The Voynich Ninja

(03-05-2024, 04:08 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I took a closer look at your picture of the parchment warehouse. Apart from the confusion, where it is already questionable whether it is even possible to keep order for 500 years so as not to mix anything up.

In a period of time where every building undergoes several renovations and thus also moves inventory.

The way the parchment is stored alone would be an invitation and a buffet for insects. It's just too much of a breeding ground. Apart from mould and mice. But I still can't find any traces on the inside pages of the VM.

Consequently, he would have to have read the parchment for his forgery, which makes it even less likely to find clean parchment of the same age, and in the required quantity.

What is your explanation?

As I understand your point here, you are asking how I would explain the cleaner inside pages of the Voynich, when the images of the inside of Voynich's Libreria show randoms stacks of materials... which you suppose should show random signs of insect and rodent abuse?

Well, as all of us can, in any direction... as we don't know specific cases, nor this one, if the materials did, indeed, come from the 500,000 item piles there. But I would say one possible reason might be that the Voynich materials, were, in fact, stacked in some way, or ways.

I mean, like a book is essentially stacked leaves or pages, and it is understood that the insects do not really eat parchment. The ones in the Voynich are said to originate in some original wood cover, no? That they stopped after the first leaf or two of parchment. Knowing this is a possible put forth, then I see no reason why it would not be the same case were the leaves stacked blank somewhere, or even, originally, in book form. For in such a case, wouldn't the same effects apply as suggested for a real Voynich, and for what we observe? That is, some number of blank pages?

Sorry if i misunderstood your question and premise, but that is how I would answer it.





(by the way, the photographer who took those pictures in 1908 also happened to later photograph the Mondragone for a travel book. She later became well known as a pioneer of women's mountain climbing, and lived an interesting and diverse life)
Edited to add: The photographer was Aubry Le Blond, and she also photographed the Villa Mondragone for the 1912 "The Old Gardens of Italy, and How to Visit Them". Anyone interested in seeing the Villa in 1912 can view the book here: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Rich.

You're absolutely right. They don't go in parchment. That's the difference between paper and parchment. (Cellulose in wood and paper).
But there's a point in its life cycle where it has to. Whether it suits him or not.
OK, I didn't get you.

On the subject of Voynich's possibly learning of the Baresch letter in the 12/14 volumes of the Carteggio, and possible access to them, I searched through my own notes and found some references which I had forgotten. Some of it goes back to 2007, then again in 2013, and I had compiled the infromation from those discussions again in 2018, and posted them to the Voynich.net Mailing List. But, in short:

1) Voynich did know of the Baresch reference in the Letters of the Carteggio
2) Reference to the letters was in published form, in the 1678 De Sepi book
3) Voynich did know of the volumes of Kircher letters, only claiming he thought them "lost"
4) In this thread, Rene admits it is not known that they were "under lock and seal", only that he considers it "likely"

Rather than edit and parse out my 2018 email to the Mailing List with the subject line, "VMS: Old Carteggio References", I will copy below my entire email, with no editing (except for a line in italic/bold, and one link to a book), below:

Some very interesting points here, relating to the Carteggio. I was looking through some old emails, for the reference to the Carteggio being in the Villa Mondragone, and found them.

From July 8th, 2007, Rene wrote,

"Since then, and until the 1930's (when the new Collegium Romanum
was established, named the Gregorian University) these collections
were kept completely hidden from non-Jesuit sources. There is evidence
(rebinding of the VMs, pencilled notes in the Carteggio Kircheriano),
that they were still accessed by the Jesuits during this time.

Note that last, "... that they were still accessed by the Jesuits during this time." Right there you have an admission, in 2007, of EXACTLY my point, and the thing that I assumed would be the case: That the Jesuits would be AWARE of the Carteggio, and USED it. These are part of the premis which makes me suspect there would be a proto-document, which outlined the contents of the letters. But really now... we are almost there already... for if, during the time the Carteggio was (to give the benefit of the doubt) "off limits to non-Jesuit scholars", we don't even need a "proto document"... we just need one of them telling Voynich, or Strickland who told Voynich, "The letters mention a work with stars, in an unknown script...".

From a May 9th, 2013 email, Rene wrote,

"Voynich clearly had several experts helping him, because he was told
about Barschius by someone familiar with Marci's book: Philosophia Vetus Restituta
where Marci writes that he inherited Barschius' alchemical library.
Also, he was told that in the De Sepi catalogue of Kircher's museum there
is reference to ten volumes of Kircher correspondence.

"In Voynich's  correspondence kept in the Beinecke, there are letters where
he refers to exactly this information, pointing out that these volumes are
apparently now lost (referring to Sommervogel and De Backer)."

You see the problem here: It was assumed that Voynich's early knowledge of Baresh... his "guess"... is used as a powerful point to show that the Voynich is genuine, when used IN COMBINATION with a projected "off limits or unknown" Carteggio. But we are told he had "several experts helping him"... with JUST the correct information he needed to guess Baresch, and enough to know of the existance of the Carteggio, and to even (IMHO) hint (wink wink, nod nod) one only has to find those ten volumes (the Carteggio).

I wrote in response to this I'll put it between asterisks for clarity:

*********************************************************************************

"This is: Sommervogel and De Backer: Bibliothèque de la Compagnie de Jesus, 1893
I actually saw a later edition.... ...The Carteggio is not listed, and not even hinted at, even while this is
by far the most important set. It was completely unknown at the start of the 20th Century."

So the correspondence which includes the Baresch and Marci letters is not listed in this 1893 work.

"Also, he was told that in the De Sepi catalogue of Kircher's museum there
is reference to ten volumes of Kircher correspondence."

But then he did know of the existence of Kircher letters You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., and see that it does list "12 large volumes" of correspondence.

"In Voynich's  correspondence kept in the Beinecke, there are letters where
he refers to exactly this information, pointing out that these volumes are
apparently now lost (referring to Sommervogel and De Backer)."

From what you are saying, it was Voynich who assumed that the 12 large volumes of letters listed in the 1678 De Sepi catalog were now lost, because Voynich noted that Sommervogel and De Backer failed to mention them in their 1893 work?

Put another way: Is Voynich's word alone, in these letters, the source of belief... these claims that Voynich could not have seen the letters in these 12/14 volumes? Or is there an outside source of this belief... such as some other person noting that they were "lost", or the Gregorian saying they were lost at this time, or otherwise inaccessible, in the early 20th century? I mean, how do we know, other than Voynich, that he could not have visited the collection in Gregorian University, in, say, 1908, and seen the letters himself?

I note that although Sommervogel and De Backer's work may not list the correspondence, it is also true that other books on the collections of Kircher, such as Filippo Buonanni (from what I've just learned) also do not, and also, De Sepi's purpose was not to list what Sommervogel... and Buonanni list. So I fail to see Voynich's concern that the letters were "lost", if only based on the exclusion in other works. Again, unless I am missing something, and there is some other, outside, "non-Voynich" information to this effect.

I have one more question: At what date did Voynich "refer to exactly this information"? You are correct, and I ought to see these letters... but I am curious if you noted when Voynich explained this. Was he in the United States by then? I mean, was it long after the find of the Voynich manuscript in 1912, that Voynich was lamenting that the letters mentioned in De Sepi were probably lost, because he did not see them listed in Sommervogel and De Backer?

***************************************************************************"

And this is where the famous "lock and seal" statement, by Rene came, in response to this:

"I would put the emphasis in another way.
It is not that the letters were lost... Nobody knew that they existed at all.
Of course, now we know that the Jesuits were keeping them under lock and seal,
as a result of the suppression of the order by the pope, and the confiscation of
their libraries.
Nobody was given access to them, otherwise their existence would habve been
known to the Jesuits at large and those studying their work.

"So, even if it was probably kept by the same people who sold the Voynich MS
to Voynich, it is very "adventurous" to imagine that:
- Voynich even got to see the volumes
- Voynich got to see the one not so significant letter from Barschius among the 2000.

"His actions later do not raise any particular suspicion. It would be of interest to
check the date of that letter. What struck me of that letter is that he wanted the
help from Henri Hyvernat, but did not ask him directly. He did this through an
intermediary. Voynich clearly had some problem with Hyvernat, and the latter
(and his colleague Petersen) only got access to the Voynich MS shortly after
Voynich's death."

***********************************************************************************

In conclusion.. for now, I'm intending on reading more old posts... I would say this is all very, very, fishy... and I had even forgotten most of it. To me, it is "more of the same" from Voynich: Phish for quotes and names that can be used, then hint at new directions for researchers to help him "figure out" the provenance of the ms.. Like this, again:

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

And by the way, I was just looking at Ethel's concerns about Bareshius, and "how did he know" this stuff... wish I could commisserate with her.

I think he was pointing at the Kircher Carteggio... setting a trap, hoping someone would look there... and they didn't. Until 1999, when Rene found the information Voynich wanted someone to find, 80 years earlier. And, at least, it worked as Voynich intended... was used to prop up his work as the one discussed, and a genuine one, at that.

Rich.