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:
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:
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.)
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.)