The Voynich Ninja

(01-05-2024, 08:55 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The cases where we actually know everything about a manuscript's provenance are the extremes.

That the provenance of the Voynich MS should be bad is simply not true.
When people keep on stating that it has a bad provenance, it is only too easy to start to believe this.

The Marci letter, which is genuine beyond reasonable doubt, already takes it back all the way to the 17th century and mentions several owners. Several other pieces of evidence confirming and extending this have been found in the mean time.

This is clearly a problem for someone suggesting that the MS is a modern fake, so the chosen approach is to discredit this evidence and then claim that there is none. This discrediting is either by saying (without any supporting evidence) that the Marci letter is also a fake, and/or suggesting that the original MS in unreadable writing with drawings of herbs etc. etc. was lost, and a fake has been made to replace it. Also without supporting evidence of course.

Let's look at the Rohonc codex, which was mentioned  in another thread the other day.
This MS was found in a private library of a count that was donated to the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.
And that's it. There is no record when it entered the library, where it came from, who owned it before.
Nothing.

Now that is a case of bad or missing provenance.

And, indeed, this has led to a belief for over a hundred years that the Rohonc codex should be a fake.
Even a potential faker was identified - here also without evidence. He could have done it.

(01-05-2024, 01:43 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The Marci letter, which is genuine beyond reasonable doubt, already takes it back all the way to the 17th century and mentions several owners. Several other pieces of evidence confirming and extending this have been found in the mean time.

As I've said before, I'm not convinced of the modern forgery theory but also not of the alternative authentic 15th century theory.
(If I had to make a wager, I would probably put my money on the 15h century theory, but with conservative odds.)
I don't have the experience of looking at these old artifacts or of the historical contexts, so I mainly have to
base my evolving opinions on what is reasonable to an average person, and
on basic concepts of logic, information, evidence, data, etc. all of which transcend the specialized experience.
So I have to ask what may be  some dumb questions about details when they are more 'historical' in nature.

Anyway, it's pretty clear that the particular provenance that is 'known' rests critically on the authenticity of the Marci
letter that Voynich claimed to have found in the manuscript. (That is to say, if the letter is authentic, then the evidence
of the other letters holds some weight. If not, they weaken considerably.)

But there's been a few questions I've had about that letter. These are separate from anything Rich has outlined in his blogs (as far
as I know).

I was wondering if you, or anyone else, might answer any of them (or point me to more detailed sources of the answers).

1) What is the Marci letter written on? Can it be C-14 tested?

2) If the letter was in the manuscript, one would expect that it was there for a considerable period of time.  Possibly near 250 years,
but at an absolute minimum for the few years from the time it was in the Jesuits' hands till Voynich later found it, and
most likely for one or more periods of time measuring decades.
Is there any transfer of the ink, or more likely, the sealing wax onto the VMS vellum?

3) Why might Marci omit using Barschius's name while providing a review of the history of the book as he knew it.
He outlines the information that both of them already knew, but uses the terms "a close friend" (of Marci's) and the "then prossessor of the book",
even though both Marci and Kircher already knew Barschius.  And he had made previous references to most of the same information in earlier 
letters to Kircher. In those earlier letters, Marci had already
referred to Barschiuss by name, and as being among their "mutual friends"? Is it assumed that he had forgotten all that?
It simply stood out as a weirdness when I first read the letters all in order.

4) And additionally, in reference to you comments above, what are the several other pieces of evidence that have been found? (That is, where can i find the description of them?)

(01-05-2024, 04:47 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(01-05-2024, 01:43 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The Marci letter, which is genuine beyond reasonable doubt, already takes it back all the way to the 17th century and mentions several owners. Several other pieces of evidence confirming and extending this have been found in the mean time.

As I've said before, I'm not convinced of the modern forgery theory but also not of the alternative authentic 15th century theory.
(If I had to make a wager, I would probably put my money on the 15h century theory, but with conservative odds.)
I don't have the experience of looking at these old artifacts or of the historical contexts, so I mainly have to
base my evolving opinions on what is reasonable to an average person, and
on basic concepts of logic, information, evidence, data, etc. all of which transcend the specialized experience.
So I have to ask what may be  some dumb questions about details when they are more 'historical' in nature.

Anyway, it's pretty clear that the particular provenance that is 'known' rests critically on the authenticity of the Marci
letter that Voynich claimed to have found in the manuscript. (That is to say, if the letter is authentic, then the evidence
of the other letters holds some weight. If not, they weaken considerably.)

But there's been a few questions I've had about that letter. These are separate from anything Rich has outlined in his blogs (as far
as I know).

I was wondering if you, or anyone else, might answer any of them (or point me to more detailed sources of the answers).

1) What is the Marci letter written on? Can it be C-14 tested?

2) If the letter was in the manuscript, one would expect that it was there for a considerable period of time.  Possibly near 250 years,
but at an absolute minimum for the few years from the time it was in the Jesuits' hands till Voynich later found it, and
most likely for one or more periods of time measuring decades.
Is there any transfer of the ink, or more likely, the sealing wax onto the VMS vellum?

3) Why might Marci omit using Barschius's name while providing a review of the history of the book as he knew it.
He outlines the information that both of them already knew, but uses the terms "a close friend" (of Marci's) and the "then prossessor of the book",
even though both Marci and Kircher already knew Barschius.  And he had made previous references to most of the same information in earlier 
letters to Kircher. In those earlier letters, Marci had already
referred to Barschiuss by name, and as being among their "mutual friends"? Is it assumed that he had forgotten all that?
It simply stood out as a weirdness when I first read the letters all in order.

4) And additionally, in reference to you comments above, what are the several other pieces of evidence that have been found? (That is, where can i find the description of them?)

1) The Marci letter is written on paper and so cannot be C-14 tested. But it is paper with a texture and watermark that are consistent with a seventeenth-century date of the letter. The watermark can be seen in this image that I took in 2019: 
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
2) We have no way of knowing where and how the letter was stored or, if it was tucked into the manuscript, where and for how long. There is no clear material evidence that connects the manuscript and the letter. 
3) There are lots of reasons why Marci might use an alias like "a close friend," but there's no way to definitively determine why.
4) Rene has laid out more evidence about Marci, Baresch, and Kircher here: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(01-05-2024, 08:55 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.We don't know the author of most manuscripts. How can it be more extreme than "author unknown"? Author extremely unknown? And similarly, there are many manuscripts of which we don't even know in which country they were made. And of which we don't know how they ended up in the repository where they were first inventorized. Why? Because manuscripts travel. Because of Latin as the lingua franca. Because medieval scribes rarely signed their works. 

I would flip it around and say that the situation of the VM is pretty standard. The cases where we actually know everything about a manuscript's provenance are the extremes.

Well, of course I totally disagree with this, because it is a matter of the number and degree of these mysteries in the Voynich which I feel mean it is not at all similar to those other cases. But again I must point out that the lack of authorship is not an issue, and I don't feel should be included in the comparisons. We both agree there are a great many of such cases with unknown authors... the issue to me, which I use for comparsion, are the great many other unknowns, which do surpass virtually all genuine items... and even for that matter... most forgeries.

But we can go back and forth of course. I just reiterate my point, which is above yours. As many such discussion here and elsewhere, though, it is probably fodder for a blog post... listing such cases outside of the Voynich, actual ones... and why I believe the Voynich is far out of their class for serious "issues".

Rich.

(01-05-2024, 01:43 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The Marci letter, which is genuine beyond reasonable doubt, already takes it back all the way to the 17th century and mentions several owners. Several other pieces of evidence confirming and extending this have been found in the mean time.

This is clearly a problem for someone suggesting that the MS is a modern fake, so the chosen approach is to discredit this evidence and then claim that there is none. This discrediting is either by saying (without any supporting evidence) that the Marci letter is also a fake.

You feel the 1665/66 Marci letter is genuine, that is of course your opinion. But to claim it is "genuine beyond a reasonable doubt", or that there is no supporting evidence, are ones that I don't feel can be logically asserted. As I point out in my post: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.


... there are many problems with it that simply don't make sense, and remain unexplained. It is to me another case in which serious issues do not get answered nor resolved, but then later are simply ignored. The fold lines make no sense in any real context; the seal and other markings do not line up for any known purpose; the signature date and other parts of the letters have an uncannily perfect alignment with a similar, genuine letter... with small alterations to change numerals of the date. Here is my discussion of the fold lines, and anyone can see what I mean by this:



How would you explain that this letter's fold lines do not work in any real context, as shown above? I suggest that it is very likely the letter was created on a larger sheet of paper, on which the fold lines and seal placement did make sense, and cut down for this use.

What would be your reasoning for these useless fold lines?

(01-05-2024, 01:43 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Let's look at the Rohonc codex, which was mentioned  in another thread the other day.

This MS was found in a private library of a count that was donated to the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.

And that's it. There is no record when it entered the library, where it came from, who owned it before.

Nothing. Now that is a case of bad or missing provenance. And, indeed, this has led to a belief for over a hundred years that the Rohonc codex should be a fake.

Even a potential faker was identified - here also without evidence. He could have done it.

That is a very good comparison, one which I often make. I only disagree with you that the Voynich is not similarly "provenance impaired", the root cause of our disagreement here. But yes, I think it likely that the Rohonc is a forgery, with many of the same problems the Voynich is equipped with.

Rich

Andrew,

in case there were an argument about whether any page in the Voynich MS was written by a left-hander or a right-hander, you have two more or less equivalent positions, in terms of likelihood. Both can be called theories, or hypotheses, I suppose.

The question between genuinely old or modern fake is a completely different situation. Considering it a fake is a highly exceptional position, which requires some convincing evidence before it can even be considered. I am quite surprised to see you use the term '15th century theory'. This is not a theory, it is the default.
It has been strongly reinforced by all the tests that did not show any unusual substances.

About the Marci letter, in addition to Lisa's response, indeed, there are quite plausible reasons why Marci would not mention Barschius' name, but we don't know for certain, and guesses cannot be used to draw any further conclusions. Just to point out that it would be equally unusual for a faker to leave out the name. This whole question has no impact on anything.

If the Marci letter were radio-carbon dated, would that change anything? Already the dating of the MS itself is not stopping Rich from advocating his Voynich-faked-it theory.

The fact that almost all the sources confirming the information in the Marci letter is correct were in a completely sealed-off collection, not accessible to Voynich, and way too large to just stumble upon it, is also completely ignored.
Can you at least agree that Voynich never had this information? Honest and serious question.

The evidence presented by Rich, that the letter should be a fake is the observation that it has too many (or unusual?) folds.
It is the same problem again: if this is unusual for an original, it is also unusual for a fake.
Basically, this is a complete non-sequitur.
The fact that it has multiple different folds does not lead to the conclusion that it is a fake.

We don't know how Marci folded it when he sent the letter to Kircher.
Someone (perhaps the Jesuits) folded it such that it just fitted inside the MS, perhaps attached to the inner front cover.
Voynich may have carelessly refolded it, and so may Kraus.

That it is genuine is shown by the fact that the handwriting is the same as in a contemporaneous letter from Marci that only became available to non-Jesuits after 1930.

Rich,

You just wrote, ". the issue to me, which I use for comparsion, are the great many other unknowns, which do surpass virtually all genuine items... and even for that matter... most forgeries."

Here you are correct. The great number of 'unknowns' that derive from inconsistencies and 'indiscretions' in the VMs artistry are excessive. They are excessive because they were intentionally created to be that way. There are a few examples where this can be shown fairly clearly, and one of those is the VMs cosmic comparison. The VMs artist has taken an unusual cosmic structure, similar to "Oresme's" cosmos, radically altered the visual appearance and placed it inside a version of Shirakatsi's wheel.

This is how even the more significant parts of the VMs have eluded interpretation for so long. Because they require the elucidation of both parts, known to the artist, but historically obscure to many earlier VMs investigations. Additionally, the artist has made visual modifications within this uncommon, cosmic structural framework. Not to mention the absurd and "inexplicable" combination itself. There is a level or degree of trickery here far beyond expectation. At the same time, there is a familiarity with information relevant to the first part of the 15th century, that would be more likely to be acquired by a privileged individual who lived through that era.

As already mentioned, the historical process is not exactly my thing.
This person is mentioned from time to time in relation to the VM.
I would be interested to know what the meaning of this is.

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

(01-05-2024, 06:45 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The evidence presented by Rich, that the letter should be a fake is the observation that it has too many (or unusual?) folds.

It is the same problem again: if this is unusual for an original, it is also unusual for a fake.

Basically, this is a complete non-sequitur.

The fact that it has multiple different folds does not lead to the conclusion that it is a fake.

I must start with your statements here, because they are a complete misrepresentation of why the fold lines are a problem. You simply dismiss them as "too many (or unusual?). No, the problem is that they do not, when folded... You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., and you will see that his is all correct on my part... the fold lines do not allow the folding of the Marci letter 1) into an envelope, as is sometimes done, 2) as an insert in itself, or 3) to align the seal to any other part of the letter flap, as is also done.

It is not simply that they are unusual, they do not work in any usuable context at all; while the genuine letters of the Carteggio, and all genuine letters that I have seen, all fold along the the existing fold line properly. They make sense, the Marci letter lines do not. It is as though the paper is cut from another, larger, sheet, in which the fold lines did work with the original dimensions. I think the evidence points to the re-use of another sheet of old paper.

(01-05-2024, 06:45 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I am quite surprised to see you use the term '15th century theory'. This is not a theory, it is the default.

It has been strongly reinforced by all the tests that did not show any unusual substances.

I am glad you wrote this outright. You have strongly admonished me, and others, to never declare our hypothesis as fact, as "default", and yet here you do make this claim. We are all aware, on the contrary, that genuine 1420 is not proven, so this is not, and should not be considered "the default". 1420 Genuine European Cipher Herbal is an unproven working hypothesis, just as mine or any other theory. It is wrong and counter productive to learning its secrets, to claim this is a settled matter, as you do here... and elsewhere.

This claim is also based not only on unproven and unsupported evidence, such as the 1903 "mention", and the Wildmann refrences, which are clearly slim to no evidence at all, and yet, in many cases still claimed as referring to the Voynich. And so on and so forth...

(01-05-2024, 06:45 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If the Marci letter were radio-carbon dated, would that change anything? Already the dating of the MS itself is not stopping Rich from advocating his Voynich-faked-it theory.

As I often point out, these discussions are valuable to me for many reasons... to test my hypothesis, and to test yours and those of others. As to the above, I came to realize that I have been too slow to realize the actual case which is really implied by looking at the C14 results against the overwhelming expert opinion, and have missed the important implication. It is actually the opposite of what you claim, and really a new red flag of forgery, which goes like this,

"The radiocarbon dating of the parchment turned out to not match the overwhelming corpus of expert opinion as to the age of creation of the manuscript, which is evidence of forgery"

So, no, it is not "stopping me", but actually supports and adds to the plausibility of my hypothesis.

(01-05-2024, 06:45 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The fact that almost all the sources confirming the information in the Marci letter is correct were in a completely sealed-off collection, not accessible to Voynich, and way too large to just stumble upon it, is also completely ignored.

Can you at least agree that Voynich never had this information? Honest and serious question.

For many years now, Rene, you have made this claim, yet never given any concrete reason what evidence you use to support it. You used to say the letters were "under lock and seal"... but no such situation has ever been provided to us. How do you know these were in a "sealed off collection"? That is my honest and serious question, which you have never answered.

And on the contrary, the situation of these collections implies that the Jesuits would have had full access to them. As I discovered, there was at least on 19th century case of a Jesuit referring to the Carteggio, and certainly they would have all been aware of them.

(01-05-2024, 06:45 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.We don't know how Marci folded it when he sent the letter to Kircher.

Someone (perhaps the Jesuits) folded it such that it just fitted inside the MS, perhaps attached to the inner front cover.
Voynich may have carelessly refolded it, and so may Kraus.

This description of a possible reason for the fold lines is, respectfully, factually, provably incorrect. Watch my video, and you will see how it a wrong solution to this problem. None of the lines allow the folding in anyway to make sense in any genuine letter context, refolded later or not. You are here countering disprovable speculation against observed and tested facts.

(01-05-2024, 06:45 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.That it is genuine is shown by the fact that the handwriting is the same as in a contemporaneous letter from Marci that only became available to non-Jesuits after 1930.

Again, based on your unfounded speculation, presented as fact, that this information was inaccessible. But I see in this latest version a slight "disclaimer" in your "non-Jesuits"! When I see these adjustments to your positions, I realize some ground is being made with my ideas... for I point out that there is ever possibility that the information about the lost "sphinx" could have plausibly been shared with Voynich, also. I mean, there is every possibility that he did have access, as it is only your speculation that he could not have... but you now admit that the Jesuits could have had such access, something you had long argued against... and, of course, they would have. And so, Strickland and Voynich could have learned this information, too.

Every new point, finding, and observation actually goes in one direction, which is why I am still where I am. And why I keep discussing this so fervently, to hear the arguments of others who disagree with my hypothesis. I see speculations put forward as undeniable facts, genuine problems with the Voynich ignored or rebutted on foundation-less or unsupported grounds... like now, the problem with the fold lines being dismissed, but not explained. What I never see is a factual, grounded reason why the hypothesis is false.

Rich

(01-05-2024, 06:45 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Andrew,

in case there were an argument about whether any page in the Voynich MS was written by a left-hander or a right-hander, you have two more or less equivalent positions, in terms of likelihood. Both can be called theories, or hypotheses, I suppose.

No opinion -- maybe i missed this issue being brought up somewhere.

(01-05-2024, 06:45 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The question between genuinely old or modern fake is a completely different situation. Considering it a fake is a highly exceptional position, which
requires some convincing evidence before it can even be considered. I am quite surprised to see you use the term '15th century theory'.
This is not a theory, it is the default.

I have to consider it a theory still because I acknowledge that it hasn't been proven definitively, but i do agree
it is the default theory.  And the one, as I said, I would still put money on if I had to. (Although  I have enough
uncertainty, that given the option not to bet at all, I wouldn't)

(01-05-2024, 06:45 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It has been strongly reinforced by all the tests that did not show any unusual substances.

About the Marci letter, in addition to Lisa's response, indeed, there are quite plausible reasons why Marci would not mention Barschius' name,
but we don't know for certain, and guesses cannot be used to draw any further conclusions. Just to point out that it would be equally unusual for a
faker to leave out the name. This whole question has no impact on anything.

I agree it would be also unusual for a faker and so it has no impact.
However, if it has no impact for that reason, then the lack of unusual substances cannot at the same time "strongly reinforce".
The very same argument applies to both things if it applies to one.

(01-05-2024, 06:45 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If the Marci letter were radio-carbon dated, would that change anything?.

I agree that it would not change things if the vellum (of the letter) appeared to be from the same period as that of the manuscript. But it WOULD change things
if it showed that the Marci letter came from a much later period than its written date, as that would be evidence that the letter itself is a forgery.
(I would go so far as to say that that would be "proof" that it was a forgery.)
And that would mean the only remaining connection of the other letters to the VMS would be in their few descriptive phrases,
which are, aruguably, not as definitive as one might expect them to be.
(And if the C-14 tests placed the letter into the late 19th century, it would strengthen the case that Voynich himself was the forger.)
But all that is moot, since the letter is not vellum and not testable.

(01-05-2024, 06:45 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Already the dating of the MS itself is not stopping Rich from advocating his Voynich-faked-it theory

I think Rich's point about the C-14 dating was more about how it as interpreted and its relation to "listening to the experts" and
not as evidence that was not valid. I think he has said multiple times he accepts the 15th-century dating of the vellum.

(01-05-2024, 06:45 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The fact that almost all the sources confirming the information in the Marci letter is correct were in a completely sealed-off collection, not accessible to Voynich, and way too large to just stumble upon it, is also completely ignored.
Can you at least agree that Voynich never had this information? Honest and serious question.

And I'd give you an honest answer -- but I literally have not paid any attention so far to that particular set of evidence.
I've only just started looking the letters themselves and their translations in any detail.
(My attention until this thread started has been the statistical aspects of the Voynichese itself.  But I am finding
all this a compelling distraction.)

(01-05-2024, 06:45 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The evidence presented by Rich, that the letter should be a fake is the observation that it has too many (or unusual?) folds.
It is the same problem again: if this is unusual for an original, it is also unusual for a fake.
Basically, this is a complete non-sequitur.
The fact that it has multiple different folds does not lead to the conclusion that it is a fake.

I agree. I think it only adds evidence that something may be amiss. (One of those little red flags that is too weak to
mean anything, but has the potential to become significant in retrospect.)

(01-05-2024, 06:45 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.That it is genuine is shown by the fact that the handwriting is the same as in a contemporaneous letter from Marci that only became available to non-Jesuits after 1930.

Please point me to that -- it sounds quite relevant.