New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"

[proto57]

But just imagine:

If the Voynich MS did not exist, and the Marci letter did not exist; and if Voynich decided to create a fake letter from Marci to Kircher to provide some fake provenance; How could Voynich have known in the first place that such a book was once sent from Marci to Kircher?

He would have to search in the Kircher correspondence, before knowing that Kircher had anything to do with it.

So, the odds are completely against such a scenario.

Hi Rene: I'll try to deal with the many arguments against my ideas in the threads overnight, but I wanted to address this one, first, because it seems to be the source of your claims that the timeline of my hypothesis is wrong, or unworkable, and maybe the old claim you made that Voynich would have "needed a time machine" made a few years ago.

"How could Voynich have known in the first place that such a book was once sent from Marci to Kircher?
He would have to search in the Kircher correspondence, before knowing that Kircher had anything to do with it."

Well, yes, he would have had to know of the mentions in the letters of the Carteggio, referring to "a" manuscript (as we know said manuscript was described), which I prefer to refer to as the "Baresch Manuscript" (because those letters are genuine, but it is speculation to say it is the Voynich we know today that they are describing).

And this is possible, and even plausible, for many reasons:

- Strickland was friends with Voynich
- Voynich is famous for finding rare items all over Europe. He had connections, he had sources to do this
- Strickland (and his brothers) attended the Villa Mondragone in the late 19th century, and he taught there, then, he ran the place
- Kircher's life works and archives would have unarguably been of great interest to all Jesuit scholars, and still is

It is completely plausible, and allowable timeline-wise, that the information in those letters was mentioned to Voynich in some form, or that he was allowed to see the letters. So:

"How could Voynich have known in the first place that such a book was once sent from Marci to Kircher?"

Because of course in the 1666 letter to Kircher, Kinner states, "You will be the occasion of even greater joy if your craft and skill can uncover the interpretation of that arcane book which he gave up to you, and I would dearly like to know myself."

So from the letters, he would have the descriptions of the Baresch Manuscript, have known that transcribed portions of it were first sent to Kircher, and that eventually the whole manuscript was sent to Kircher.

As I said, it is accepted that Voynich was good at ferreting out rare books, that he had a large network all over Europe... friends, contacts... and that he bought books, of course. The idea that there had existed an "arcane book" in "unknown characters" would of course pique his interest, and this is obvious and indisputable. It was his whole game, and one he was very, very good at.

So who told him about this missing arcane book? Probably some Jesuit scholar, maybe Strickland himself. Perhaps Voynich was shown some paper about the Carteggio. Maybe Voynich was allowed to peruse the Carteggio. And a million other combinations of this are possible.

You, and others, have long claimed this is impossible: For one thing, the fore-mentioned claim the letters were "under lock and seal", when this is speculation on your part, not fact. I was also told that, since there are 2,000 items in the Carteggio, he could not have found these references... when, of course, somehow, many other can, and did. Or that Voynich's Latin was bad, as though (if it were as bad as claimed) there could not have been anyone there to help him read them... like, say a Jesuit student or professor, or Strickland himself? And so on...

No, you speculate, I speculate, but there is nothing factual barring Voynich from being privy to the knowledge that the information about the Baresch Manuscript, in the Letters of the Carteggio, both describing it, and explaining the transmission of transcriptions of part of it, and then, the whole thing, to Kircher. And that information would have been to Voynich like raw meat to a dog- irresistible.

And so my points here are this, in rebuttal to your claims of a timeline problem, which I point out, does not exist. In my hypothesis, the information about a lost arcane book, this Baresch Manuscript, became known to Voynich. Maybe he found that book, and it exists, or existed, somewhere. I would be "under the radar" for us, as those descriptions actually would fit many manuscripts, and actually far better than the Voynich does. And armed with this information, which Voynich could have received before 1909 or so, he, or he and someone, or someone, could have created the Voynich. And then, to add to this pre-existing "provenance", created the 1665/66 Marci letter... or not, as I say it changes nothing, if my speculation on the authenticity of that letter is correct or not. But if forged, there is still nothing in that letter which counters the timeline of Voynich having learned of the missing Baresch manuscript, and creating the story in the letter.

So you may consider the "odds" against it, just as I consider the "odds" against the Voynich being real, for all our opposing reasons. But the timeline of my hypothesis? It is fine, it works, there is no problem with it at all.