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

[proto57]

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?... etc.

The reference in the letters has a long an interesting history, and like everything Voynich-related, I think that history tells us more how input is handled, and to what end, than the references themselves.

First of all, the view on this Illyrian reference in the letters radically changed even in the time I've been involved with the Voynich, starting about 2007.

First it was very exciting to many, myself included, as it was mistakenly thought that the letter WAS referring to the script of the Voynich. It was not realized until much after 2007 that it was a DIFFERENT sample that was being compared to that script. And I still agree that the Voynich script does share many You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (yes, mostly the "gallows" but more), that hasn't changed for me.

What has changed is that, since the fact that this reference is NOT to the Voynich after all, we hear less that Voynichese resembles Glagolitic. I see in these comments something about a passing resemblance to an upside down gallows, for instance. But this change came gradually. In fact, in 2015, when I wrote "Modern Voynich Myths", it was my #1 "myth" on the list,

"1) Athanasius Kircher described the Voynich script as “Illyrian” in his 1639 letter to Th. Moretus: Not true, he was describing another work in this way, and possibly a printed sheet at that. In a 2014 translation of the letter by André Szabolcs Szelp, agreed upon by others, this is now clear. However, this untruth is continually repeated to support the fact that Kircher actually did see the Voynich, as many have thought the script shows a similarity to Illyrian, or Glagolitic."

But this has rightly been abandoned. Why? Doesn't it still look like Glagolitic? No, I think it still does, to some extent (along with Nahuatl, Latin, transcribed Algonquin, and a smattering of other influences, too).

Here is my speculation about all this, with a parallel: We know that many looked to Glagolitic because of two things: A misinterpretation of the phrasing of that letter; and two, because there is a similarity between Voynich and that script. That known error is, then, "proof of concept" to my suggesting it possible that, likewise, someone not so well versed in Latin also misread that letter, and also believed it was the "arcane book" being compared to Glagolitic. If so, when creating a forged, missing, Baresch Manuscript, might they not use Glagolitic as an influence?

For my proposed parallel, consider this: A few people before me, then me, and others have noted and agreed (whether they think the Voynich is a forgery or not) that many of the illustrations are evocative of items and situations described in Francis Bacon's (fictional!) New Atlantis: Fantastical plants, grafted plants, bizarre animals, mysterious tomes, glossolalia, the similarity of the foldout maps and castles to representations of various "Utopias", and more. And I do still feel that the concept of the Utopia, as expressed in the New Atlantis, was an influence on the Voynich. Why? Well because I think it appears so, but also because New Atlantis is mentioned in what I think is the "primer" which served as the model for the Voynich, "Follies of Science in the Court of Rudolf II".

The reason it is a parallel to the "Illyrian" mention is this: In the 1666 letter from Godefridus Aloysius Kinner to Athanasius Kircher, just below the paragraph in which Kinner asks about the "arcane book", he relates,

"Many years ago the most noble and learned Francis Bacon of Verulamium hinted at a similar method of conducting investigations into the secrets of nature which he emphasised in several of his shorter books. He could not sample the fruits of his own advice in his own day for want of private income and lack of public funding. Instead he consoled himself by inventing the scenario of a recently discovered island of Atlantis, in which he imagined a house of Solomon endowed with the knowledge of the whole of nature to explain his ideas to the world."

Of course purely speculation, but I note several coincidences here, which are not speculative: One letter references Illyrian, and many have seen good comparisons between Voynichese and Illyrian. Another mentions Francis Bacon's New Atlantis, and many have seen good comparisons between illustrations in the Voynich, and the New Atlantis.

Again, I don't claim this as fact, or proof (!!!), but I consider it possible that a forger, not adept at Latin, mistakenly took both of these references to be referring to the missing Baresch manuscript, and so included them as influences when creating it, so to make it look like the forgery had a provenance in those letters. I would also point that the Illyrian reference WAS used to identify the Voynich as the book being discussed, until the phrasing was cleared up; while tellingly, the New Atlantis reference was never used. Whether the Latin of that letter was understood properly, earlier, I do not know, but do note that the book The New Atlantis is "too new" for a genuine 1420 cipher herbal verdict.

It could of course all be a coincidence, but whether it is, or not, I've learned much by watching these episodes all unfold. It fits my almost constant observation that the tail always ends up wagging the dog (the desired outcome drives the interpretation), and never the dog wagging the tail (letting the evidence determine the real answer). It is like assembling a puzzle, and when the pieces do not fit, using a scissors to fit them... and if that does not work, a mallet. How is that for mixing metaphors! Sorry.

Rich