The Voynich Ninja

Yes, I see. It does seem clear Marci had a genuine interest in the manuscript. What I find a bit worrying is that the link to Rudolph is made only once, in a very "by the way, someone told me that...". 

You mention yourself that the 600 ducats could have been an exaggeration to increase Kircher's interest in the manuscript, so I don't see why we wouldn't apply that logic to the entire Rudolph statement, precisely because of Marci's intense desire to have Kircher examine the MS. The large time spans involved between the doctor observing the facts, telling it to Marci and once again Marci passing the information on to Kircher, do increase the chances of human error, no matter how reliable the character of the individuals involved.

I would agree, of course, also given the general proximity to the court and Rudolph's spending pattern, that even without this statement of Marci's, Rudolph presents a worthy line of investigation - at this point probably the best we have.

In the end there is no such thing as absolute certainty, but what helps is to clearly distinguish between recorded facts, recorded statements, and hypotheses/suspicions. When all verifiable statements are correct, one may still suspect that the rest is exaggerated or incorrect, but there is really no good basis for that.

(27-04-2016, 07:58 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.When all verifiable statements are correct, one may still suspect that the rest is exaggerated or incorrect, but there is really no good basis for that.

voynich.nu Wrote:All details in the Marci letter that could be verified have turned out to be correct. Still, the amount of 600 ducats could be an exaggeration to increase Kircher's interest

I agree that it's a fact that the statements have been made, but it's far from a given that the contents of the statements have to be taken as fact.
We are dealing with a personal letter of a persuasive nature, referring to something the author heard long ago, from someone (first or second hand witness?) who refers, again, to something that happened decades ago.
Based on that alone, I would give the Rudolph case a generous 50% chance. Other factors, of course, like Rudolph's interests, increase those chances.
But well, I'd find it great if definite proof was ever found for the Rudolph link - that may give us a much needed handle on the MS's history.
If Rudolph had indeed purchased the manuscript, would that increase the likelihood that it was bought as a curiosity or collector's item, rather than a book of practical knowledge?

In Germany, 16th century has been the time of great unrest.

"Spiess voran, darauf & daran,
Setzt auf's Klosterdach den roten Hahn"

I guess in this circumstance books (if surviving) did travel a lot, mostly changing their owners...

(27-04-2016, 09:15 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Based on that alone, I would give the Rudolph case a generous 50% chance. Other factors, of course, like Rudolph's interests, increase those chances.

"Rudolf's case" being the suggestion that he actually acquired it, not specifically the amount involved?

In that case this is a personal preference.

What Marci writes (translation of Phiip Neal):

Quote:This book was left to me by a close friend in his will

this is confirmed by a statement in his 1662 book "Philosophia Vetus Restituta".

Quote:The then possessor of the book once sent you letters seeking your judgment

One of these letters has been found, of the other a reply from Kircher has been found.

Quote:about a part of it which he wrote down and sent to you

these writtten down parts are confirmed by Barschius' letter of 1639.

Quote:Doctor Raphael, the Czech language tutor of King Ferdinand III

Raphael Mnisowski was hired by Ferdinand II to tutor his son who would later become Ferdinand III. The latter is a person whom Kircher knows very well. There was a plan that Kircher would visit the emperor (he had dedicated several parts of his books to him) but the visit never materialised.

Marci is an accurate reporter of facts, which gives great support to the various other items in his letter that could not be checked so far, but none of which are in any way controversial.

The bit about Rudolf's acquisition is reported speech by Marci, and we have very good confidence that his report is accurate. This says three things:
- the book was bought by Rudolf (entirely credible though not confirmed by evidence)
- the amount paid was 600 ducats (completely in the range of what Rudolf tended to pay, as already shown in another post)
- the opinion of that Raphael that the MS was from Roger Bacon.

We now basically know that this belief of Raphael (and whoever else at that time) was wrong.  However, the status which Bacon had at the times of Rudolf as one of the first great alchemists, has been clearly shown by Rafal Prinke.
In the end even Marci doubts whether this belief is correct.

One can learn much more about Marci's character from his other letters, his books, and reports by others. He was the personal physician of two emperors, a very high status.

On the face of the evidence, the probability that Rudolf bought the book is very good. It can only be a qualitative one.
There can at best be a "small remaining doubt" from the fact that there is no record.

EDIT: all of the above is from a whole range of verifiable sources which are given in the printed publications and on my web site. Anyone more interested in this topic can find them there.

---

By the way, the whereabouts of the MS between 1622 (death of Tepenec) and 1636 (first time we know that it was on Barschius' bookshelf) is also unclear. It may already have left Tepenec' hands before his death, which would explain why the book did not end up in the Clementinum, as the majority of his other books did, judging from the ones we know about.

It is a matter of historical interest. It is not likely to clear up much of the mystery of what happened before, but then, one never knows.

Quote:It is a matter of historical interest. It is not likely to clear up much of the mystery of what happened before, but then, one never knows.

Well, about that I can agree. And if it somehow turned out that the book wasn't owned by Rudolph, that would be bad news because the slim chance of finding out more about the object's history would evaporate further.

Best case scenario probably could be if it turned out that the MS was sold to Rudolph by a representative of a certain order or library, i.e. a place with records and archives that would allow for a further trail to be followed. The wording used in the letters seems to suggest a representative or messenger rather than a random person.

Well, as I already mentioned, Rudolf acquired things from all over his known world, and unless something new is found, his ownership does not really help us towards the further past.

The best chance I see of finding out more is "from the other end", i.e. from the MS itself.
Contrary to a decade or longer ago, nowadays there are qualified experts looking at it. Small bits and pieces of evidence are surfacing.
And certainly the large community of people looking at it, searching in hundreds of resources (not just internet resources), may turn up real new information at any time.

Yes, I see. I wonder what is holding Beinecke back to have more physical tests done to the MS. I bet we can all think of some extra tests that would clarify some issues. Maybe it's not worth the cost just to compare some paint samples?

I do see the community at work all the time, and they do perform amazing work from all kinds of angles. I'm a bit disappointed by the lack of experts seriously dedicating a study to the manuscript though. Bax was one, and immediately people flocked around him, I think partially because his level of dedication and genuine interest was so great. 

Understandably, there's been a number of botanists looking at it, but given the way the MS deals with plant depictions, I'm not sure that they are a suitable "first line of attack". 

I am glad that quite a number of people are doing various kinds of quantitative analyses on the text - that's some of the little solid data we can get.

However, when it comes to the imagery and the provenance of the manuscript as a whole, it's the community doing most of the work, and most experts limit their involvement to a passing remark or a relatively "first sight" opinion. It would be great if some more historians tried to really pick it apart. But I think they have better things to do

Hello folks

I've been looking at this for a while and am excited to find this forum!

Here's my theory - based on pretty much zero proof, but hey, you never know what might give someone with the smarts to crack it the inspiration 

It's a Franco-German 'book of shadows' - so basically a witches workings. Kind of like an ancient version of the books we keep today, noting elements, plants, spells, astrology and atmospheric conditions to which we write what works and what doesn't, and what to be wary of.

If you consider the 'Rudolph paid 600 ducats' and that not only was he fascinated by alchemy and the quest for the Philosophers Stone but he also welcomed witches, what if a witch were to say she had the answer the alchemists couldn't deliver on and that the cost was 600 ducats. So he paid only to find it was impossible to translate so had to keep her/him well off to have her decode? Especially since everywhere aside from Prague in his time would have had witches killed on detection. It would have to have been coded.

I have leafed through it (digitally only unfortunately) and every time, I can't help but think it is so similar to my own.... If only I could read the blooming thing!

Hello Trovidas and welcome to the forum!

This forum is pretty much rubricated to keep the discussion organized, so please keep the discussion on-topic. Refer to each subforum's rules to get an idea of what each subforum is dedicated to. Voynich-related things not falling into specific subforums fall into the "Voynich Talk" subforum.