12-04-2018, 05:43 PM
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.
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...
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:
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:
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:
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.
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.