The Voynich Ninja

(08-03-2026, 11:23 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.How can it be that we should: seriously doubt that Voynich found the Marci letter inside the Voynich MS (which is a trivial thing), just because there is no photograph of it happening

The problem is not "no photograph".  

One thing I can't understand is why he did not mention the letter until what, 1920.

There are other puzzling gaps in the Standard Provenance theory, but I will not repeat them here. I will just point out that "absence of evidence" can be "evidence of absence" when the evidence should exist.  Like if the suspect's porch security camera malfunctions precisely on the night he claims to have returned home before the crime.  Or if the judge with a new Lamborghini cannot provide proof that he purchased it with his own money. 

Quote:.. or we should seriously consider that he faked the signature of a completely unknown guy into the book (which is a very complicated thing), even though we also have no photograph of him doing it. ... Talking about motive, he obviously had much more of a motive to link his MS to Bacon, than to the court of Rudolf.

Again: Raphael's claim in Marci's letter was absolutely the only thing that suggested that MS408 could be a Bacon's original.   Without that claim on that letter, no one would have thought of that possibility for a microsecond.

But, according to that same claim, the book was in Rudolf's court before ending up on Barschius's shelf.  Until very recently Barschius was a completely unknown guy, and Wilfrid could not possibly have known that he had worked at the Court.  Any prospective buyer would have wondered how could a nobody like Barschius have obtained a "600 ducats" book from Rudolf's library.

Thus Wilfrid needed to find a plausible link between Rudolf and Barschius.   Unlike the latter, Jacobus was not a "completely unknown guy".  If Wilfrid went out looking for people in Rudolf's court who could have been the link, he would easily have found him.  As a herbalist who received favors from Rudolf, Jacobus would have been a perfect candidate: "Rudolf obviously gifted MS 408 to Jacobus for his good service".  And books with Jacobus's "signature" and numbering scheme could have been easily found at the Clementinum and the Strahov.

And once he had a copy of one of Jacobus's ex-libris, faking that "signature" would have not been "complicated" at all. 

Quote:he should have put a fake Dee signature.

As per above, the letter "proved" that Rudolf's "600 ducats" book was Bacon's.  There was no pressing need to explain how Rudolf got the book, or to identify its "bearer".   Dee was not mentioned in Marci's letter; he was only Wilfrid's guess.  What Wilfrid neeed was an explanation for the Rudolf to Barschius step.

All the best, --stolfi

(08-03-2026, 11:23 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.How can it be that we should:

By the way, here is an alternative timeline that does not imply book switch or major forgery, but still I think could better explain some details that the SPT struggles to explain.  I am not saying that this version is more likely, but only that, as long as it is possible, it shows that the SPT is at best very likely, not at all certain.

1. Some time before 1911, Wilfrid learns that the Jesuits have a secret stash of books in Rome that includes several volumes of Kircher's correspondence and many books that once were at the Collegio Romano, including books formerly in Kircher's library.
   
2. Wilfrid learns that, in that stash, there is a letter saying that Marci sent to Kircher a Bacon original.
   
3. And indeed among Kircher's books there is one that seems to fit Marci's letter. Maybe the letter was  attached to it,maybe not.
   
4. Smelling a multimillion dollar business opportunity, Wilfrid does everything he could and could not do to convince the Jesuits to sell him that book. He may have promised them a percentage of the eventual profit.
   
5. The Jesuits eventually agree to the sale.  
   
6. However, at that time the Italian government  still considered those books their property.  Selling any of those books to any party outside the Church would already be a serious crime.  Selling them to a foreigner would make the crime worse. Selling a book worth millions for a few hundred dollars, then, ...
   
7. Moreover, if news of that sale spread inside the Church, the rival orders who hated the Jesuits would surely exploit it .
   
8. Thus the Jesuits demand that Wilfrid must lie about the provenance of the book, placing it as far away from them as possible.  To which Wilfrid promptly agrees.
   
9. For better measure, they agree that the "Bacon" book would be disguised among a lot of 30-some books, and listed with no details, to thwart any eventual audit of that collection.
   
10. However the Jesuits are determined to keep Marci's letter, since (unlike the book) it is part of their history. 
    
11. Wilfrid does not mind about that; what he wanted is the book.
    
12. But when Wilfrid finally gets the book, in 1911, he has a big disappointment: the book is obviously not Bacon's, and would not be worth all the money he already spent because of it.  
    
13. But he sees a chance that he can still convince some rich banker that it s Bacon's. 
    
14. First he removes from the book some pages that clearly refuted that claim.  Like that page where the Author signed "Ruggiero Pancetta, e per piacere non mi chiamate Baccone, eh?"
    
15. Second, he needed Marci's letter.  It takes a few years, and a lot more persuasion, but he eventually gets it. 
    
16. Third, he needs evidence that Raphael's claim was not just a wild guess.
    
17. For the latter he runs through Rudolph's courtiers, and settles on Jacobus as a suitable missing link.
    
18. He gets a copy of Jacobus's ex-libris and forges one on f1r. 
    
19. He also writes three columns of letters on the margin imitating Marci's own handwriting.
    
20. He takes a photo of f1v, then erases both "signature" and letters to make forensic examination impossible.
    

Compared to the SPT, this version explains why the Jesuits decided to sell books to this American  dealer, in spite of all the risks: because it was Wilfrid who absolutely wanted the deal.

It also explains why MS 408 was not described in any detail in the record of the sale: because both parties knew that it was worth millions, and thus its sale for a few hundred dollars would be much worse than the sale itself.

And the same point explains why Wilfrid kept lying about the provenance even after the Lateran treaty of 1929, when the Italian government renounced any claims on those books.

And this alternative story also explains why Wilfrid did not mention Marci's letter until many years after he got the book: because it did not came with the book.

And it also explains the blotched attempt at "enhancing" the "signature" on f1r.

All the best, --stolfi

(09-03-2026, 06:35 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.still I think could better explain some details that the SPT struggles to explain.

I guess 'SPT' is an abbreviation referring to the 'normal' storyline, i.e. no fake items and no fake signatures.

To be honest I am quite unsure which details it struggles to explain.

(09-03-2026, 06:35 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Some time before 1911, Wilfrid learns that the Jesuits have a secret stash of books in Rome that includes several volumes of Kircher's correspondence and many books that once were at the Collegio Romano, including books formerly in Kircher's library.

So far so good. We even know that he learned this from Joseph Strickland, probably when Strickland was still based in Florence. Except: the Kircher correspondence was not part of this discussion. There were two strictly separated collections, and the books that Voynich and the Vatican acquired together (230-ish in total) were in the smaller one.
But first let's go to your second point:

(09-03-2026, 06:35 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Wilfrid learns that, in that stash, there is a letter saying that Marci sent to Kircher a Bacon original.

Does this refer to the Marci letter, and do you mean that this used to be part of the Carteggio?
Because it never did. These letters are all listed in the indices, and they all have a stamped page number. No Marci letter from 1665 is missing from the index and the Marci letter has no stamped number.
Note that the earlier letter to Kircher from Moretus+Barschius is missing, and is also not lacking from the indices. It was never filed in the carteggio, even though Kircher responded to it, and perhaps it was kept in the Voynich MS as well. But we don't know and it does not matter.
 
Now back to the story.
To understand this situation better, it would beneficial to be able to read the book: "Danieluk S.J., Robert: La Bibliotheque de Carlos Sommervogel: le sommet de l'oeuvre bibliographique de la compagnie de Jesus (1890-1932), 2006.". This tells about the struggles of the official Jesuit bibliographer to update the complete bibliography of all Jesuit works, right during the time when much material is in hiding (1880's and 1890's). It is based on correspondence from this period preserved in Jesuit archives. He exhanged letters with several Jesuits in and near Rome.
In the end, his work, completed before 1911, does not include the Kircher carteggio, even though it includes lesser collections of material. He was not aware of its existence. This is how thoroughly this was hidden.

It would also help to read about the struggles of Hungarian historians who had seen photos of two manuscripts from Matthias Corvinus' library that were photographed in Rome before they were hidden. They were desperate to find these again and undertook several trips to Rome in search for them, in vain. The Jesuits must have been aware of this, because these two were among the first that were sold - for a fortune. These (and a few others) were much more valuable than the weird Voynich MS.

It may be tempting or even natural to think of the Voynich MS as the prize of this collection, but it really was not.

It may also be tempting to only think of the Kircher carteggio when it comes to the rest of the hidden collection, but these were only 12 or 14 volumes out of over 2000. I attach a photo of some shelves in the historical archives. Copyright of the photo is with APUG.

[attachment=14529]

Just guessing, these could be some 400-500 books, so about twice the number the Vatican (together with Voynich) got. The other collection including the Kircher carteggio would be five times this lot. 

The significance of any individual letter in the Kircher carteggio is zero in this context. In any case, the collection was primarily known for its letters from Popes, emperors and missionaries across the globe. Not some obscure guys in Bohemia.

Talking about the photos of Mathias Corvinus manuscripts taken when these were still in the Roman Jesuit library, here is one example, as published in 1871. The second one is from a MS catalogue of Voynich's Florence colleague Tammaro de Marinis, and the third from the present owner: The Morgan Library and Museum in New York.

[attachment=14530]

Link to the MS: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Link to the other MS from the Jesuits sold at the same time: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(09-03-2026, 07:47 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I guess 'SPT' is an abbreviation referring to the 'normal' storyline, i.e. no fake items and no fake signatures.

Yes, sorry, the "Standard Provenance Theory".

Quote:I am quite unsure which details it struggles to explain

Like why the Jesuits decided to sell books to Wilfrid, why he kept Marci's letter hidden for years, why the VMS is not clearly described in the records of the sale, ...

A key point of my alternative story above is that Wilfrid's goal was to acquire MS 408, specifically; and the other books were only included in the sale to serve as a cover, to deflect the attention of any onlookers away from that book.

Quote:

(09-03-2026, 06:35 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Wilfrid learns that, in that stash, there is a letter saying that Marci sent to Kircher a Bacon original.

Does this refer to the Marci letter, and do you mean that this used to be part of the Carteggio?Because it never did.

That is indeed a point I am still confused about. Why wasn't  Marci's letter included in the Carteggio? Because it ended up in a different building, together with the books?   When was the Carteggio compiled?

Anyone who picked up MS408 would have opened the cover. If the letter was there all the time, why didn't the Jesuit librarians remove it and file it with other letters?  

My alternative timeline above does not explain this point either.  But, unlike the SPT, it does not require the letter to have been in any specific place before 1920 or so.  It only requires that Wilfrid became aware of its contents (even if he had no physical access to it) before everything else.  He would have proposed the deal to the Jesuits only after that, specifically to acquire that "Bacon book" mentioned in the letter.

In fact, can we be sure that the letter at Yale is the one that was sent to Kircher?   Could it be instead a copy that Marci's secretary made for his archive, which remained in Prague and was obtained by Wilfrid got through a completely different route?  (Back in the typewriter age, secretaries routinely made a carbon copy of every business letter, for that same purpose.)

Quote:the official Jesuit bibliographer [struggled] to update the complete bibliography of all Jesuit works, right during the time when much material is in hiding (1880's and 1890's). ... In the end, his work, completed before 1911, does not include the Kircher carteggio, even though it includes lesser collections of material. He was not aware of its existence. This is how thoroughly this was hidden.

I don't dispute that.  (Although perhaps he was aware of the Carteggio, but omitted it from his catalog because he understood the need to hide it?) 

Quote: [The Corvinus books] (and a few others) were much more valuable than the weird Voynich MS. It may be tempting or even natural to think of the Voynich MS as the prize of this collection, but it really was not.

I am pretty sure that the Jesuits themselves never thought of MS 408 (if they indeed ever held it) as anything more than a weird and ugly curiosity -- until Wilfrid came to them all excited and determined to get it.  Even then, they quite probably knew it was not a Bacon book.  But if that americano wanted it so much, they would not try to change his mind...

Quote:The significance of any individual letter in the Kircher carteggio is zero in [the context of the collection's fortunes]

Indeed, and I don't think that the Jesuits paid any special attention to the letter either (if they indeed ever held it).  It was valuable only to Wilfrid; and, even then, only after he realized that the book would be worthless without the letter.

All the best, --stolfi

(09-03-2026, 08:59 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.why the Jesuits decided to sell books to Wilfrid

This is well recorded in the letters that were found in the Vatican, but already clear from a paper written by F.Ehrle. They got significantly more money from private booksellers than from institutions. At the same time it was unsafe
to sell all to him.

(09-03-2026, 08:59 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.why he kept Marci's letter hidden for years

I agree that it is hard to understand why he was not interested in it. I don't think that he was actually hiding it.
He referred to its contents (incorrectly) in 1915.
He was only interested in the Bacon origin, and had simply not understood the letter at all. He thought that the Rudolf mentioned in it was Rudolf I, a contemprary of Bacon. He had no idea at all who was Marci.
I guess that his Latin may not have been good enough. 
It's only when Newbold was indicating that he could read the text, that Voynich decided to investigate the later history of the MS.

(09-03-2026, 08:59 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.why the VMS is not clearly described in the records of the sale, ...

Any records of the sale (presumably in the correspondence with Strickland) were destroyed by Voynich.  
Some of the remaining items have pencilled comments saying: "do not destroy" and "safe to keep"
(You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.).

(09-03-2026, 08:59 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Why wasn't  Marci's letter included in the Carteggio?

We don't know exactly why, but Fletcher, who studied the Carteggio over years, clearly states that this collection is incomplete, among others from cross-references. Perhaps the organised filing only started later? Just guessing.

Edit: by the way, the other manuscripts were valuable above average. A summary of prices is a recent addition here:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (in particulare under 6.2).

(08-03-2026, 10:27 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.most historical documents do not present other forms of evidence that contradict the conclusions suggested by handwriting analysis.

This evidence that contradicts the conclusion suggested by handwriting analysis, is any of it strong enough to be marked green on this chart?

Also notice that some circularity has snuck into the exercise. Some aspects are excluded or downgraded based on Santacoloma-esque theories. And the finished diagram will then be used to support those theories.

(09-03-2026, 11:32 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Also notice that some circularity has snuck into the exercise

This is a good observation. A clear example of that is the suggestion that Voynich cannot be trusted in any respect. 
*If* he added a faked signature in the Voynich MS (or significantly worse, as per the other theory), then by necessity he is a 'crook', a faker. 

This is a consequence of the theory. It is not a given.
It can be considered a hypothesis that he was dishonest to that level, but hypotheses cannot be used as evidence.

Yes, he exaggerated the value of his merchandise. Also, he did not disclose where he obtained it. This is probably common to most second hand book (and later car) salesmen. Just repeating what I have been told here :-)

Voynich faked 'something' because he was dishonest, and he must have been dishonest because we think he faked something, is a clear example of circular logic.

- - -

On a side note, many a Voynich theory exhibits some of the same problems as outlined above.
The points in favour of the theory are exaggerated. The points against it are simply not addressed.
The talks and papers are not consisting of weighing evidence pro and con and deriving conclusions, but appear like a sales talk for a bad product.

Just to avoid misunderstanding, with this I am not specifically thinking of the book switch theory, but numerous others.

(09-03-2026, 11:32 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(08-03-2026, 10:27 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.most historical documents do not present other forms of evidence that contradict the conclusions suggested by handwriting analysis.

This evidence that contradicts the conclusion suggested by handwriting analysis, is any of it strong enough to be marked green on this chart?

As I said before in this thread: "...the intent of the diagram is "provenance" specifically -- who owned it and where it's been.  Not evidence for or against possible origin theories. A different --much larger-- diagram regarding such general evidence around VMS origins is in progress."
Obviously,  the things you are asking if should be green, are therefore not part of that diagram.

The diagram contains precisely those things that constitute relevant evidence to the ownership/stewarship provenance and nothing more. That is completely intentional and necessary, because the main purpose of the diagram is to clarify what is actually known vs only inferred (and which has become erroneously claimed as fact). And to thereby illustrate how the standard provenance theory is critically dependent on a single assumption -- namely, that the words of "this book" in the Marci Letter refer to the VMS. If those words do not refer to that particular book, then a large part of the standard provenance story becomes very weak and circumstantial at best.

If the diagram has missed some relevant evidence for who owned the VMS and where it's physically been, then please describe what that is -- I asked for such feedback earlier. But please don't, as has been done often before in these discussions, confuse speculative elements of a supporting story with actual evidence on which the facts of the provenance are based.

(09-03-2026, 11:32 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Also notice that some circularity has snuck into the exercise. Some aspects are excluded or downgraded based on Santacoloma-esque theories. And the finished diagram will then be used to support those theories.

Who knows how the finished diagram will ultimately be used? If it has implications on anyone's favorite origin theory, so be it. Its purpose is simply to illustrate an important issue: how solid evidence and more uncertain inferences have often been blended together to produce a narrative that is frequently treated as established fact. And the precariousness of the situation which, in turn, is relevant to this thread (the "Book Switch Theory").

The diagram was not created with any particular theory in mind about where or by whom the VMS was produced. You (and Rene), however, seem to be interpreting it through that lens, and your comments read as though they are motivated by a need to defend a specific theory.

(09-03-2026, 09:26 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(09-03-2026, 08:59 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.why the Jesuits decided to sell books to Wilfrid

This is well recorded in the letters that were found in the Vatican, but already clear from a paper written by F.Ehrle. They got significantly more money from private booksellers than from institutions. At the same time it was unsafe to sell all to him.

I understand that, and also imagine that they could not get museums and libraries to swear to secrecy and lying about the provenance.   

But was the amount that the Jesuits expected to get from the sale substantial enough to drive them into what was effectively a crime?   

The sale to the Pope in 1913 could be defended as being just an internal accounting and re-shelving matter within the Church; since, from the State's viewpoint, the Jesuits were just a department of the latter.     Not so the sale to an American dealer.

For me, the sale makes more sense if was Wilfrid who proposed the deal in the first place, and pushed hard to make it happen -- because he badly wanted MS 408, specifically.

Quote:I agree that it is hard to understand why he was not interested in [Marci's letter]. I don't think that he was actually hiding it. He referred to its contents (incorrectly) in 1915.  He was only interested in the Bacon origin, and had simply not understood the letter at all. He thought that the Rudolf mentioned in it was Rudolf I, a contemporary of Bacon. He had no idea at all who was Marci. I guess that his Latin may not have been good enough.

But, again, Raphael's remark in that letter was the only thing that could have suggested Bacon as the author of MS 408.  If Wilfrid could not read it, why did he even think of Bacon? If he could barely read it but believed that the "Rudolf" mentioned by Raphael was Rudolf I, that would have been proof that the book was not Bacon's.  And if he did not know about the letter before 1911, why would he have picked MS 408 as one of the books that he wanted to buy?

So I think that, in fact, Wilfrid knew about the contents of that letter, and understood that it was about Rudolf II, before the sale -- and in fact his goal was to get MS 408, because of that letter.

Quote:It's only when Newbold was indicating that he could read the text, that Voynich decided to investigate the later history of the MS.

That too is a bit strange.  To sell it as a Bacon lost book, he would have needed a minimally plausible provenance story.  I think that even a stupid rich banker would not have been satisfied with "a castle in Austria"  and "my nose tells me that Bacon was the author"

Quote:

(09-03-2026, 08:59 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.why the VMS is not clearly described in the records of the sale, ...

Any records of the sale (presumably in the correspondence with Strickland) were destroyed by Voynich.

Sorry, I was referring to this entry in your table:

• Miscellanea | c.m.s.XV / Census 1846 DR II p.1846 | J31
  
• [font=Courier New](The estate of [...] Voynich [...], Ms. 8)[/font]
  
• Almost certainly 'the' Voynich MS
  

Why was this entry so vague, when all the others were quite explicit?  If the author of that entry was aware of the connection to Marci's letter, why did he list the book as "s.XV" instead of "s.XIII" (as per Raphael's Bacon guess) or "s.XVII" (the only firm date implied by the letter?  

If the author of that entry did not know about the the letter, where did he get that "s.XV" date?  What did that "Census 1846 DR II p.1846" entry (pre-Garibaldi) say?

And where did that note in parenthesis come from?  

Was the conclusion "Almost certainly 'the' Voynich MS" reached only by elimination?

Quote:by the way, the other manuscripts were valuable above average.

Which makes the inclusion of that ugly anonymous "c.m." in the sale all the more strange...

All the best, --stolfi