The Voynich Ninja

Just talking philosophically, I must agree that there is *something* about conspiracy theories that makes them hard to tolerate, more so than your average Voynich theory. Often you'll see a person who clearly spent a lot of time and effort on a clearly flawed theory. There's nothing wrong with that, they tried honestly, perhaps learned a few things, might improve their methodology...

But this is different, though I can't quite put my finger on it. There's a certain deliberateness to it.

Ah well. To each his own. Based on the imagery alone, I can absolutely exclude the possibility of a forgery.
Unless in the case that original documents were copied by the forger, and even then the chance is, like Rene explained, extremely small. And someone also made the very valid remark that such original documents would be many times more valuable than an impossible-to-understand forgery. There is just nothing that points that way.

Stellar, you've been selling books and posting on the forum about how you have solved Beinecke 408 and yet you are now pursuing the idea that it is a hoax.

I am wondering how you reconcile that contradiction or, alternately, have you had a change of heart? If so, what changed your mind?

The most interesting argument (I find) that the Marci letter isn't a modern forgery is that it is logically impossible.
This is a bit of a thought experiment, and requires one to forget certain things that are 'known'.

We know that the Voynich MS was sent by Marci to Kircher in 1665.
How do we know?  We know from the Marci letter.

Now go back to the time that Voynich supposedly started his forgery of the MS.
So we need to take away the Voynich MS. It doesn't exist. It was the product of W.Voynich's imagination.
Now also take away the Marci letter. It's not there, but again, it is a product of Voynich's imagination.

So, where do the roles of Marci and Kircher in the history of the MS come from? What is the source for all information contained in the Marci letter?

Some of that is *only* contained in the Kircher correspondence:
- the fact that the previous owner of a mysterious book wrote to Kircher
- the fact that Marci had sent a mysterious book to Kircher.

Note also, that several other things cannot be found in the Kircher correspondence:
- Marci's inheritance of Barschius' books
- The name and identity of Dr. Raphael

The most important thing is: to find out about the roles of Marci and Kircher, and the fact that they had anything to do with the transmission of an undecipherable manuscript, one would have to search in the correspondence of Marci and Kircher.

It's a vicious circle.

In short, in order to forge the Marci letter, one would have needed this letter in the first place in order to know what to write in it.

Let me add a picture of the manuscript collection in the archives of the Gregorian University. As a very rough guess, it is at most a quarter of the collection that was still hidden when they sold their old manuscripts to the Vatican. The Kircher correspondence (14 volumes) is somewhere among these. I don't think they are visible in this picture. I also think that all of these manuscripts were still packed in cases in 1912.
Just 'bumping into' the various letters that are in three different volumes among these >2000 is certainly not realistic.

[attachment=631]

Rene, I had responded to your points a while back, on the VMs-List, which you may or may not have seen. Since David has since that time welcomed me on the Ninja's, I thought I would revisit this here... since they do relate to my theories and opinions, and so I reserve the right to correct you. Some of what I post here will be a copy of that old List rebuttal...

First of all:

(17-09-2016, 11:00 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I am afraid that Rich has confused something there. He writes:

Quote:6: The “Signature” & Date: It has long been known that the “signature” of Marcus Marci is not by him, as it seems to be different on his other, earlier letters. This has been explained by the fact that Marci was very old, and ill at this point, and some scribe wrote and signed the letter for him. But interesting to me is the almost pantographic ability of this scribe…

However, the signature is Marci's while the main text of the letter is from the scribe. (It could also be one of his students). The main text of the two letters are made up of many, many words, and these are different words between the two letters, so they could not have been overlaid.

That makes the whole point a moot point.

I've "confused" nothing.

1) "... main text of the two letters are made up of many, many words, and these are different words between the two letters..."

But of course I never said, nor implied, that the entire 1665/6 letter is a copy, only the signature, date, and some other portions. Why would it be? They are different letters anyway. So saying they are not is the "moot point", and bears no relation to my observations. For what I actually contend, one can read:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.)

2) "... the signature is Marci's while the main text of the letter is from the scribe. (It could also be one of his students)..."

Who wrote what is only a guess by you, first of all; secondly, it is another point moot to the 1665 letter being a forgery: Whomever wrote the letter in the Carteggio, I contend that portions... the signature and date and such... were copied. They are virtually an exact overlay, which implies possibly made with a tracing, or a pantograph, or a camera lucida...

From other points you make, Rene, here and elsewhere:

3) You wrote, "The most interesting argument (I find) that the Marci letter isn't a modern forgery is that it is logically impossible.
This is a bit of a thought experiment, and requires one to forget certain things that are 'known'.

"We know that the Voynich MS was sent by Marci to Kircher in 1665.
How do we know?  We know from the Marci letter."

But yours is odd "logic", and circular reasoning in itself. Obviously, if the 1665 Marci letter is a forgery, by Voynich or other, then we don't "... know that the Voynich MS was sent by Marci to Kircher in 1665." So Rene, your basic premise is incorrect, and so the rest cannot be correct. And also, we don't know the item described in the authentic letters is the Voynich to begin with, nor that that item, whatever it was, ever made it to Kircher, and so on...

4) "Now go back to the time that Voynich supposedly started his forgery of the MS."

My theory contends that would be between 1908 and 1910, with the Marci letter forged by 1912.

5) "So we need to take away the Voynich MS. It doesn't exist. It was the product of W.Voynich's imagination.
Now also take away the Marci letter. It's not there, but again, it is a product of Voynich's imagination."

Okay... this partly states my hypothesis.

6) "So, where do the roles of Marci and Kircher in the history of the MS come from? What is the source for all information contained in the Marci letter?"

Roughly based on the letters of the Carteggio... although a very poor representation of whatever that book actually was... combined with an imaginative fiction invented by Wilfrid (probably him), to "place" his "Roger Bacon Cipher Ms." in the Court of Rudolf II.

And I note here, too, that you have frequently projected that the Kircher Carteggio was "under lock and seal", and/or otherwise inaccessible to Voynich... all the while not pointing out that this is not supported or substantiated in any way. At all. It is at best a guess by you, and wishful thinking at that. The reality is that the Kircher Carteggio was and is in the Villa Mondragone! It was under the care of the Jesuits of a very active college, which had an open enrollment policy. It was even visited by tourists, and researchers, and exists in tourist guides by 1912... with pictures! And to think that somehow these letters, by their revered Jesuit polymath, Kircher, were somehow unknown and not studied by the staff of that college, is implausible to me.

Furthermore, the college was run by Voynich's friend, Strickland... who, along with his brothers (at least one of them), had been a student there in the past. So it is disingenuous to keep insisting that Voynich could not have been privy to the information in those 2000 letters, as we all know he put his feelers out all over Europe, to track down any volumes of interest.

But more to the point, why do you fail, over and over, to reveal that the letters were in the Villa Mondragone, and actually, plausibly, accessible to interested Jesuit scribes, and the contained information, therefore, directly or indirectly, available to Wilfrid Voynich? I would suggest that allowing people to know this immediately undermines the Genuine Old paradigm, for those very poor mentions are really the only provenance the Voynich has. That's it.

7) "Note also, that several other things cannot be found in the Kircher correspondence:
- Marci's inheritance of Barschius' books
- The name and identity of Dr. Raphael"

This is based on an illogical premise, and one that is not necessary to my hypothesis of a forged 1665 letter. The information listed above was available elsewhere, and so I in no way claim, nor was it necessary, for that information to BE in the Carteggio!

8) "The most important thing is: to find out about the roles of Marci and Kircher, and the fact that they had anything to do with the transmission of an undecipherable manuscript, one would have to search in the correspondence of Marci and Kircher."

Exactly. No argument there. And guess what? The absolute lack of the ability to find such "anything" supports my hypothesis... that these guys were discussing another book, another language, in those letters. And ironically, this "... most important thing" will never be found by anyone looking for only references to the Voynich, if my theory is correct: That is, anyone with such a pre-conception will not care about all the other texts referred to in the Carteggio, of which there are many examples. I and others have found several good candidates... so I do consider it "important", but am free of preconceptions, so I can consider all texts.



9) "It's a vicious circle. In short, in order to forge the Marci letter, one would have needed this letter in the first place in order to know what to write in it."

Well no, not at all. This is demonstrably an error on your part. It is also the "circular logic" I have been accused of, by you, but in no way practice. And the "logic" used here would render any forgery known to man suddenly genuine, because one could say, "XYZ cannot be a forgery, because the forger would need XYZ to know what to put in it".

The information in the 1665 Marci letter was a combination of imagined and invented, and traced, content gleaned from other, available sources. And a reminder, Wilfrid was one of a few dozen people in the world at the time, who we could imagine would be easily privy to the necessary ingredients: The Carteggio was kept a the Villa Mondragone, under care of a close friend; the information on the Baresch inheritance, and Dr. Raphael, available elsewhere, certainly to a prolific book seller; the somewhat skewed understanding of Roger Bacon was widely known. I'm currently working on a list of sources for a Voynich Hoax, and everything that anyone has so far imagined closely resembles anything in the Voynich, or to it's claimed "provenance", was readily available to Wilfrid.

10) "Let me add a picture of the manuscript collection in the archives of the Gregorian University. As a very rough guess, it is at most a quarter of the collection that was still hidden when they sold their old manuscripts to the Vatican. The Kircher correspondence (14 volumes) is somewhere among these. I don't think they are visible in this picture. I also think that all of these manuscripts were still packed in cases in 1912. Just 'bumping into' the various letters that are in three different volumes among these >2000 is certainly not realistic."

That is another "Straw Man" argument, because of course I don't feel it necessary to assume they were just "bumped into". As I pointed out, the Villa Mondragone was an active college, with Jesuit professors who would certainly have a great interest in the letters of Kircher. But now again you again invent this scenario, in new ways, "... all these manuscripts were packed in cases in 1912". "Cases"? And again, you feel a need to cloud the reality with this, "still hidden", and ... "somewhere among these", when you know they were in the Villa Mondragone?

In my List response, I added another point: "... long before the availability of internet or the WWW, in the 1960's, one author found, read and studied the Carteggio, and wrote about it, giving many examples from the collection. Did this author "bump into" the Carteggio? The techniques of research in the 1960's was not much unlike those of 1908, so the idea that it was impossible in 1908, but doable in the 60's, is implausible."

That the Letters were somehow inaccessible is an invention by you, with no evidence supporting it, and actually, on examination, the situation was reasonably quite the opposite. And as I also contend, if the "Voynich as genuine" theory needs to keep incorrectly projecting a Carteggio which was unknown, locked in a dusty trunk and inaccessible, then it shows a weakness to that theory.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Rich,

what makes the 'Voynich faked it' theory particularly vulnerable is that it does not deal with events that happened in the first half of the 15th century, but with much more recent events, for which we have a lot of documented evidence. This evidence can be put to good use.

Marci has written well over 30 letters to Kircher that are still preserved. We can see these letters on our computer screens at a click of a mouse. For those interested in looking at them, rather than copying all links by hand, let me refer to a page by Philip Neal where they are all together:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Here are two parts of one particular letter by Marci, dated 12 January 1641:

[attachment=1971]
[attachment=1972]

Text and signature are in the same hand, and 'manu propria' by Marci. One can go to any number of other letters using the above link, and note the same hand with some natural variation in all of them. Many include the 'manu propria' sign, others don't.

Now let's look at the letter from 10 September 1665, also included in Kircher's correspondence. This means: it has been bound into that volume (APUG 562), and it is listed in the hand-written, contemporary index of the volume (on fol.1v), which I show first:

[attachment=1973]

Then, again, two parts of the letter:

[attachment=1974]
[attachment=1975]

Finally, two parts of the 1665 Marci letter now preserved in the Beinecke. The fine texture is a gauze that Beinecke has put over the letter:

[attachment=1976]
[attachment=1977]

As everyone can clearly see, the handwriting of the main texts of the two letters from 1665 are closely similar to each other, but completely different from the hand that is positively identified as that of Marci.
Equally, the two signatures from 1665 are very similar to each other, and similar to Marci's original signature.

You write in the blog post that you link to:

Quote:It has long been known that the “signature” of Marcus Marci is not by him, as it seems to be different on his other, earlier letters.

The evidence clearly tells otherwise.

In the forum post above, referring to my:

Quote:2) "... the signature is Marci's while the main text of the letter is from the scribe. (It could also be one of his students)..."

you commented:

Quote:Who wrote what is only a guess by you, first of all;

Again, the evidence is very clear. Main text: someone else. Signature: Marci.
The hand of the main text of these two letters is not the same as that of any of the people who signed Marci's will. These are some of his best known students.

Clearly, and beyond any reasonable doubt: if the Marci letter now in the Beinecke is a fake by Voynich, it must have been done by closely copying the handwriting of the original letter of 1665 that is still in the Kircher correspondence.

I am, however, confused about one statement:

Quote:I never said, nor implied, that the entire 1665/6 letter is a copy, only the signature, date, and some other portions.

Are you suggesting that the body of the text of the letter in the Beinecke, that gives the various details of the manuscript and its history, is actually an original 1665 letter, but only the signature of Marci was copied on it by Voynich?

While this is completely untenable, if it were the case, it means that this is to be treated as an original letter, written by the same scribe who wrote the other letter from Marci one month earlier later.

Hello again, Rene: Your answer is not entirely correct, and either misunderstands or misinterprets my points. Also, you've made some effort to show comparisons to known, genuine letters and lists, which are points irrelevant to the possibility the "Voynich/Marci" letter was forged.

Quote:"... what makes the 'Voynich faked it' theory particularly vulnerable is that it does not deal with events that happened in the first half of the 15th century, but with much more recent events, for which we have a lot of documented evidence."

Not sure how you can make such a claim. Perhaps this is a tailored answer for the audience of the moment, but of course you know that my theory does very much deal with all evidence... 15th century through 1912. It is, on the contrary, the genuine paradigm which must, in order to exist, ignore much evidence from the 15th century, by ignoring features of the Voynich which are anachronistic to that era. Not only in content so similar to later styles, objects, plants animals and disciplines, but in method of construction of the book itself. The foldouts are a prime example of this, but there are many.

So no, the Modern Voynich Theory does not need to deal only with modern evidence, it is in fact rooted the book's dissimilarity to other 15th century works, and so not only "deals with it", but has it as a foundation.

But strictly speaking, you say "events", so perhaps you were limiting your answer to only provenance related issues with the Voynich. Again... perhaps even more strongly, more importantly, "no", the Modern Forgery Theory does not "ignore" 15th century "events" relating to the Voynich in a provenance sense: Simply, there is none. And that is not my fault. There is zero evidence there were any 15th century events relating to this manuscript... no reference to it, no similar book, no similar language, no history at all, direct nor related. All there is is the C14 dating of the skin used, which means little.

Now you do continue with references to 17th century "events", which you feel are related... well, I do, too, but in quite a different way than you. So I'll move on to address your points...

Quote:"Marci has written well over 30 letters to Kircher that are still preserved. We can see these letters on our computer screens at a click of a mouse. For those interested in looking at them, rather than copying all links by hand, let me refer to a page by Philip Neal where they are all together:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Here are two parts of one particular letter by Marci, dated 12 January 1641..."

Yes. I'm sure we both, and many here, have seen them all. But you then go on to show the comparisons of the 1665 Marci letter (which I contend is a fake), to the September 10, 1665 letter in the Carteggio... and come to some conclusions:

Quote:"As everyone can clearly see, the handwriting of the main texts of the two letters from 1665 are closely similar to each other, but completely different from the hand that is positively identified as that of Marci.

"Equally, the two signatures from 1665 are very similar to each other, and similar to Marci's original signature."

OK... but what is your point to this? Even if I accept that it was Marci who signed the letters in the Carteggio (my saying, as you later quote me, that it is different, is only based on some genuinist's opinions on the matter... it is a point entirely moot to this question), whether or not the September 10th letter was written by a scribe is irrelevant. Yes, I agree it is close in style, in form, whatever... it is a point I have been making... but how you think this bears negatively on the Voynich/Marci letter being forged I cannot fathom.

You even seem to understand this:

Quote:"Clearly, and beyond any reasonable doubt: if the Marci letter now in the Beinecke is a fake by Voynich, it must have been done by closely copying the handwriting of the original letter of 1665 that is still in the Kircher correspondence."

I never said otherwise. Yes, that You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. Interestingly, and closely related to this possibility, was a recent and in-depth discussion on the VMS-List, dissecting your old claim that these letters could not have been seen by Voynich, or any forger in modern times, for copying. Your famous "under lock and seal" claim.

Not only is there no evidence of this, but in a cursory discussion of the actual situation, it turns out that the letters were known to, available to, and referenced by the Jesuits during the period you claim they were under "lock and seal". Although various contemporary references to the letters, or more importantly, omissions of reference to them during this time, do imply they were not widely available to outside scholars, I think we can both agree that Voynich had a pretty good relationship to the Jesuits, and access to the Mondragone, and a good friend in Strickland. So WMV, probably as much or more than anyone, has a good chance of being privy to the contents of the letters. And we would also both agree he had his "feelers out" to every dark corner of the book-hiding Continent.

You quoted me, "I never said, nor implied, that the entire 1665/6 letter is a copy, only the signature, date, and some other portions." You asked to this:

Quote:"Are you suggesting that the body of the text of the letter in the Beinecke, that gives the various details of the manuscript and its history, is actually an original 1665 letter, but only the signature of Marci was copied on it by Voynich?"

Of course not! You must realize that, or have not paid attention to any of my points relating to this. What I mean is that the forged Marci letter obviously didn't copy all the content of the September 10th 1665 letter in the Carteggio... that is clear at first glance, as the letters are about entirely different subjects. But yes, the signature, the date, and other portions and features... and the signature (if it is Marci's or not, irrelevant to this, as I pointed out above), clearly copied, as they are practically a perfect overlay.

Anyway, Rene, I appreciate your rebuttal here, but have to say it does not in any way effectively counter the very real possibility that the Voynich/Marci letter is a fake. And in rebutting your rebuttal, I've stuck closely to your points... while you and I both know that there are a great number of other problems with that letter... the folding of it is especially damning... but in shaky provenance, logistics of the content, Latin phrasing, and more, it is "full of holes".

But that is a discussion for another rebuttal.

All the best, Rich.

Hi Rich,

I prefer to avoid discussions of the 'Voynich faked it' theory.

My previous post presented a number of explanations related to the various Marci letters, and upon re-reading it, I can only say that it still appears completely correct.
Interestingly, it may even still be possible to identify the "scribe" of the 1665 letters.
That is on-going work.

I am not reading the VMS list anymore, so cannot comment on what is written there. Even if I knew, my preference to avoid discussions of this topic would stop me from commenting.

No hard feelings, I hope.

Hi Rene:

Quote:"I prefer to avoid discussions of the 'Voynich faked it' theory."

But that is not at all what you do, in practice. You attempt to rebut all the points to my Modern Forgery theory here, and all around the web. You also actively participate in direct countering of the theory in other writings, either in direct statements, or in contributions to and consultation for, other works. There are many examples of this... The recent Skinner book, in which your very introduction falsely claims that modern forgery has been "disproven". And many points in the Yale book, while not all specified as such, are points directly in opposition to the theory of a Wilfrid hoax. That book mentions it several times, and then counters it on incorrect terms. It was even brought up in your lecture at the Folger library three years ago.

I mean, it is clear to me that you actually, and quite frequently, "discuss" the Modern Forgery theory, only you attempt to keep it a one-sided discussion, which is an entirely different animal.

Quote:"My previous post presented a number of explanations related to the various Marci letters, and upon re-reading it, I can only say that it still appears completely correct."

Which part is "entirely correct"? I don't argue with the contentions you made that the Voynich/Marci letter matches the writing or style of known, genuine letters, and as I pointed out, it is irrelevant to the letter's authenticity if the matching signature(s) int he Carteggio are Marci's or not... but what is incorrect in assuming that any of this is evidence the V/M letter is genuine.

Quote:Interestingly, it may even still be possible to identify the "scribe" of the 1665 letters.

That is on-going work.

Well it would be interesting if you or anyone could determine the scribe of the 1665 letter in the Carteggio. But this is a moot point to the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. Problems that still remain unaddressed by you, and by many others. Leaving the discussion won't fix the letter nor the Voynich.

Quote:I am not reading the VMS list anymore, so cannot comment on what is written there. Even if I knew, my preference to avoid discussions of this topic would stop me from commenting.

No hard feelings, I hope.

Yes you have withdrawn from the discussion at the VMS-List Net, but as I related above, you have far from avoided commenting elsewhere, and often on points mentioned on the List. It is clear you are very aware of other theories, including mine, sometimes to a very detailed level... as I see you react to them here, and elsewhere, sometimes directly. On at least two occasions you have adjusted your website to remove and alter information in reaction to my ideas, in fact.

So of course you comment, and very much continue to be a part of the Modern Forgery contentions, Rene. You pretend to refuse to discuss the anomalies, but you still do so in those places which these problems can avoid scrutiny, where you will not be challenged. I do challenge you, on behalf of myself and anyone who would like these issues addressed, in the open, by you. If you choose to leave again, and continue to avoid the questions I've raised, then of course there is nothing I can do about that. But I think not answering is sometimes a far more powerful answer in itself.

Hi Rich,

the simple reason is that I already spent too much time in such discussions.
The 'fake theory' is not the only example, for that matter. By far, I should add.

That the Voynich MS isn't a modern fake by Voynich, is something that I will
certainly continue to explain.


Rene