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

[proto57]

"This name was already suspected by Voynich in 1921"- but again, we have a chicken/egg problem, because just like you, and Fletcher, and any one of dozens of people with access to the letters, Voynich did research, too. We know he did, he is known for that. And in this case he admits to knowing about Barschius! Where from, but the same book, Philosophia Vetus Restituta, of course. Why is that so a problem? It actually supports my contention, that he had this information, and used it.

So here I have a problem.

And this problem is: I strongly suspect that you are aware that what you are saying is not supported by the evidence. And I strongly suspect that you are aware of this evidence. But the people reading here are not.

To suggest that I would state anything that I would be "aware" is incorrect is both wrong and grossly unfair to me. I admit that I sometimes wonder why you and others don't see things the same way I do, but then I realize these difference of opinion simply stem from varied interpretations of the same information, and not due to any disingenuous ignoring of that evidence. I wouldn't, and don't claim this, and it is wrong to claim it of me.

That this supposedly supports your contention is just a smoke screen.

He had his people research the Bohemian history after he got the MS and the Marci letter. Years after.
Garland told him about Tepenec and Marci, while miss Howe found the reference in Philosophia Vetus Restituta. That was in 1921. 

I am sure that you know that.
The only thing that supports your contention, is your own contention (not supported by any evidence) that he did not first find out in 1921, but already knew in, say, 1911.

This reflects a misunderstanding of my opinion on this issue: Yes, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. And it matters not to my point, nor the timeline, that it was after announcing the "find" of the manuscript. And it matters not that Garland told him about it, but if memory serves, he was also responded to by Prague (not positive he was, but irrelevant to this issue). And it also matters not at all how or when he claims to have learned of the Philosophia Vetus Restituta mention of Baresch. He knew of him, as I've demonstrated, he would "steer" people to give him feedback so that he could then use those people as a "source" (I think this may have been You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., in fact). And he would steer others to information he knew to be false, such as You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. was his Ugly Duckling, when his own notes tell us he knew that was a lie. How many hours and leg work did that little doozy waste for so many people, over many decades?

For the Prague request on "Topencz", yes of course it was later, but why does that change my point one iota? I believe he was pointing others to his desired provenance. If he did it later, that would make perfect sense.

Trusting Voynich's word is a huge mistake, when his word is provably unreliable, and his motivations to lie so great. I rather prefer to look at the timeline, and base my opinions on the actual habits and practices of the players, and the actual situation. On what we know, not what Voynich told us we should think.

Related to this, I find it somewhat humorous, his pathetic "explanation" for how You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. From Backhouse, "Voynich wrote again to say that it had come to England from a dealer in the south of France. He seemed to have it either from a Basque or from a ‘Polish Count’, but the English bookseller who sold it to Voynich had said that the transaction was so long ago that the French dealer’s name and address were no longer available. This provenance, particularly the reference to a Polish count, is not very convincing."

Ironic (or?) that Voynich was referred to as a "Polish Count" in at least one news article. In my opinion, his explanation here strongly suggests he knew this was a forgery. I find so many parallels in his "word" and actions, and results, in so many of his business dealings and "research". I think he was total scoundrel, and very unethical and outright dishonest. My opinion. I think his whole life was mostly fabrication, a mirage. I'll also point to Orioli's relating his conversation with Voynich in his book, "Adventures of a Bookseller": 

"Just listen to this. I once went to a convent and the monks showed m their library. It was a mine of early printed books and codexes and illuminated manuscripts. I nearly fainted- I assure you I nearly fainted on the spot. But I managed to keep my head all the same, and told the monks they could have a most interesting and valuable collection of modern theological works to replace that dusty rubbish. I succeeded in persuading the Father Superior, and in a month that whole library was in my hands, and I sent them a cartload of modern trash in exchange. Now take my advice: drop your present job and become a bookseller."

It comes down to this: Our differing level of reliance on the word of Voynich, which needs to be trusted explicitly in order to believe when and how he learned things. But he was a known liar, a fact acknowledged by you and others, when it comes to "forgiving" his motivations on all sorts of grounds... supposedly protecting sources of information and purchases, mostly. But then, his word is taken as fact when his word is needed to protect genuine. It is a selective application of standards to the man, in order to project a desired image of the Voynich manuscript. Again, this goes to the main thrust of this thread, and is another example in which this is done.

We know what Voynich was doing in 1911-1912, with respect to Strickland and the Jesuits. He was securing a deal that would make him millions of dollars (in modern equivalent), and he was successful.
When the Vatican was approached by the Jesuits, they already had Voynich's bid for the lot. And the single most valuable MS had already passed through his hands and was on its way to Hungary, only to be sold to a wealthy New York banker for even more money than expected.

Ok, but this is irrelevant to the issue of the authenticity of the Voynich. We know he bought and sold many real books. But I would counter that this is another example of selective use of evidence: He is being acknowledged as having a special "in" with the Jesuits, and access to rare books, and sold them, before anyone else knows; but then, he is said to have had no knowledge or access to the information in the Carteggio, that it is "impossible" for him to have seen the references to a missing book in them? Well, we disagree that we can make that distinction, and cut him off from that particular knowledge, based on his known abilities which we agree on.

Now you also wrote:

just like you, and Fletcher, and any one of dozens of people with access to the letters, Voynich did research, too

.

Fortunately, that's an easy one. Voynich never in his life had access to the letters.

With respect to my problem mentioned above, I will not be provoked any further.

Again, it is your opinion that he "never in his life had access to the letters", an assertion you make with as an absolute. It is your opinion, as it is mine that, based on everything we know, it is feasible he did. I do not state it as an absolute, which as I've said before may give a false impression that your view is fact, while mine, opinion... but the reality that both our views are opinions on this matter.

I'm sorry you feel "provoked" by my questions and statements, that is obviously not my intention. We are hashing out in this discussion our strongly opposing viewpoints, and I think it is great for us and everyone. It is like "fine tuning" an understanding of why we each feel the way we do, and on what basis we each come to our opinions on all this. I consider that valuable to myself, and also to anyone who wants to know the "why" of all this, rather than just blindly accept anyone's word on it... your word, mine or anyone's.

Yes it's like watching sausage made, as the expression goes, but I think it is important to know what is in the sausage we are all being fed.

Rich.