The Voynich Ninja

I had not seen so far this thread opened by Koen time ago and it seems to me very illuminating. The letter from Baresch to Kircher is really a very important document. It shows that Baresch and people around him thougth there was some connection between the VMS and Egypt, that the weird script could be of the same nature of hieroglyphics, an pictographic script. Therefore the riddle only could be solve by the most famous egyptologist of his time. This is a fact, not speculation.
  In his letter, Baresch talks about alchemical symbolism, something more typical of the XVII century than the XV. But we have to have one thing in mind: many of the alchemical symbols come from astrological symbols and this was what Baresch saw in the Voynich, no only in the images but also in the script.

As i recall the 1639 letter mentions that copies were sent with the 1637 letter. Could it have included copies of the volcanoes in the rosettes? Vesuvius had just erupted in 1631 so could have been recognizable, perhaps. Very coincidental to me that Kircher then goes off on a trip to see and get lowered into volcanoes in 1638.





He publishes about subterranean fires and waters in 1664. When he receives the vms in 1665, those are the only clear indication of volcanoes to be seen, and the rest, as you mention, may have been less interesting to him as it did not clearly resemble the things he knew to be hieroglyphs, or volcanoes, or whatever else.

For a number of years, I've tried very hard to figure out where Kircher's engraver found the sources for these drawings. Engravers usually work from previous references (or a synthesis of previous references together with notes and instructions from the author).

Unfortunately, it has been difficult to trace these sources backwards, so after devoting countless hours to it, I don't have much info.

I should perhaps add here that I once speculated - in a small book I published unillustrated online as a series of posts - that Baresch might have been (not very subtly) flagging to Kircher that he thought that the Voynich Manuscript could well be the 'Book M' of the Rosicrucians.

Chapter 7 is here: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(16-03-2019, 11:03 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.For a number of years, I've tried very hard to figure out where Kircher's engraver found the sources for these drawings. Engravers usually work from previous references (or a synthesis of previous references together with notes and instructions from the author).

Unfortunately, it has been difficult to trace these sources backwards, so after devoting countless hours to it, I don't have much info.

I thought that i had read from you once that they didn't change much of what they were presented with, i took that to mean it was likely mainly Kircher's work. Is this not the case?

Kircher was prolific and I tried to figure out, for several years, from reading his correspondence, his biographies, etc., etc., just how much of his work was really his.

I get the feeling he used a lot of resources "around" him (people (maybe Jesuit brother assistants?), existing references, etc.). He also kept up a lively correspondence with other scholars, some of whom passed him ideas and additional resources. Many of the books in his library apparently were gifts or bequests.

So... while it's something that's really difficult to determine, I suspect he was more of an overseer than a hands-on guy. He probably provided guidelines, notations, chunks of text, and then left it to the engravers, the editors, the publishers to do the rest.

I'm not certain of any of this, it's just the impression I got after a couple of years of looking into it (and this is still ongoing because there's WAY more information now on Kircher, and much more of his correspondence online now than there was then).


As for the engravings, I'm almost certain they derive at least in part from previous writings and illustrations, which is why I hunted so diligently for predecessors. Many of them have the look and feel of more professional versions of some of the concepts illustrated in the VMS.

The foremost thing that Barschius writes in his letter is that he considers the Voynich MS a book of medicine. It is therefore important that it should be understood, for the good of mankind. Since Kircher is considered primarily a religious man, Barschius puts a disclaimer in that direction (medicine only being second in importance to religion - salvation of souls).

He does indeed suggest that the medicine in the MS is derived from Egyptian sources. When I first saw the letter, my immediate reflection was that this was a 'trick' to lure Kircher (who was primarily known at that time for this supposed knowledge of Egyptian hieroglyphs) into becoming interested in the MS, but that is not necessarily true. It may very well have been the honest opinion of Barschius.

We know from Marci's writings that Barschius was interested in spagyrical alchemy, i.e. the use of alchemical methods to prepare medicine. A method that has proven to be very successful of course. One has to keep in mind that, in earlier days, prayers (or magic utterances), observing the timing from the moon and the stars, and taking concoctions from herbs had an equal part in the cure of a disease. If the concoctions were not available, they could be left out. That there are good chemical reasons why some medicines are effective was only understood much later.

Whether Kircher's interest in volcanoes was triggered by parts of the first letter of Barschius/Moretus seems like a highly challenging piece of speculation.

We don't know what was in this first letter.

Also, the timing is difficult. Kircher was already on a trip to Southern Italy with the Landgrave of Hessen when the first letter arrived (second half of 1637). That he only responded to it in early 1639 may suggest that he had not even seen it.

From what I've read, Kircher appears to have had a genuine interest in geological sciences.

(17-03-2019, 08:30 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Whether Kircher's interest in volcanoes was triggered by parts of the first letter of Barschius/Moretus seems like a highly challenging piece of speculation.

We don't know what was in this first letter.

Also, the timing is difficult. Kircher was already on a trip to Southern Italy with the Landgrave of Hessen when the first letter arrived (second half of 1637). That he only responded to it in early 1639 may suggest that he had not even seen it.

It was just speculation, i know nothing of the reason he did go, and the timing seemed convenient, but if he did not yet see it then, of course there would be no connection.

Forgive me for reviving this discussion, but I just wanted to add that I always felt a bit sad about Baresch and his place in the VMS history. We know from the 1665 letter that he spent a lot of time trying to understand it, untill he died. And here we are 400 years later and still as puzzled as he probably was.

I wonder if his notes will ever surface. I have the hope that in the future new information will allow us to know more about the VMS origin. Tracing back the previous owners sure is a difficult task, if possible, but I believe this it the key to the Sphinx.