(04-11-2025, 11:30 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The Barschius letter is a genuine letter from the 17th century, from a man known to be a close frend of Marci, and who left his library to Marci in his testament. All this is historical fact, from documents that Voynich had nothing to do with.
Of course, agreed.
Quote:The letter describes a book written in unknown characters, with a great many pictures of herbs, stars and things looking like chemical symbolism. The herbs are described as unrecognisable. Let's call this book 'A'. It really existed and Barschius owned it.
Yes, agreed. We must remember the context, though... the characters were "unknown" to these men who discussed book A, at the time they wrote about them. We can't assume, I mean, that they would have still been unknown any time after that, to them or anyone else. While that is only an important point in some contexts, while I have you again, I point it out.
Quote:Now Voynich ended up in 1912 with an old manuscript, written in illegible characters, with mostly pictures of herbs but also stars and other things (yes, nymphs). Let's call this book 'B'.
Ok, good idea.
Quote:The argument is now, that book 'B' is a modern fake created by Voynich.
That is AN argument, but really unrelated to the question as to whether or not books A and B are the same. The Voynich could be real or fake, but I contend that the descriptions of the book the "Men of the Letters" (MOTL) were referring to because of the reasons listed below. I have a more complete breakdown of the descriptions on my page You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view., but actually, since I wrote that, I can add a couple more.
1) The descriptions of A lack important, obvious features in book B. Considering the purpose of those descriptions was to help Kircher determine the nature of book A, this is, alone, clear evidence they were looking at a different book. Among the things not mentioned were the Zodiacal symbols, many nude women, the tubes and colored baths, the "magic wheels", unusual devices, items which look anatomical, the many cylinders, and the "signature". Even if one contends that for modesty/propriety sake they left out the nudes (this argument has been presented more than once), still, mentioning many "bathing women" would have been an obvious and valuable bit of description to Kircher... but the lack of mention of the zodiac might rise above that. But trumping all might be not mentioning the signature... that alone could make the case that A was not B. The FIRST thing that Kircher would have been told was whose name was on it, if it was on A. For that, I've heard the excuse... I think it is in a comment on my page on the signature... that it was "too light" for the MOTL, but darkened later. Also, that Voynich added the signature, as I think he probably did.
2) The "chemical symbolism" description: If you look at the hundreds of examples of chemical symbols which were familiar to the MOTL, only one, I think... on the Rosettes pages... the "clock hands"... would match the term. Is there a second? In any case, why would they go to such a comparison, with one or few examples, yet ignore the items in my #1, above?
3) "Exotic" plants... Andrew pointed this out, the actual word translates closer to "foreign". But in any case, "exotic" or "foreign", I don't see how this particularly points to the Voynich, and no other. Even today one could have a book of plants and describe them as "exotic". And "unknown to the Germans"? So, book A was an herbal with plants they did not know. I know others here, and elsewhere, think that would have been unique to the Voynich, if they had seen it, but I disagree... there are still a great many Medieval herbals out there, and the plants are drawn with a wide range of accuracy, often almost unidentifiable, and sometimes symbolically, and many are foreign to one another.
4) Unknown script: OK there is unknown script, in there, but it is among a good number of matches to known Latin characters. Yet the Latin characters are not mentioned? This strongly implies they were not looking at book B, the Voynich. Especially since the entire reason for writing to Kircher was precisely because he had such a high reputation in languages and characters. An obvious and proper description would have been "With many unknown characters, intermixed with Latin letters".
Considering these points, I think it clear that book A, the Baresch Manuscript, clearly NOT the Voynich in front of us, today. In fact, those descriptions are not only bad, they actually work against it being the Voynich.
Quote:Can it be a coincidence, that Voynich created a book written in illegible characters, with mostly pictures of herbs but also stars and other things (yes, nymphs), supposedly from Prague, that so closely matched one that actually existed (our book 'A').
Well I disagree that it can be described as a "close match". It is a bad, to contrary comparison. If there was a scale of 1 to 10 likely hood, I'd give it maybe a 2" for the few items that matched; then subtract a good "5" for the things of great importance not in the descriptions... so, -3.
Quote:We are not talking about another 'complete works of Cicero' here. This is a very specific and highly unusual book.
But herbals abound, they are not so specific. All of the few features the men described can already be found in dozens, if not hundreds, of existing manuscripts, and even, in better form... such as better examples of "chemical symbolism". The stars are less common, but I have found them in several books with plants. So the Voynich is, yes, unique, but the descriptions of book A? Not unique. Still, I have not found a book that satisfactorily holds all the descriptions, but in part to the fact that I haven't determined an accurate list of characters... script... they would have felt "unknown" from there perspective. So we I... you, too... may have already seen it, just not realized it is book A. But many herbals are contenders, and certainly not rare.
And as pointed out, if one uses the "absence of evidence" so often used to defend missing genuine evidence, such as the watermark, the foldouts, the overall style of everything, the plants, the writing, some test results...... I think Andrew made this point too, above... I could... do not, but could... simply say, "The match must be out there, we just haven't seen it yet". So I do not agree with that argument, but clearly many do, so I leave others with that dilemma. Does it no longer count, in this case? Why?
Quote:So no, also Rich understands that this cannot be a coincidence, and it is therefore proposed that Voynich must have seen the Barschius letter, and created the fake (book 'B') based on it.
Well I think you fully well know, and have known for decades, that if Wilfrid could have either seen those letters, or heard of them through others, that it is a undermines even the slim value of them as provenance. For years you have claimed that it was impossible, that they were "under lock and seal", and Voynich had no chance of access.
But looking closely at all aspects of this situation, and knowing and taking into consideration your arguments against it, I actually discovered that it is quite plausible that he saw them, or alternatively, was privy to some report on them, which may have mentioned the descriptions of book A. I give my findings, and reasoning, in this blog post: You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
![[Image: voynich_carteggio_leaving.jpg?w=1024]](https://proto57.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/voynich_carteggio_leaving.jpg?w=1024)
Quote:Now, the argument is, that Book 'B' must be a fake, because it supposedly does not sufficiently match the description in the Barschius letter.
No, that is not at all my argument. Lack of evidence for genuine in no way means the work is fake. I believe it is fake for an entirely different set of reasons. What lack of evidence for real, such as provenance, does, simply means there is no evidence for real. Well, in a tangential sense it does imply it more likely, after finding none of the necessary evidence it existed after looking for a hundred and thirteen years, well into the internet age, too... it begins to become evidence of its own. But "must", no, I don't say that at all.
The Voynich can still be real, but if it is, it is probably not the Barshius Manuscript. And that possibility causes a problem for those heavily invested in Marci and all that comes along with him, because all the eggs of 1420 Genuine research are in the basket of those descriptions, except for the C14 and a smattering of other points. So, for instance, if this turned out to be, say, a 1490 herbal from France, by Louis Smith, all the rest vanishes. And much time was wasted on false leads... I do wish, along with people considering my own ideas, that they were more open to the great many possibilities which hang on the single thread of those very poor, and even contrary, descriptions of book A. And I am not just saying that now, anyone who knows me that I have long helped others, with other ideas than mine, with their work. I don't necessarily agree they are correct, but I support their work.
Point being, there are a great many people who believe the Voynich is 1420 Genuine, and genuine another century, or whatever... who also realize that the descriptions just do not match all that well.
Quote:Think about it..... The book 'B', created based on the description in the letter, does not really look like the description, and therefore it is the book based on the description in the letter.
There is a simple explanation for this, and it is a matter of both degree, and how well that degree of similarity worked for the purpose intended: So, those scant descriptions, in the Letters, of the Barschius Manuscript, were hoped to be close enough to convince others that the fake Voynich was one and the same manuscript, and so, serve as sufficient provenance for it. And the proof is in the pudding, they were more than enough, because they worked for 113 years, and are defended, today. This afternoon, in fact. But long ago, people start noticing... I'm far from the first... that those descriptions really are not that good of a match.
But an herbal using ONLY those descriptions would not be very interesting, nor valuable. I've looked at the value of average herbals from the early 20th century, and a rough estimate would be around 1,000 British pound. So, around those few points were added all the bizarre excitement we see today... pushing to and beyond the limits of the descriptions, to create a work hoped to be of tremendous value.
Rich