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

[asteckley]

It is quite a bit more complicated than that.
...

Thanks Rene!
That is a very helpful summary and as usual, I find the breadth of useful information on your website invaluable.
Looking through it again, I'm still looking for the additional connections to tie the letter references indubitably to the Voynich manuscript, and I will continue to do that more. And to further digest the details of Rich's analysis of the same evidence.

Meanwhile though, I have the following quick question that I'm kind of surprised is not discussed anywhere. (I may well be missing it somewhere on your site or Rich's writings or elsewhere.). I have not been able to find any answer myself, but that is very likely due to my limited experience in historical letters and where to even find the information. (Google does have its limits.) So I expect you or others will surely be able to provide an answer far quicker than I can find one. 
My question is in relation to Kircher's letter of 12 March 1639 which includes:

"the other sheet which appeared to be written in the same unknown script is printed in the Illyrian language in the script commonly called St Jerome's, and they use the same script here in Rome to print missals and other holy books in the Illyrian language."

[Before I get to my question, let me preface it all by saying that I am taking for granted that this English translation from Latin is accurate. I wish I knew Latin to better validate it but I don't. I trust that you and everyone else quoting the letters have validated these translations. The only reason I mention this is that if one asks Google to translate the passage, it says something very different. But then Google is hardly a reliable source for translation. It actually translates the passage as:

"Finally, another leaf appeared to be written in an unknown character. Let him know that it was printed in the Illyrian idiom, in the character which D. Hieronymi popularly calls; and they use the same character here in Rome in printing missals and other sacred books in the Illyric language."

If this translation is more accurate, then the "sameness" has nothing even to do with the manuscript that the letters referred to elsewhere -- Kircher is simply saying there is another document (or leave of sheet) besides the manuscript in question and that IT uses the same script as is used for the missals and books. If this is the case, my question is moot, but it also brings into question all of the translations and the analysis that you and others have put forth.  So I am assuming this Google translation is just plain wrong. Easy enough to check, but I myself have not done so.]

Now I have been unable to find any examples, or any information at all, regarding "St. Jerome's script".  Kircher says "unknown" script, but the script itself -- that is the "font" -- was clearly known to him, and so his use of the word unknown was either in reference to it being unknown to Moretus or to the fact it was unreadable, being either encrypted or conveying an unknown language. But in either case, he says it is in the "same" script.
I recognize that the question that this raises is so glaringly obvious, that I am clearly just missing where the numerous Voynich researchers before me have provided the answer.

Given that this script was used "in Rome to print missals and other holy books", there must surely be a significant quantity of surviving documents that we can turn to to see examples of it. (Well at least "one" somewhere must have survived?) And therefore, at least according to Kircher, those documents must provide additional examples of the Voynichese script, yet its commonly said that there are no other examples, so I am confused. What am I missing? (Again, I am assuming the translation is correct since most everyone has been relying on it to connect the letter to Voynich's manuscript.) The letter clearly says that the script is the same. I realize that it probably isn't identical -- at very least if they are actually "printed" there will be some variation between the printed and handwritten characters. But it must be similar enough that Kircher had no problem calling them the "same". So looking at any examples of St Jerome's script would certainly remove almost any uncertainty as to whether the manuscript in the letters is actually the Voynich manuscript.

P.S. As I finish writing this this and am about to hit the submit button, I notice that I have missed the most recent comments by proto57 which look like they might have already dealt with scripts and maybe even provided some of the answer. Sorry if that is the case, but it is late here and so I won't just now read it through to check.