Ellie,
I spent quite some time looking at the different versions of the 'find' reported when Wilfrid exhibited his books in England and in America.
The idea that the Voynich manuscript was among those found 'in a castle in Austria' is due to a lie-by-omission. He was describing another collection certainly obtained from Austria in the previous year and simply by neglecting to point out that the Voynich manuscript had not been part of that collection, allowed the lustre of the more aristocratic and beautifully illuminated works fall upon his 'pet manuscript'.
People weren't entirely stupid, though, and soon noticed the discrepancies in Wilfrid's story. I don't recall exactly when he first admitted that he found it in southern Europe (though the information is in those posts where I explored the question), and the chronology is also wrong when you look carefully at it. Fr.Beckx is the only demonstrable link between Austria and the manuscript, and he was there a fairly short time, after which he went to Rome. Beckx' time spent in Fiesole was rather longer, and from there he returned directly to Rome where, according to Wilfrid, the manuscript was found. I still have a question-mark about that. On the one hand it would seem that the manuscript had lain in the trunk for as long as twenty years or so until re-discovered by Wilfrid. Yet, on the other hand we are told that after its sale, someone enquiring of the librarian at Mondragone found the librarian expected it to be on the shelves and actually went off to where it was supposed to be. Now, doesn't that imply a librarian with a remarkably long memory, or a catalogue which would have described the volume and its proper position on the shelves? If so, why have we never seen any mention of those details?
I have a faint suspicion that it may be one of those volumes 'acquired' by Guglielmo Libri while he was the official in charge of libraries acquired by the Napoleonic wars. He also died in Fiesole - and his books went to a friend who seems to have distributed them while Beckx was there. He was a noble and apparently a man of principle. If the books were known to have been stolen, and from church institutions, he might well have passed some to Beckx. That might explain why they were never unpacked.
But speculations of this sort are more fun than demonstrable aren't they?
I'd have to say that I find, myself, in close accord with the sentiment expressed by Patrick Lockerby:
"... whatever happened in Italy after 1450 is of no relevance in formulating any theory about the Voynich ms."
- but that doesn't mean others can't enjoy the exercise, and I wish you all the best with your hypothesis.
I spent quite some time looking at the different versions of the 'find' reported when Wilfrid exhibited his books in England and in America.
The idea that the Voynich manuscript was among those found 'in a castle in Austria' is due to a lie-by-omission. He was describing another collection certainly obtained from Austria in the previous year and simply by neglecting to point out that the Voynich manuscript had not been part of that collection, allowed the lustre of the more aristocratic and beautifully illuminated works fall upon his 'pet manuscript'.
People weren't entirely stupid, though, and soon noticed the discrepancies in Wilfrid's story. I don't recall exactly when he first admitted that he found it in southern Europe (though the information is in those posts where I explored the question), and the chronology is also wrong when you look carefully at it. Fr.Beckx is the only demonstrable link between Austria and the manuscript, and he was there a fairly short time, after which he went to Rome. Beckx' time spent in Fiesole was rather longer, and from there he returned directly to Rome where, according to Wilfrid, the manuscript was found. I still have a question-mark about that. On the one hand it would seem that the manuscript had lain in the trunk for as long as twenty years or so until re-discovered by Wilfrid. Yet, on the other hand we are told that after its sale, someone enquiring of the librarian at Mondragone found the librarian expected it to be on the shelves and actually went off to where it was supposed to be. Now, doesn't that imply a librarian with a remarkably long memory, or a catalogue which would have described the volume and its proper position on the shelves? If so, why have we never seen any mention of those details?
I have a faint suspicion that it may be one of those volumes 'acquired' by Guglielmo Libri while he was the official in charge of libraries acquired by the Napoleonic wars. He also died in Fiesole - and his books went to a friend who seems to have distributed them while Beckx was there. He was a noble and apparently a man of principle. If the books were known to have been stolen, and from church institutions, he might well have passed some to Beckx. That might explain why they were never unpacked.
But speculations of this sort are more fun than demonstrable aren't they?
I'd have to say that I find, myself, in close accord with the sentiment expressed by Patrick Lockerby:
"... whatever happened in Italy after 1450 is of no relevance in formulating any theory about the Voynich ms."
- but that doesn't mean others can't enjoy the exercise, and I wish you all the best with your hypothesis.