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.

(03-05-2024, 04:28 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.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.

Insects may not eat parchment (or leather).  Because of the tannin used in tanning, I suppose. Tannin gums up any protein it comes in contact with, including digestive enzymes and the "pump" proteins that take up nutrients from the digestive tract. And that is why plants make it.  

But insects may eat the ink, depending on the formulation.  

Iron-gall ink has lots of tannin too, so I expect it to be insect-safe as well.  But a popular binder for other kinds of ink, such as India ink and tempera paint, was gum arabic, which is an edible carbohydrate, between starch and sugar.  

I suppose that hide glue, long used in furniture-making, could be used as a binder too.  It is made by boiling raw (untanned) hide, and is basically half-digested protein, hence edible.

I gather that egg yolk was sometimes used as a binder for tempera paint, but I have no idea whether it was ever used for writing ink.

However, "professionally made" inks and paints with edible binder may have contained other substances (like metal salts) specifically to discourage insects and mold. 

Insects may be attracted also to stains from spilled food, or edible products intentionally spread on the parchment.  On You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and f1v I think I can see many places where insects scraped away the surface of the vellum, erasing some of the writing -- mainly in the area on the bottom and distal margin of the flap, that Voynich is believed to have rubbed with unknown chemicals.  Some of these liquids seeped through the parchment and "offsetted" on f2v, which may also have been impacted by insects.

All the best, --jorge

And since I am here: I don't think Voynich actually forged the VMS or Marci's letter.  But I think he was quite capable of doing some dirty tricks in order to support his claim that the VMS was a Roger Bacon original.  

We know that he got that idea from Raphael's comment that was reported by Marci on the VMS cover letter.  But that comment could be dismissed as being just Raphael's guess, based on nothing else than his hearsay knowledge that Rudolf once paid a large sum for a supposed Bacon original. (And this is also my view of Raphael's claim.)  

But, as I wrote before, to sell the VMS as a Bacon original Voynich needed more than just that comment. In particular, he needed plausible explanations for (A) how a Bacon original could have reached Rudolf, and (B) how it could have left Rudolf's library and ended up in Baresch's hands.  

For (A), he found the link in John Dee, who was known to possess some Bacon books and visited Rudolf at some point.  At the time it seemed a perfect link, that was debunked only recently.  What about (B)?

I think it is possible (even if not probable) that Voynich zeroed in on Jacobus as possible link in the chain of owners between Rudolf and Baresch.  It seems possible that he eventually managed to get a copy of the front page of one of the books that Jacobus owned, showing Jacobus signature and his book numbering system.  If so, the temptation would be strong for Voynich to forge a faint similar ex-libris on the bottom of f1r, photograph it, then "accidentally" erase it so as to hide the forgery.  Such "proof" that Jacobus owned the VMS before Baresch would make Raphael's claim a lot more credible.

Could that have happened, and would Voynich have ceded to the temptation?  Again, I don't think it is likely -- but there have been many cases or foul play more outlandish than that.

And I also think that Voynich would be quite capable of removing from the VMS any evidence that could weaken or contradict his claim.  Such as any stamp, signature, or marginal note that would indicate that the book could not ever have been in Rudolf's possession.

All the best, --jorge

(22-08-2025, 08:09 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.And I also think that Voynich would be quite capable of removing from the VMS any evidence that could weaken or contradict his claim.  Such as any stamp, signature, or marginal note that would indicate that the book could not ever have been in Rudolf's possession.

An interesting question.
The cover that the MS had, when Marci sent it to Kircher, might have had some indications from earlier ownership, but the Jesuits replaced this cover. I guess we are still lucky that Tepenec wrote his name on the first folio instead of this cover.
Voynich was forced to remove all indications related to the Jesuits from the books he obtained from them, in particular small sheets of paper with bibliographical descriptions, made when these manuscripts were in a Jesuit library.
He kept several of these, which have also been very helpful in tracing this collection.
We don't know if the Voynich MS had one, and, if so, what it said, but given that these were written by a capable bibliographer (whose name we can only guess), it would not have mentioned Bacon, and that would have been bad news for Voynich. 

He certainly exaggerated in all aspects of his books, in order to increase their value. It is hard to say whether he himself believed his exaggerations or not. The Roger Bacon origin is a perfect example of that.

Here's the 'amusing' part. On VMs White Aries, the blue stripes and red hats are sufficient grounds to make historical connections for observant readers who know the origins of the tradition of the cardinal's red galero, despite the obfuscation of an intentionally dualistic structure.

It also happens that Roger Bacon was acquainted with Ottobuono Fieschi when Fieschi was papal legate to England.

Therefore, the VMs does contain a somewhat obscure, second-hand reference to Roger Bacon that was unrecognized.

(22-08-2025, 11:46 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The Roger Bacon origin is a perfect example of that.

By the way, in the earlier years that Voynich owned the MS, i.e. well before his talk in 1921, he spread all sorts of beautifying myths about it. This is something I copied from a newspaper: the "San Antonio Light", 18 June 1918, page 10 column 6. The original online link no longer exists. The paper seems to have an online archive, but I cannot get in.

Anyway, here goes:

Quote:One or the most mysterious books in the world is now in New York City. Written on thick parchment with numerous illustrations its authorship is attributed to Roger Bacon,

 […]

It was chance that led to the discovery of this mysterious manuscript, now in the possession of a collector, Wilfred De Voynich, on the flyleaf of which there is a statement dating from the Seventeenth Century to the effect that Roger Bacon was the author.

 […]

For the first time since its existence this manuscript is in private hands, after having passed through several royal collections and many years of complete oblivion. The numerous legends around the name of Roger Bacon led Emperor Rudolph, founder of the Hapsburg dynasty, to buy the manuscript in 1291 for the fabulous sum of six hundred ducats. Nothing more is known of its history until the Seventeenth Century, when Ferdinand III, King of Bohemia, appears as its owner. The first known attempt at reading it is then recorded. Atanasius, noted astronomer and philosopher of that period, is said to have translated the beginning of the book, the study of ciphers being one of his achievements. It was Atanasius who established the famous astronomical observatory in Peking, China, and wrote many books on the Chinese.
 
The book has been traced through to the collection of the Duke of Malatesta and the Dulce of Parma, and then its fate again sinks into oblivion. Mr. De Voynich was gathering material for a book, when he came across the mention of this manuscript as forming a part of the royal collection, carefully hidden after the French revolution and forgotten. It took time and patience to locate this collection, but when he found it the books more than compensated for the labor. The manuscript in cipher was but one of the treasures found.

This quote from the 1918 newspaper article:

(23-08-2025, 04:41 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The numerous legends around the name of Roger Bacon led Emperor Rudolph, founder of the Hapsburg dynasty, to buy the manuscript in 1291 for the fabulous sum of six hundred ducats.

is surprising for more than one reason. I read somewhere that Voynich's Latin wasn't very good, but I haven't been able to find that comment again. In any case, he clearly misunderstood the Marci letter, and he thought that the Rudolf that is mentioned in it was not Rudolf II of Bohemia, but Rudolf I, the first king of the Hapsburg dynasty, who died in 1291. The reason is obvious: this was a contemporary of Roger Bacon!

The second surprise is that already by end 1915, 2.5 years earlier than this, a certain dr. Fielding H. Garrison wrote this to Voynich:

Quote:November 2, 1915
 
Wilfrid M. De Voynich, Esq.,
The Art Institute of Chicago,
Chicago, Illinois.
 
Dear Mr. De Vounich (sic):
Thank you very much for the interesting account of the Rodger Bacon manuscript. I shall want to mention it and its provenance in my book on medical history, in connection with Rudolph II, and I hope you will some day tell me what becomes of it.
We shall be very much interested to see the photograph of the specimen page and I will try to have it submitted to the proper people in the War or State Departments in aid of deciphering it. Meanwhile, hoping we shall see you here some time.
Sincerely yours,
F.H. Garrison

Voynich promptly responded:

Quote:Nov. 18,  5
Dear Doctor Garrison :-
Thanks very much for your letter of Nov. 2nd. Excuse me for the delay in answering it, as I was lecturing and exhibiting in different universities and was so busy that all my correspondence was postponed.
You can use as much as you like the details of the book for your medical history; but it belonged to Emperor Rudolph I., not II.

Voynich was so eager to have a contemporary of Bacon mentioned in the letter, that he ignored the comment from Garrison, and continued to ignore it until at least 1918. 

By 1919, he had embarked on his John Dee theory, implying that he understood that the letter referred to Rudolf II.
I do not have a complete copy of all of his early correspondence, but there is a lot more.