Hi René: This is a response to your comment found here:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
"Interestingly, the argument of Rich is that the provenance information we have has either been faked (as per the Marci letter), or it actually refers to another manuscript, namely the now lost mysterious book that was once owned by Barschius and later by Marci. This means that it is actually agreed that the provenance isn't all that bad."
To be clear on what I feel about this, although you are partly correct: I do think this claimed provenance (Carteggio letters) is so bad it should not be considered as provenance at all. It is not "agreed" by me. So I am unclear on the thread of logic you follow in the above quote.
The letters do describe a book (I consider the "Barschius Manuscript", for we know it was that, for certain), but that description both leaves out significant, important characteristics of the Voynich Manuscript (Zodiac, "signature", nudes, jars, and so much more); but on the other hand, only mentions some things that easily, and more plausibly, apply to many other manuscripts. These man found many scripts and plants unidentifiable in their time, and their descriptions could fit dozens of them. If anyone attempted to use these descriptions to identify the Voynich, if found today, I doubt they would be accepted. It is only by repetition, and habit, and lack of crucial inspection, that they are accepted as provenance for the Voynich.
At the very best, those letters may have been an inspiration to create "a" Voynich Ms. (not as a Bacon work).
"There are more things to consider about the Marci letter, and its recipient Kircher.
"Clearly, Kircher kept the letter with (inside?) the MS which, at the time, probably still had its binding of wooden boards covered by leather. He did not file it with his other correspondence, which we can conclude from the fact that it is not listed in the index of the carteggio.
The same must have happened with the first letter sent to Kircher, by Th. Moretus. This is now lost and does not appear in the index. That's a pity because it would be of great interest to read it."
I'm sorry René, but this seem very apologitic for a lack of good reasoning as to why one bit of evidence exists, not another, and why we should accept one, but not another. When tortuous reasoning is needed to support flimsy provenance, then that provenance is under suspicion, or should be discarded. Which is, my point here.
If it's not in a list, it's not in a list, and it is not provenance to begin with. Everything about the provenance given, that would prove the Voynich real, is conveniently, suspiciously the exact things that are missing.
"When the MS was rebound by the Jesuits, the Marci letter was still kept inside it, but in which form is hard to tell. The shape of the letter strongly suggests that it would have been glued on top of the inside cover, folded to fit the size of the book, but was that the original binding or this later Jesuit binding?
The wax seal marks that can now be seen on the parchment wrapper (inside) are a bit of a mystery."
This is the point here, René: You make such claims, which I counter with my observations... folding, seals, etc. But you give no acceptable reason why these things should be so. Why glued? I've heard this, but no marks line up. And why folded to fit inside the cover? Is this your counter to the folding problems I outline? Because I would rebut it is not an explanation, because that was a letter, and the letter is folded in a way, not to fit in a book, nor to be a letter. The should be an explanation for this problem, and this does not suffice.
"Voynich removed the paper pastedowns. From the many books from the same collection that are now preserved in the Vatican, we can see what it would have looked like when Voynich bought it. There would have been filler material under the pastedown. There should have been a bibliographical description and a P.Beckx sticker apart from the Marci letter."
Here we agree: He removed these, and there "should have been a biographical description". These are problems, though, in so many ways. You had examined the Beinecke archives, as I later did. And I, too, noted the loosey-goosey collection of P.Beckx ex-libris labels, that Voynich took from many books. That alone is very troubling.
But what is still suspicious is that, one again, as always happens in every other case, a place that "should have" (as you and I agree) a description of the Voynich, among the descriptive labels for other books, but is not there. Again, poor and missing provenance... and again, a red flag of forgery, and zero support for genuine.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
"Interestingly, the argument of Rich is that the provenance information we have has either been faked (as per the Marci letter), or it actually refers to another manuscript, namely the now lost mysterious book that was once owned by Barschius and later by Marci. This means that it is actually agreed that the provenance isn't all that bad."
To be clear on what I feel about this, although you are partly correct: I do think this claimed provenance (Carteggio letters) is so bad it should not be considered as provenance at all. It is not "agreed" by me. So I am unclear on the thread of logic you follow in the above quote.
The letters do describe a book (I consider the "Barschius Manuscript", for we know it was that, for certain), but that description both leaves out significant, important characteristics of the Voynich Manuscript (Zodiac, "signature", nudes, jars, and so much more); but on the other hand, only mentions some things that easily, and more plausibly, apply to many other manuscripts. These man found many scripts and plants unidentifiable in their time, and their descriptions could fit dozens of them. If anyone attempted to use these descriptions to identify the Voynich, if found today, I doubt they would be accepted. It is only by repetition, and habit, and lack of crucial inspection, that they are accepted as provenance for the Voynich.
At the very best, those letters may have been an inspiration to create "a" Voynich Ms. (not as a Bacon work).
"There are more things to consider about the Marci letter, and its recipient Kircher.
"Clearly, Kircher kept the letter with (inside?) the MS which, at the time, probably still had its binding of wooden boards covered by leather. He did not file it with his other correspondence, which we can conclude from the fact that it is not listed in the index of the carteggio.
The same must have happened with the first letter sent to Kircher, by Th. Moretus. This is now lost and does not appear in the index. That's a pity because it would be of great interest to read it."
I'm sorry René, but this seem very apologitic for a lack of good reasoning as to why one bit of evidence exists, not another, and why we should accept one, but not another. When tortuous reasoning is needed to support flimsy provenance, then that provenance is under suspicion, or should be discarded. Which is, my point here.
If it's not in a list, it's not in a list, and it is not provenance to begin with. Everything about the provenance given, that would prove the Voynich real, is conveniently, suspiciously the exact things that are missing.
"When the MS was rebound by the Jesuits, the Marci letter was still kept inside it, but in which form is hard to tell. The shape of the letter strongly suggests that it would have been glued on top of the inside cover, folded to fit the size of the book, but was that the original binding or this later Jesuit binding?
The wax seal marks that can now be seen on the parchment wrapper (inside) are a bit of a mystery."
This is the point here, René: You make such claims, which I counter with my observations... folding, seals, etc. But you give no acceptable reason why these things should be so. Why glued? I've heard this, but no marks line up. And why folded to fit inside the cover? Is this your counter to the folding problems I outline? Because I would rebut it is not an explanation, because that was a letter, and the letter is folded in a way, not to fit in a book, nor to be a letter. The should be an explanation for this problem, and this does not suffice.
"Voynich removed the paper pastedowns. From the many books from the same collection that are now preserved in the Vatican, we can see what it would have looked like when Voynich bought it. There would have been filler material under the pastedown. There should have been a bibliographical description and a P.Beckx sticker apart from the Marci letter."
Here we agree: He removed these, and there "should have been a biographical description". These are problems, though, in so many ways. You had examined the Beinecke archives, as I later did. And I, too, noted the loosey-goosey collection of P.Beckx ex-libris labels, that Voynich took from many books. That alone is very troubling.
But what is still suspicious is that, one again, as always happens in every other case, a place that "should have" (as you and I agree) a description of the Voynich, among the descriptive labels for other books, but is not there. Again, poor and missing provenance... and again, a red flag of forgery, and zero support for genuine.