this is the case...  and it most certainly is the case... why are they used as evidence by anyone? You disagree, but I don't see a contradiction at all: Forgers often use the knowledge of a lost item to then create an item to fill that "need", and they then have "instant provenance". In this case, yes, the Voynich looks just enough like the letter descriptions for many to say it is the Voynich being discussed... so, in effect, it works for you and others. But looking at the evidence critically, I think we can see it probably was not the Voynich they were talking about: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Also, what I consider the unbelievable coincidence, that of all the languages the "men of the letters" were unfamiliar with, that the one remaining one still undeciphered in 1912... and today, for that matter, just happened to be the Voynich? And the one manuscript that had "plants unknown to the Germans", when most plants, in most herbals, were long since identified by 1912, but the Voynich plants? That's one magic manuscript, to paraphrase Stone:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

The practice of forgers to replace a known, but missing valuable item is documented several times in the history of forgery. It does not have to be a perfect match, or fulfill all the specs, nor constrain itself to the specs, of the missing item. It just has to be good enough to fool enough and long enough. I think the match has been given far too much credit for too long.

"Sorry, nope, the modern forgery theory could explain that away by claiming either (1) the "pre-19th century source" had also been forged and planted by Voynich"

Well not if it is remotely good enough. You can't blame me for the fact that no acceptable provenance yet exists, that is not my fault. And it is not my fault, either, for pointing out that this is the case. It is the right thing to do, as I believe it is true. That does not mean that I will accept yours, or anyone else's, standards for what I should think is passable, and does not mean that I have an unusually high standard, either. In fact, my threshold for acceptance of provable provenance may be lower than usually accepted for proof... and yet still higher than what passes for others, here. They are welcome to do that, of course... but to me, it is not at all convincing, and even, works against these mentions being the Voynich in the first place.

Rich.

(18-04-2024, 08:11 PM)kckluge Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Sorry, nope, the modern forgery theory could explain that away by claiming either (1) the "pre-19th century source" had also been forged and planted by Voynich, and/or (2) the forgery of the manuscript was inspired by the "pre-19th century source", and/or (3) the description in the "pre-19th century source" is not, in fact, describing the Voynich manuscript. 

In fact, Rich has already essentially played all three of those cards by claiming the Marci letter is a forgery; the manuscript was inspired by Voynich (supposedly, with no evidence to support it) coming across the references in Kircher's carteggio;

Well, yes, he can indeed try to claim any or all of those things, but that does not mean that he is right.

In fact, he does not have a good story, and his bits and pieces are full of contraductions (one of which is already pointed out by Karl). No consistent timeline is possible.

Rich's theory can only appeal to people who do not know the full details.

(19-04-2024, 12:36 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(18-04-2024, 08:11 PM)kckluge Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Sorry, nope, the modern forgery theory could explain that away by claiming either (1) the "pre-19th century source" had also been forged and planted by Voynich, and/or (2) the forgery of the manuscript was inspired by the "pre-19th century source", and/or (3) the description in the "pre-19th century source" is not, in fact, describing the Voynich manuscript. 

In fact, Rich has already essentially played all three of those cards by claiming the Marci letter is a forgery; the manuscript was inspired by Voynich (supposedly, with no evidence to support it) coming across the references in Kircher's carteggio;

Well, yes, he can indeed try to claim any or all of those things, but that does not mean that he is right.

In fact, he does not have a good story, and his bits and pieces are full of contraductions (one of which is already pointed out by Karl). No consistent timeline is possible.

Rich's theory can only appeal to people who do not know the full details.

Hi Rene: There is no contradiction in my rebuttal to Karl, nor in any of the points in my hypothesis. Although I think there is a possibility that the comments in the letters, referring to "unknown characters", "plants unknown to the Germans", "stars", "chemical symbolism", "arcane book", and so on, did influence the creation of a forgery to fit them, it is not a contradiction on my part to then note that the Voynich was created with many more elements in addition to them.

I do not contradict myself at all, and in fact I agree there is a similarity... a very weak one, but enough to suspect that they may be connected in some way. But anyone interested in my actual points on that, rather than taking your verdict, ought to read my page on this subject: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (and active link): https://proto57.wordpress.com/2020/04/19/the-voynich-has-no-provenance/

And you have also made this claim t there is a problem with the timeline of my hypothesis. One time you said Voynich "would have needed a time machine". But you have not explained why you think this is. There is no timeline problem at all: Wilfrid bought the Libreria in 1908, we know that. Sometime in the ensuing two to three years (needing only maybe couple of months in that time), he created, probably with help of one to two others, using blank materials in the vast piles there, the Voynich. He may have shown and early version to Joseph Baer in Frankfort, maybe by 1909/10. Then he falsely announced he had "discovered" the manuscript in 1912.

So far, no problem with the timeline.

He inexplicably "didn't notice" the 1665/66 Marci Letter INSIDE his book until sometime later. And that letter could be real, but I think it may be fake, also. Either way, it does not affect the genuineness of the Voynich. But the letter, also, does not affect the timeline of my hypothesis at all... it refers to events in the 17th century. The finding of the letter, and the content of the letter, also do not contradict my timeline in any way.

You agree that the Voynich's knew and were friends with Joseph Strickland, who was at the Villa Mondragone both as a student and teaching there at various times between the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and that supposedly he sold books, including the Voynich, to Wilfrid in 1912. Strickland also studied You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. The timing for him to inform Wilfrid of the mentions of the mysterious manuscript in the letters, which he would have fully had the opportunity to do, by 1909 or so, is possible.

So all the timing works fine, with no contradictions at all (whether one believes my theory possible or not). Yet for the second or third time, you have claimed something like now, "No consistent timeline is possible." In the other instances in which you made this claim, and I have both explained why you are not correct in saying this, you did not explain yourself. I hope you do this time... either you would point out an error in the timeline of my hypothesis, for me and all the readers here, or you will realize you are wrong, and finally acknowledge that.

"Rich's theory can only appeal to people who do not know the full details."

Actually my hypothesis can only seem flawed to anyone who accepts the opinions, stated as though they were absolutes, offered by you and others. I hear them repeated all the time, when they are not true, or unknowns. It is when one realizes that the image of the Voynich as an unassailable genuine and old manuscript is really a "castle built in the air", but with no real foundation under it, that people realize my hypothesis is possible, and even plausible.

I "appeal" to anyone who does not like to have others think for them. True skeptics, who value the "truth of the matter" over attractive fictions. The sort who don't just hear, for instance, "Rich's timeline doesn't fit", then walk away with pretty notions about the manuscript intact. The ones who would want to KNOW why you say this, and if you are right or wrong about it. And anyone who does understand the points of my hypothesis realizes that the claims by you and Karl, here, and the others I've read, are simply incorrect: There are no contradictions, no problem with timeline, no problem with the known facts of the Voynich... the real known facts, not those opinions stated as facts. I don't do that, I don't need to do that.

And as I've pointed out for many years now, while I am ready and willing to explain each and every point I make, and change those points which are in error, it is always a one way street of "drive by comments" criticizing something I've written, but then leaving before explaining why; while those so criticizing never fully explain, or explain properly, or at all, the many hundreds of anomalies and anachronisms the Voynich is sick with.

I mean, I can and must point out the massive amount of timeline violation, hypocrisy and contradictions one needs to believe the story that the Voynich is genuine: The "signature" which would have been visible in the 17th century, but was not mentioned in the Letters. The nude woman, baths, tubes, zodiac and more, not mentioned in the letters. The use of foldouts hundreds of years before they appeared on the literary scene. The pages being made of calfskin as much as 60 or more years apart. The last page marginalia being written in different style and hand, but in the ink of the main text. A manuscript, indecipherable, but supposedly made in a time of dirt-simple ciphers. Why does the Voynich have no acceptable provenance from the early 15th century to 1912? Why does it appear nowhere, in any record or reference? Why did Voynich lie about the provenance by giving at least three distinct versions of it? And then the last on, to Ethel, of the Mondragone, but only after Strickland died? Why do several experts identify plants, animals, script and more, as post-Columbus, i.e., "New World", in a supposedly 15th century document? How does it happen that most people agree the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. animal looks much like a curled armadillo, while all believers in 1420 say it is something else? Why is the 16th century term, "Pox Leber" written in that text, when it is written in supposedly early 15th century ink? Why did Voynich not see the 1665/66 Marci letter in the Voynich until years after he found it? Why do the folding lines and location of seals on the 1665/66 Marci letter not make any sense, as they do in other letters? How is the signature and date a perfectly aligned overlay with the Marci signature and date found on another letter in the Carteggio (but with an additional "tail" to turn the "0" into a "6")? Why is the Voynich missing a descriptive Beckz label, when most of his other purchases had one? Why was the cover replaced in the Voynich with a poor cover in the 17th century? Why does the Voynich binding have modern materials in it? Why does the Voynich ink have "unusual" copper and zinc, a "titanium compound", and an unidentifiable binder? Why did so many eminent experts in art history, the history of the herbal and medicinal manuscripts, paleography, book cataloguing, linguistics, cipher and more, all believe different eras and geographies for the origin of the Voynich, ranging at least 300 years, and only one of their opinions match the eventual C14? Why does the Voynich have seemingly clean cut, and brighter edges, on many of its leaves? Why do the colors look so bright and fresh for an early 15th century manuscript? How did Voynich "know" De "Topencz" was Bohemian, when writing to Prague, if he had no idea who he was... and could not even spell his name? Why did Voynich happen to have a list of 19 or so people listed in Follies of Science at the Court of Rudolf II, in the order they appear in that book, when so many elements of the Voynich arguably match that book, which is also "signed" by a person mentioned in it? How does the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. "wheel" line up perfectly, in proportions and features, with a diatom only discovered in the 19th century, and which needs a 500x microscope to see? Why are the "women tethered with stars" concept only seen in the Voynich until first found elsewhere in illustrations by Eilhu Vedder for an 1884/5 edition the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam? How is it that Charles Singer lectured on the Voynich, saying he saw it as early as 1905/08 at Joseph Baer's in Frankfort, when Wilfrid claims he first found it in 1912? Why would the Jesuits allow the purchase of the 1665/66 Marci letter be sold? Why did Kircher never mention the Voynich (if he truly saw it, as claimed), and why is it not listed in any of his records, if sent to him, as claimed? Why did Voynich claim he could not read the De Tepencz signature, when I found, in the unpublished (before me) photograph of the "pre-treatment" You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. image, that it was visible? Why does the talent and quality of the Voynich images vary so greatly? Why do the illustrations of the nested and flying birds on f86r, seeming representing the four elements, happen to match the same representation's in Maier's Altalantia Fugeuns, from 1617? Why do all good comparisons in the Voynich always happen to either be in books published by 1909, or in places which Voynich is known or believed to have visited, and never vice-versa? Why are all anachronistic and anomalous comparisons, if they are paroidelia or coincidence, never of objects which existed after 1910? Why is there the illustration of the "Tower in a Hole", a nonsensical, fantastical image, in a supposedly genuine and meaningful manuscript? Why does it have no context in any known discipline, geography or time, but shares with dozens, like no other genuine work does?

The point in copying that (limited) selection is this: You and others drop comments claiming my use of contradiction, or violations of timeline, or misuse of facts, in my hypothesis. And I explain why this is not the case. And yet there are hundreds, probably thousands of anachronisms, contradictions, "timeline" violations, omissions of facts, manipulations of data, ignoring of expert observations and opinions, and on and on, all either answered implausibly, ignored entirely, or summarily dismissed, all to buttress up an image of the Voynich as a genuine item.

Why is that?

Rich.

I don't know much about the history of the VM. But I'm pretty sure Marci got the knowledge about the book directly from Tepenec. Tepenec was probably even his teacher, based on both biographies.

And when I look at who was in the alchemists' club at Rudolf's court, it also explains the heavy traces of use.

(19-04-2024, 01:55 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I don't know much about the history of the VM. But I'm pretty sure Marci got the knowledge about the book directly from Tepenec. Tepenec was probably even his teacher, based on both biographies.

And when I look at who was in the alchemists' club at Rudolf's court, it also explains the heavy traces of use.

Of course that is all possible, also, Aga. And the story of Rudolf's Court is a fascinating one, and pivotal to the history of science, religion, and world history. I see that time as a sort of "nexus", in which the world was one way before it, then came out the other side very different. Well, there are many times like this, I suppose, but this is one of the most important... Rudolf II, Kepler, Brahe, Shakespeare, Ben Jonson, Queen Elizabeth, Drebbel, Christopher Marlowe, John Dee, Francis Bacon... and many more, all contributing to radical changes in religion, science, government, literature, language, art, society... the list goes on.

Rich.

@Rich
This is not just an idea. I have legitimate reasons.
I'll give you a few excerpts.
Tepenece: around 1600
His medicines enjoyed great popularity and were called "sinapic waters" after him. However, he left Prague as early as 1600 and went to Jindřichův Hradec to take over the supervision of the Jesuit seminary there.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Marci: around 1608
Johannes Marcus Marci was the son of an estate manager. He attended the Jesuit college in Neuhaus from 1608.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

The interesting thing is that Tepenece was the rector or teacher at the University of Hradec around 1600. Marci was a student at the University of Neuhaus around 1608.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

It is the same university. Written once in Czech and once in German.
It is more than unlikely that someone at a small university would not know each other for a long period of time, months/years. Yes, everyone knows everything about everyone else.

A personal bond is a given. Letters no longer play a major role. The rest is the consequence of that. Charles University, Rudolf, and everyone who ever had the book in their hands.
Did Wilfried know that too?



@Rich
Das ist nicht einfach eine Idee. Ich habe berechtigte Gründe.
Ich gebe da einige Auszüge.
Tepenece: um 1600
Seine Arzneimittel erfreuten sich großer Beliebtheit und wurden nach ihm als „sinapische Wässer“ bezeichnet. Bereits 1600 verließ er jedoch Prag und ging nach Jindřichův Hradec, um die Aufsicht über das dortige Jesuitenseminar zu übernehmen.
Marci: um 1608
Johannes Marcus Marci war der Sohn eines Gutsverwalters. Ab 1608 besuchte er das Jesuitenkolleg Neuhaus.

Das Interessante daran ist Tepenece war um 1600 Rektor oder auch Lehrer an der Uni-Hradec. Marci war um 1608 Schüler an der Uni-Neuhaus.

Es ist die gleiche Universität. Einmal auf tschechisch, und einmal auf deutsch geschrieben.
Das sich jemand in einer kleinen Universität über einen längeren Zeitraum, Monate / Jahre nicht kennt, ist mehr als unwahrscheinlich. Da weiss jeder alles über jeden.

Eine persönliche Bindung ist gegeben. Briefe spielen da keine grosse Rolle mehr. Der Rest ist die folge davon. Karlsuniversität, Rudolf, und alle wo jemals das Buch in den Fingern hatten.
Hat das Wilfried auch gewusst?

(19-04-2024, 03:38 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.@Rich 

This is not just an idea. I have legitimate reasons.

I'll give you a few excerpts.

Tepenece: around 1600

His medicines enjoyed great popularity and were called "sinapic waters" after him. However, he left Prague as early as 1600 and went to Jindřichův Hradec to take over the supervision of the Jesuit seminary there.

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

Marci: around 1608

Johannes Marcus Marci was the son of an estate manager. He attended the Jesuit college in Neuhaus from 1608.

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

The interesting thing is that Tepenece was the rector or teacher at the University of Hradec around 1600. Marci was a student at the University of Neuhaus around 1608.

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



It is the same university. Written once in Czech and once in German.

It is more than unlikely that someone at a small university would not know each other for a long period of time, months/years. Yes, everyone knows everything about everyone else.

A personal bond is a given. Letters no longer play a major role. The rest is the consequence of that. Charles University, Rudolf, and everyone who ever had the book in their hands.

Did Wilfried know that too?

I agree with you that there is some sense the Voynich "has something to do with" the various people and the activities they were involved with. This is actually a perfect example, which demonstrates the whole point of this thread: That I agree with many people... experts and amateurs...  when they note similarities between the Voynich and one or more of many real world stories, people, items, whatever.

So I don't dispute the possibility that your ideas are correct, but I only attach them to the Voynich for a different reason entirely. I hypothesise that the Voynich was inspired, and modeled after, what I call the "primer" used to construct the bulk of it, the 1904 book, "Follies of Science at the Court of Rudolf II", by Henry Carrington Bolton. You can read a copy of it for free, here: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

This was a favorite book of Wilfrid's, and he even said he knew it by heart. In the Beinecke archives is a list, in Voynich's handwriting, listing 19 names from this book, and they are in the order they appear in this book. Now others postulate, and are welcome too, that he was innocently looking into this book in order to try and find answers about his "ugly duckling". It is chicken... duck?... egg problem. Which came first, his reading the book, or the Voynich which has such similarities to that book? Of course that is up to the individual to decide, but it seems to me too coincidental that so many of the items mentioned in "Follies" have also been independently noted by others in the Voynich, or in its given history. Plants and animals from the New World, experimental sciences, Dee and Kelly, Tycho Brahe, alchemy, glossolalia, Jewish references, botany, herbal medicine, the microscope and telescope, zodiac, astronomy and astrology, Rudolf II of course, and much, much more. When I first sat down and began reading this book my jaw dropped. Drool ran out. Well, not really, but... It was like "that's in there", "that too", "oh my god, that too?", over and over.

To me it is far too much of a coincidence, when you look at all this together: Voynich's love of that book, his notes, what was observed in the Voynich by many matching this book's content, and the popularity of that book only 8 years before the announcement of the find of the Voynich. Of course I believe the Voynich was forged between about 1908 to 1910, so the timeline matches, too. No time machine necessary.

But here is the kicker, the "coup de grace": In that book is mentioned Jakub Hořčický, with a seemingly invented (the book has many errors, and seemingly fanciful inventions) brother Christian Hořčický. This Christian Hořčický is in the place of Jakub in history, in that he is the chief botanist and physician to Rudolf. And as you know, Jakub Hořčický was later named Jakub Horčický z Tepence, and whose name appears as though a signature on the front page of the Voynich. As I wrote in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.,

"I believe Wilfrid’s original intent was to make the Voynich look as though it was a work from the hand of the (probably invented) Christian Hořčický, a character who Bolton places as the owner of the (also imaginary?) “The City Pharmacy” in the Capitol of Bohemia. Perhaps Wilfrid’s intention was that it looked to have been owned or written by him, or written and/or owned by his son, Jakub Hořčický. The latter is real, and was actually the chief botanist and physician to Rudolf II."- and, as I said, "signed" the Voynich.

So yes, I think there is much to your points, and how they plausibly relate to the Voynich manuscript and its given history. But I think that this relationship is invented, and probably, to a large extent, inspired by the book "Follies...", as an outline, and then with a whole lot of other stuff thrown in.

Rich.

(19-04-2024, 01:55 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I don't know much about the history of the VM. But I'm pretty sure Marci got the knowledge about the book directly from Tepenec. Tepenec was probably even his teacher, based on both biographies.

It is not impossible, but I consider it rather unlikely.
Marci was a university student, at a time when Tepenec was in exile.

Tepenec did not give the book to Marci. Marci only got it when Barschius died.
Marci also clearly states that his teacher in (spagyrical) alchemy was Barschius.

However, he was already interested in alchemy (also the 'making gold' bit) much earlier.

(18-04-2024, 09:09 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(18-04-2024, 08:11 PM)kckluge Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(18-04-2024, 12:35 AM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(18-04-2024, 12:21 AM)tavie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Is this theory falsifiable?  Is there anything that would persuade you that it isn't a modern forgery?

That begs the questions "Is there anything that would persuade you that it IS a modern forgery?"


There are as many ways to falsify the modern forgery theory as there are to falsify the genuine medieval manuscript theory.


A clear reference to the manuscript from a pre-19th century source is one obvious possibility that would falsify it.


[...]

Sorry, nope, the modern forgery theory could explain that away by claiming either (1) the "pre-19th century source" had also been forged and planted by Voynich, and/or (2) the forgery of the manuscript was inspired by the "pre-19th century source", and/or (3) the description in the "pre-19th century source" is not, in fact, describing the Voynich manuscript. 




In fact, Rich has already essentially played all three of those cards by claiming the Marci letter is a forgery; the manuscript was inspired by Voynich (supposedly, with no evidence to support it) coming across the references in Kircher's carteggio; and that the manuscript does not match the description of the manuscript referenced in the letters to Kircher (despite supposedly inspiring the forgery in the first place).




Note that the C-14 dating could have falsified the authenticity of the manuscript had the vellum clearly post-dated the Marci letter. It didn't. There would have been no hand-waving that away.

Wow Karl! You really came in swinging there! And gloves off, too!




1) Yes I believe the Marci letter is probably a forgery for several reasons: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.




But whether or not it is real or not, it does not affect whether the Voynich is real or not. So no I haven't "played that card" in the sense you seem to mean.

The problem, of course, if that *if* the Marci letter is a forgery, then the forger *had* to have specific knowledge of the prior correspondence with Kircher about whatever mss was being discussed (because the Marci letter references that prior correspondence). Rich has no actual evidence of such knowledge, and the burden of proof is on him to provide it (as neither I nor anyone else can prove a negative). At best he can make vague plausibility arguments that are just that -- plausibility arguments, not evidence.



"2) As for the letters of the Carteggio, it was long claimed that the letters were "under lock and seal", with no evidence they were. They were certainly of interest and importance to the Jesuits, and I don't buy the idea that they were some dusty archive untouched. They were seen, considered important, and were referenced. [...]" (Sorry, I clearly haven't figured out how to do replies in the middle of quotes...)



Note the proof by vigorous assertion. "They were certainly of interest and importance to the Jesuits..." -- as evinced by what, exactly? "...I don't buy the idea that they were some dusty archive untouched" -- what you don't "buy" isn't evidence of anything. "They were seen, considered important, and were referenced." -- By whom, by whom, and where and when, exactly (and don't forget, you and I had a lengthy exchange about this on the mailing list...)? Who in the19th or early 20th century directly references and quotes material in the Carteggio?




"3) The guy in charge, Strickland, was a long time friend of both Ethel and Wilfrid. And he sold items to Wilfrid. So the idea that Wilfrid only saw and knew about what Strickland offered him? He was known for having his feelers out all around Europe. It is not inconceivable at all that the mentions of an intractable book, with unknown characters and script, and "plants unknown to the Germans", and some stars, was not passed on to Wilfrid."




The "it's not inconceivable" as Rich's best argument speaks for itself.



"4) No, the mentions are not a good match, not at all....But looking at the evidence critically, I think we can see it probably was not the Voynich they were talking about: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view."




Rich's argument (as stated briefly in a following post of his) is the following: "Although I think there is a possibility that the comments in the letters, referring to 'unknown characters', 'plants unknown to the Germans', 'stars', 'chemical symbolism', 'arcane book', and so on, did influence the creation of a forgery to fit them, it is not a contradiction on my part to then note that the Voynich was created with many more elements in addition to them." That is the sum and totality of Rich's case on this point -- that because the letters in the Carteggio don't specifically mention aspects of the mss. that *he* would have mentioned or that *he thinks* the writer(s) would/should have mentioned, that that is evidence that the letters aren't referring to the mss. in front of us.

Karl

Yes, somehow understood.
He was at university, but went to Rudolf before that and got the title in 1608. z Tepence. Ergo no direct contact with Marci after all.

Well, Marci was only 14 years old. I just figured the book was made available for viewing. Just to keep students interested.