The Voynich Ninja

There is nothing mysterious or unbelievable going on here.

It only becomes confusing once one starts to introduce fantasies like Voynich faked the Tepenec ex libris, or worse. That is a good sign that these fantasies should be dropped.

Please consider that my last word on this.

(22-03-2026, 06:40 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There is nothing mysterious or unbelievable going on here.

It only becomes confusing once one starts to introduce fantasies like Voynich faked the Tepenec ex libris, or worse. That is a good sign that these fantasies should be dropped.

Please consider that my last word on this.

There is also nothing difficult or challenging about the question. Are you seriously unable to clarify what you believe the documented evidence implies?

(22-03-2026, 04:52 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The other possibility is that Wilfrid had read the letter and, despite knowing otherwise, he was intentionally telling people it was Rudolph I instead of Rudolph II. But that seems to be a scenario that Rene has always rejected.

This rises to the top of the problems, IMO, because it directly relates to this: The Marci letter clearly states "Ferdinandi Terty", as in Ferdinand III. Yet, he pushed the idea it was Ferdinand I who was being referred to, even "correcting" at least one person to the wrong Ferdinand.

[attachment=14828]

Since that is SO clearly wrong, it implies he had not yet seen the letter. But further to that is the above, "... he was intentionally telling people it was Rudolph I instead of Rudolph II.", because once one had seen "Ferdinandi Terty", then, the context of the wording in the Letter would first imply "Rudolf II", unless one wanted to contend the rumor was jumping back in time to Rudolf I, then forward again in time to the "right" Ferdinand III, leapfrogging over the correct Rudolf, the second.

(22-03-2026, 06:40 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There is nothing mysterious or unbelievable going on here.

It only becomes confusing once one starts to introduce fantasies like Voynich faked the Tepenec ex libris, or worse. That is a good sign that these fantasies should be dropped.

Please consider that my last word on this.

I don't personal think it is right to dismiss these problems before they are actually answered to some satisfaction. There are many questions here, still.

1) Why would Voynich insist on a clearly incorrect "Ferdinand I", if he saw that letter?

2) Why would he skip over the obvious Rudolf II, given #1?

3) Since it likely he knew Tepenenc was Horcicky, again, why would he skip over Rudolf II, and look back to Rudolf I?

4) The book he cited several times, Bolton's "Follies..." names Rudolph II, Ferdinand I, II, and III, all in their context, which is another reason making these "mistakes" makes little sense.

5) "Voynich faked the Tepenec ex libris"... You call it an "ex libris", when you do not know that, you can only speculate (I would not call it a "fantasy" on your part, out of respect). And I think his "faking it" is only one speculation given in this thread: Other possible could be that it was a librarian or other book cataloger.

6) ... and #5 because of all the unanswered questions, such as why does it not match any of his signatures? And "why" does the numbering of examples not make chronological sense? And why is the "N" uncrossed? And why did Baresch, Marci, Kinner nor Kircher SEE the name written there? And more.

No, you can dismiss these problems, and more, as "fantasies" of others, but I strongly disagree. These are genuine mysteries. I would think everyone would be interesting in knowing the answers to them... those answers might be as innocent as the day is long... but they need to be answered. Just saying there are no problems will not make the problems go away.

(22-03-2026, 07:22 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. The Marci letter clearly states "Ferdinandi Terty", as in Ferdinand III.

Another fairly minor point, but worth mentioning as it pertains the overall timeline of Marci’s conversation with Raphael is this:
The translation of the letter to English that is provided on Philip Neal’s website is bungled a bit (I’ve expressed doubts about some of those Latin translations before).  The letter says that it was “Ferdinand III”, but also implies that he was at that time King. He became King in, if I remember correctly, 1627. And until -1652. So Marci heard this information from Raphael after 1627 and before 1644 (when Raphael died).

(22-03-2026, 07:39 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(22-03-2026, 07:22 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. The Marci letter clearly states "Ferdinandi Terty", as in Ferdinand III.

Another fairly minor point, but worth mentioning as it pertains the overall timeline of Marci’s conversation with Raphael is this:
The translation of the letter to English that is provided on Philip Neal’s website is bungled a bit (I’ve expressed doubts about some of those Latin translations before).  The letter says that it was “Ferdinand III”, but also implies that he was at that time King. He became King in, if I remember correctly, 1627. And until -1652. So Marci heard this information from Raphael after 1627 and before 1644 (when Raphael died).

Great catch! That had not occurred to me, and I've never heard this point. It is another great reason to not put these issues to bed, before every last valuable nugget is mined from them.

(22-03-2026, 06:40 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It only becomes confusing once one starts to introduce fantasies like Voynich faked the Tepenec ex libris, or worse. That is a good sign that these fantasies should be dropped.  Please consider that my last word on this.

Not fair to declare the debate closed after implicitly calling "loonies" those who doubt the Standard Provenance Theory (SPT).

I will respond in kind opportunely.  Meanwhile, here is an example of the questionable things in the Standard Provenance Theory.  It claims that letter 39a from Kircher to Moretus, dated 1639-03-12, refers to the copies of some VMS pages that Barschius had sent previously to Kircher.  But everything in that letter refutes that interpretation: Kircher

• calls the first item 'booklet" (libellus) rather than "sheets" (folia) 
  
• says that it is steganography, not code
  
• says that it does not require insight but only tedious work to read
  
• implies that Moretus was the poser of both queries, not just the bearer
  
• refers to both things as having been sent by Moretus by courier, not in person
  
• does not deny that the two pieces are in the same "Illyrian" (Glagolitic) characters
  

So it is almost certain that these two items were unrelated to Barschius sample.  They were probably both in Glagolitic characters: a "booklet" which Kircher thought was a very simple code (or even plaintext) and a single loose sheet.  And they probably had been sent by Moretus on his own, probably in 1638 or 1639.  Kircher got such requests all the time (and even Barschius himself conjectured as much in his letter.) 

There is nothing in letter 39a, from 1639, that suggests that the "booklet" could have been the page copies that Barschius  sent Kircher in 1937 and were taken to Rome personally by Moretus.  The connection is pure wishful thinking.  Morever, Barschius's letter from 1639-04-27 does not mention the above letter from 1639-03-12, that Moretus should have received by then. 

The exclusion of letter 39a does not make much difference for the SPT.  But this is an example of the many fantasies that are included in it, and even advanced as evidence for it.  Like the "wax stains" on f0v...

All the best, --stolfi

Thank you all for the above comments, all of which are very helpful!