+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: Provenance & history (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-44.html)
+--- Thread: Voynich buys some Jesuit manuscripts (/thread-2618.html)
Voynich buys some Jesuit manuscripts - ReneZ - 08-01-2019
Voynich's acquisition of the Voynich MS, as part of a larger group of manuscripts, has always been surrounded by mystery, and it is something that has intrigued me for about 20 years now.
It may not be the most popular topic in discussion groups like this, since it will not tell us anything about the meaning of the MS or the meaning of its text.
The recent blog post of Rich (whose family name is actually given incorrectly in the Blogosphere), and especially the ensuing exchange of comments, made me realise how little is know about progress on this particular topic.
The main problem is that Voynich has presented several different versions of the 'story of his discovery'. Quite in general, he is someone whose words have to be treated with extreme care, as he had a strong tendency to exaggerate, to the point of inventing stories that never happened.
However, over the years I have been able to collect a growing body of independent evidence related to this acquisition, and to the time preceding it. In particular, a document preserved in the Vatican archives, which I first saw in May 2015, could clarify most of the mystery.
This document, preserved as Arch.Bibl.109 is a photographic copy of an original that seems to be lost.
It is dated 1903, and it presents a list of manuscripts offered for sale to the Vatican, by the society of Jesus.
Most of these manuscripts were finally incorporated in the Vatican library in 1912, and they are included in a catalogue by Jose Ruysschaert published in 1959. He remarks that some manuscripts that should have been included in this sale are actually missing. He makes a list of them (in footnote in the 1959 catalogue) and indicates that they all seem to have been acquired by W. Voynich.
Indeed, the 1903 catalogue includes essentially all these manuscripts that Voynich acquired.
This means that:
- These manuscripts were never lost. The Jesuits were simply keeping them in hiding, until the time they decided to sell them
- Voynich did not discover them, like he always claimed. Instead, he was invited to buy a number of them, under promise of secrecy.
- The letter by Ethel Voynich, to be opened after her death, appears to be accurate in all details. So at least Voynich seems to have told *her* the truth.
RE: Voynich buys some Jesuit manuscripts - Aldis Mengelsons - 08-01-2019
Thanks! ...but now is quite readable and i believe they lost that"best moment" to sell:
))
RE: Voynich buys some Jesuit manuscripts - proto57 - 09-01-2019
Hi René: Thank you for that, and the mention of my blog... but you have avoided the core point of my writing about this incident, involving your 1903 claims.
The points are:
1) The 1903 listing is in no way identifiable AS the Voynich manuscript, and you partially acknowledge this on your website (although I would also argue with some of your supplied information as being supportive... IMO you have used circular reasoning, for one thing)
2) But when you wrote the essay for the Yale/Clemens publication, you altered what had been your opinion, and chose instead to state it as fact: That the 1903 listing WAS indeed referring to the Voynich Manuscript.
3) That your unfounded "fact" is now repeated, as fact, on many websites, blogs, and articles, and will be, forever.
Anyone interested in what I have written on this subject can visit my blog:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
René, this is only one of many examples of this habit, which I find detrimental to the Voyinch research community, and the future of all investigations: The process by which a person's opinion, no matter how threadbare of any real evidence to base it on, is nonetheless projected as factual information. We have over 100 years such incidents, and really we should all be doing what we can to avoid continuing to poison the well with such unfounded claims, presented as absolute truths.
Rich SantaColoma
RE: Voynich buys some Jesuit manuscripts - ReneZ - 09-01-2019
Rich,
the purpose of my post was not to address your blog post, but to introduce the relevance of this catalogue. The comments to your blog made it clear that this document is hardly known.
I consider you blog post offensive (not even primarily to me) and that is all I want to say about it.
RE: Voynich buys some Jesuit manuscripts - proto57 - 10-01-2019
Well not much I can do about how you feel, but I certainly didn't mean to be "offensive". I think any such impression, and suggestion, is unwarranted. I was being entirely factual, and only related your actual comments on your blog and in the Yale book, and outlined how they are affecting the field. And I linked your webpage so others could see and try to understand my criticism, and so you or anyone else could either explain this, or correct me if that was the case.
You wrote, "The recent blog post of Rich (whose family name is actually given incorrectly in the Blogosphere), and especially the ensuing exchange of comments, made me realise how little is know about progress on this particular topic."
Whether or not you meant to, you clearly "addressed my blog post" here on the Ninja's, so I don't think it at all improper (nor "offensive") to ask you to explain this to us, here. And if you don't have an answer, then I can only assume that my critique, and conclusion, as presented on my blog, stands as an accurate representation of the problem I outlined.
This would be a great opportunity to explain why you stated the 1903 catalog reference as fact, in the Yale book, when it was clearly purely supposition on your website. Is there some new evidence you have not yet revealed, which does prove this 1903 reference IS the Voynich, after all? Or is it still only speculation on your part, and only based on those things you outlined on your site?
RE: Voynich buys some Jesuit manuscripts - ReneZ - 10-01-2019
Calling things that you don't agree with a "myth" is not being factual. (I didn't count how many times this is repeated).
Writing about the Yale photo facsimile that:
Quote:I cannot recommend the work as a source text for information about the reality of the history, provenance nor construction of the Voynich, because in many respects it is a biased advertisement for the “genuineness” of the famous acquisition (owned by the very publishers of this book, of course)
is not being factual.
(If you believe that, you probably also consider that the 1903 reference to the Voynich MS is presented as "evidence" that it is genuine. This is not what is written anywhere).
Writing:
Quote:… and of course, as to be expected, the unwary Raymond Clemens, in his talk circuit, has possibly been adding the myth to his repertoire.
is not being factual, and I consider it offensive to someone who has forgotten more about medieval books than you (or I) will ever know.
I do not wish to continue this discussion since it will not lead anywhere except more bad atmosphere.
Back to the original topic, I already provided a link to the page that addresses the composition of the collection that Voynich acquired.
The conditions of the sale itself are addressed in very significant detail You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (also addressing alternative theories that have been considered and for which there seemed to be some evidence).
The books were first offered for sale (or planned to be offered for sale) to the Vatican in 1903, but the sale was only completed in 1912. In addition, a private bookseller was allowed to buy part of the collection. While I am not an expert here, both points appear to me to be unusual. However, a plausible reason for this appeared only a month ago based on some previously unseen publications. It is explained in Section 4.4 of the above-mentioned page. (One really has to read everything before this can be put in the right context).
That the Voynich MS is not a modern fake, but a genuine document that was sent to Kircher in Rome and was later preserved in the Collegium Romanum library is demonstrated You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. .
- - -
(Edit: I just noted that the Section 4.4 I mentioned above is not yet complete. Will be updated soon.)
RE: Voynich buys some Jesuit manuscripts - -JKP- - 10-01-2019
René, I find this subject of the other Voynich manuscripts very interesting and only wish I had more time to study it and to appreciate the work you've put into researching it and documenting it on your site.
RE: Voynich buys some Jesuit manuscripts - proto57 - 10-01-2019
Hi René:
"... you probably also consider that the 1903 reference to the Voynich MS is presented as "evidence" that it is genuine."
No, that was not said nor implied by me. Whether it is genuine or not is irrelevant to this issue, and was not my point. What I did say, and do still contend and stand behind, is simply this: Your opinion that the 1903 reference actually refers to the Voynich Manuscript, is fine for you to propose, as long as people understand it is your personal opinion only, and that it is based on very slim evidence: That the reference does not specifically describe the Voynich over any other vellum 15th century manuscript, and there is no evidence it does. And therefore, to state it as fact in the Yale book is wrong, and damages the field of Voynich research, because as I also demonstrate, your comment in the Yale as fact has been picked up as fact in ensuing press, blogs, forums, and so on.
The Yale people relied and rely on you, that what you say is a fact, is indeed a fact and not your personal speculation. And more importantly, that you will relate the problems the Voynich has, with provenance, content, imagery, etc.. They cannot all go to sources, and learn the details. And I use this particular incident to show others how damaging this is, and relate it to past, similar incidents by others, going back to 1912. Much of what people here, and everywhere, think are known facts about the Voynich, are not at all... and often based on slim to no evidence, and even, in some cases, can be shown to be outright false.
My struggle is making anyone aware, who is interested in knowing, is just how far they have been led down the primrose path.
But I note that you are not addressing this issue, specifically, in your rebuttals above. This is why I came here: You mentioned me, my blog, and then used to make a vague generalization about how it, "... made me realise how little is know about progress on this particular topic." Well René, with all respect, my point is that progress is halted, and then reverses, when opinions and practically baseless speculations are claimed to be factual, in respectable works like the Voynich Yale book, by respected researchers, such as yourself. So to:
I wrote, "… and of course, as to be expected, the unwary Raymond Clemens, in his talk circuit, has possibly been adding the myth to his repertoire."
Well he seems to be, since the website announcing a talk of his clearly states that the Voynich was listed in 1903. But I was not at the talk, so (as I said on my blog, which you didn't quote) I don't know. Was anyone on this forum in attendance? Did he? If he did, it was not his fault, as I point out. I'm not blaming him.
But anyway, you wrote that my comment "... is not being factual, and I consider it offensive to [Clemens] who has forgotten more about medieval books than you (or I) will ever know."
I highly respect the past works of Raymond Clemens, and have used as a reference, for years, my copy of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (the copy of which, by the way, I brought to the Voynich book announcement at Yale, and had him also sign). And I often use his very own book to understand the Voynich itself. And I was very proud to have a conversation with the man at the Beinecke wine and cheese, standing by the Voynich (behind glass, wouldn't do to spill wine on it). The problem is, Mr. Clemens cannot have spent the time with the Voynich that you nor I or others have, or know the vast amount of minutia that one needs to acquire to form any realistic personal opinions of it.
So he, like millions of others, must trust others to give him a complete, unbiased, truthful, factual, picture of the Voynich, so that when he signs his own name to that book, he knows that the contents of that book will reflect the standards he himself has long upheld. He needed to trust that when a fact was stated in that book, such as your assertion that it was the Voynich listed in that 1903 reference, that such a claim was backed up by the very same standards he himself upheld in his own career and work.
And it was not. And that is my point. It was not a slight against Clemens to point that out, and you know it was not. It was a reflection of the danger of having wild speculation slip into a respected journal, stated as fact.
Just how much Clemens was unaware of the many problems and anomalies of the Voynich was stunning to me, in our brief discussion... How many times he repeated, "I didn't know that", I could not count. No, not his fault of course. He did not have ten nor twenty or more years to learn all that you and I did... but certainly, he should have been given a complete and unbiased overview of the Voynich... he clearly was not. No, I don't blame him, I respect him highly.
To morph my criticism of the book (my copy, proudly signed by him) into a criticism of him, is inaccurate, and unjust.
But that is a deflection, by you, here... blaming the messenger. But what else could be done? To resolve the real issue would be for you to explain why you know, for a fact, as you stated in the Yale book, that the Voynich was the work being referred to in the 1903 reference, and you and I know that is impossible. It was unfounded, it is damaging to have done so: that is my only point, and I stand by it.
RE: Voynich buys some Jesuit manuscripts - davidjackson - 12-01-2019
René, a fascinating read, although I am still uncovering pages. If I may make a suggestion, when one is directed to your page from an external website, the "back" button (being a javascript back link) doesn't do anything and thus it makes it difficult to navigate as you can't easily get to the central page for the section you've been directed to.
Rich -proto57-, my apologies for the misspelling of your surname. I have now corrected the entry.
RE: Voynich buys some Jesuit manuscripts - D.N.O'Donovan - 13-01-2019
Rene,
Thank you for doing us all the courtesy of explaining, and defending, your interpretation of these documents. It is very helpful to be able to clarify questions by means of round-table discussion.
My own difficulties are these - which you may be able to clear up for me.
You say:
This document, preserved as Arch.Bibl.109 is a photographic copy of an original that seems to be lost. It is dated 1903, and it presents a list of manuscripts offered for sale to the Vatican, by the society of Jesus.
When you say "it" is dated to 1903, do you mean that lost original, or the photographic copy was made, and dated, 1903?
Secondly, is the photograph a true photograph? If so, are there any details of the photographer/developing studio on the reverse. This would be normal, but not invariable, for those times and might help clarify my next question.
You say that the list of manuscripts are ones which the Society offered to the Vatican in 1903, but which (for whatever reason - perhaps they were being stored in a trunk? ) were not actually sold for another nine years.
My question about this item is -
Is it possible to discover which Jesuit libraries contributed to that list of manuscripts which the Society (as a whole) was offering to the Vatican.. in 1903 or later? Is it information that might become available through (e.g.) acquisition details in digitised copies?
btw - the Society is known, I believe, as the Society of Jesus or colloquially as 'the Jesuits'
Is there any way to be sure that even one or two of the manuscripts on that list - and preferably all of them - had come from the Roman College?
I accept that most of the manuscripts listed in that photograph-of-a-list (was the list handwritten, or typed, or printed?) were, by 1912 either purchased by the Vatican Library [which Vatican library, btw?] or had been 'incorporated into it' - which is not the same thing, of course.
When you say:
Most of these manuscripts were finally incorporated in the Vatican library in 1912, and they are included in a catalogue by Jose Ruysschaert published in 1959.
I wonder if you wouldn't mind making a copy of the list, and marking those which do, and which don't, later turn up in a library in the Vatican city. I;d be interested in researching the rest, myself, when I can find the time.
Of course I accept what you say about
Ruysschaert having remarked that some of the manuscripts "that should have been included in this sale" are actually missing. But then it seems they are not missing, but had been purchased by Wilfrid Voynich.
If I'm not mistaken, I think I remember reading your saying somewhere that the Jesuits actually approached Wilfrid to purchase some of their manuscripts; in the normal way wouldn't one take that to imply that he had already gained a good 'rep' among members of the Society, either by private purchases from persons known to one or more, or because in hunting out medieval religious mss (his speciality at the time) he had already bought from other communities of the Jesuits? I'm not arguing this, only pointing out that it would be good to have some certainty on these matters.
As it is, we have only list of books which the Society as a whole had collected and offered to one or more libraries in the Vatican city, but which were not purchased from the Jesuits until after 1911, at which time it has been argued that Voynich was first offered those from Mondragone/Roman College. (Where did the head of the Society reside in those days? It would be a natural collection point for donations, one would think).
I would dearly love to believe that the 'fifteenth century manuscript on membrane' was the Vms, but without any title or dimensions or better description... and no certainty that Voynich's buying from one lot of Jesuits precludes his having bought from other Jesuits... I think it needs to be narrowed a bit better.
In the end, it makes no difference, though, does it? Radiocarbon dating dispatched all the 'late fifteenth-to-seventeenth-century' speculations at last, and we've known for a long time that the Jesuits didn't steal the manuscript.
One thing remains to be answered - why did Wilfrid associate the manuscript with Parma?
So Rene, thanks very much for making so much clear and responding so civilly to queries and cross-examination of the evidence. It's been great to have my own understanding of your argument improve.
(Is it possible to see a copy of that photograph-of-a-list? Front and back of each sheet/photo would be best.)