The Voynich Ninja

Well, the pages were cut out by someone at some point, so it seems a thing that was done.

In fact, book owners did lots of things to their books that most of us would never do.

They would write their own comments on the pages (as we would only do with relatively cheap university prints). Some books have more marginal writing than original text. 

Book dealers would cut out valuable illuminations to sell separately.
Essentially all libraries wrote on their books, and put their stamps on pages right accross the text.

For me, the two cut out pages are a bit separate from the missing bifolios. These could have been done without rebinding. 
The missing bifolios would have been removed coinciding with rebindings.

The cut outs could also have been done by someone giving the book away, or selling it, in order to 'keep a part of it'. 
That would not apply to Rudolf or Barschius. 
Possibly Widemann, Tepenec, Marci. Others may have been involved too.

(26-07-2026, 11:32 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I have occasionally wondered if Moretus, when he sent the first letter to Kircher on Barschius' behalf, may have cut out two pages for his own study. These could have then been added to his scientific notebook(s).

I don't see much chance of Moretus having done that.

• Fall of 1638:  Baresch writes a letter to Kircher (still lost) that includes copies of some pages (also lost).  Some "clerical individual" A (not Moretus?) is shown the original and the copy. The letter is taken to Rome by Moretus.
  
• December 1938: Moretus writes to Kircher, but does not mention Baresch.
  
• Spring 1639: with no reply from Kircher, Baresch assumes that the first letter was lost and is about to "repeat the exercise" when he meets Moretus, who assures him that the first letter had been delivered.  Then Baresch writes only a "reminder" letter (which we have), including a copy of a few lines of the book (which must have been in a separate sheet, now lost) to refresh Kircher's memory. This letter is taken to Rome by the "clerical individual A" who would be able to attest that the copy sent with the first letter was faithful.
  

So there doesn't seem to be much chance for Moretus to have removed pages from Baresch's "My Precious" book.  Moretus probably was shown the book, but it seems unlikely that ever held it for any significant time.  In fact, there is no evidence that Moretus had much interest in it.

All the best, --stolfi

I don't know. We can only speculate, but it is a real pity this particular notebook is lost, because there could very well have been a mention of the whole event, with additional useful information.
Santini was likely involved, as he knew Kircher already, and may have been the 'catalyst'.

(27-07-2026, 12:02 AM)Bernd Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Was violating a valuable manuscript like this common practice? Do we have similar examples of pages removed for study?

I don't think there's any evidence that Rudolf or his representative thought the MS had great monetary value. If Rudolf did indeed purchase it, this was likely as part of a lot, as per Stefan Guzy's research.

If I know you got a box of books for €150, I don't know how much value you attribute to each particular book.

Also, it wasn't kept in a collection but ended up being passed around to various individuals. Who had it before Baresch and who had it before them? Did the MS arrive in Prague with the pages already removed?

(27-07-2026, 09:19 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Did the MS arrive in Prague with the pages already removed?

Apparently, yes. Before Baresch and Wiedemann, it had other unattested owners, including an alleged heir who knew about Voynichese and the author of the names of the months in the Zodiac. It is possible that these unknown owners were ordinary merchants who sold the book to enthusiasts at a higher price (one of whom could have been the author of the names of the months). It may have passed through many hands because it is... It was literally useless (Baresch himself called it meaningless, although he admitted that it might contain valuable knowledge).

(27-07-2026, 11:43 AM)ololololo Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Baresch himself called it meaningless

???

(27-07-2026, 12:43 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In fact, book owners did lots of things to their books that most of us would never do.  They would write their own comments on the pages (as we would only do with relatively cheap university prints). Some books have more marginal writing than original text.

Indeed, our current view of old manuscripts as museum artifacts must be a couple centuries old at most.  Before that, the value of a manuscript seems to have been its contents.   So annotations only added to the value of the book...

Quote:Book dealers would cut out valuable illuminations to sell separately.

But could those missing pages have had exceptional illustrations?  If they were big fold-outs, like the nine-rosettes, maybe...

Quote:Essentially all libraries wrote on their books, and put their stamps on pages right accross the text.

And that is one reason I don't believe that Rudoph ever owned it.  Shouldn't his librarians have stamped it somewhere?

Quote:[The two cut out pages] could have been [removed] without rebinding. The missing bifolios would have been removed coinciding with rebindings.

The missing bifolios could have been cut out too, after which the stubs could be removed without undoing the binding.  Would that leave visible traces? (Like slack cords?)

One could even have removed the quire-central bifolios (  f59+f64, f60+f63, f61+f62, f91+f92, f97+f98, and f109+f110 ) without separating the folios by cutting slits in the binding fold under the binding cords.

Quote:The cut outs could also have been done by someone giving the book away, or selling it, in order to 'keep a part of it'. 
That would not apply to Rudolf or Barschius. Possibly Widemann, Tepenec, Marci. Others may have been involved too.

The problem with all those candidates is that a few pages of the manuscript would have been worthless and useless. 

I cannot imagine old and half-blind Marci wishing to keep pages of the book for himself.

Tepenec does not seem to be the type of person who would care for an encrypted manuscript with plants that, according to Baresch, no doctor could identify.  Not enough to keep a few pages.  

Anyway, he probably did not sell or give the book away before his death.  Had he done so, I would expect the new owner to cross out Jacobus's ex libris on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and add his own; like Jacobus himself did with the #4 book at the National Library.  Instead it seems that the ex-libris was imperfectly erased.  Maybe Baresch pilfered the book from Jacobus's  library after his death, or had previously borrowed the book and "forgot" to return it.

Maybe Raphael intercepted the book before Marci's secretary shipped it to Rome and removed some pages because of his second (first?) profession as cryptographer.

Just from the length of time, it seems more likely that those pages disappeared in the ~250 years while the book was in Rome, first at the Gregorian University and then at the Jesuit secret book trove. 

And, the more I think about it, the more I suspect of Wilfrid removing some pages because they would have instantly demolished his claim of a Bacon original.

All the best, --stolfi

(27-07-2026, 01:01 PM)nablator Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(27-07-2026, 11:43 AM)ololololo Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Baresch himself called it meaningless

???

In Baresch's letter, he referred to VMS as a book that was uselessly lying in his library. Well, in other words, he didn't need it in encrypted form
Now since there was in my library, uselessly taking up space, a certain riddle of the Sphinx, a piece of writing in unknown characters... (fromYou are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.).

I understand the argument, but Baresch' words can be interpreted in so many ways. It's probably a bit of both.

He didn't see much use in the object without understanding the text. He didn't value it as a physical object, a work of craftmanship, or for its esthetic value. The only value he saw in it was of a potential kind: if Kircher could decipher the language, perhaps knowledge about the applications of plants could be obtained from it.

It's actually an elegant rhetoric device: as an object, it does little more than uselessly take up space, but Kircher could make it useful by deciphering the script.

(27-07-2026, 01:48 PM)ololololo Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In Baresch's letter, he referred to VMS as a book that was uselessly lying in his library. Well, in other words, he didn't need it in encrypted form
Now since there was in my library, uselessly taking up space, a certain riddle of the Sphinx, a piece of writing in unknown characters... (fromYou are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.).

"Meaningless" would mean that Baresch thought the book to have no meaning. 

"Uselessly taking up space" would imply that it was of no value to him to keep, or that he could not extract any meaning.