19-08-2025, 02:11 PM
(19-08-2025, 06:46 AM)ReneZ wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The fact that Rudolf paid 600 ducats for it has been brought up many times in this context, but, of course, it is completely irrelevant.
The fact that he bought it does not say anything about whether it is authentic or fake.
Well, of course, it is indeed irrelevant to whether it is authentic or a fake. But that is not the point.
The point is, we have multiple suggestions that it is implausible for the VMS to have been created in order to sell for money. Lisa Fagin Davis has suggested that it was not beautiful enough. Dexdex finds the proposition stupid because of the amount of time it would take to produce it. (And that's probably true -- but there are plenty of stupid people sitting in prison for white collar crimes who could have made much more money with much less effort.)
Yet, if you accept that the Marci/Kircher letters refer to the VMS, then we also have a demonstrable case that belies those criticisms; there was an actual person with a lot of money who spent a lot of money on something that he believed was worth a lot of money. And that something was no more beautiful and no more easily made than the VMS -- because, apparently, it was the VMS.
It does not matter whether the manuscript was or wasn't authentic. In fact, it doesn't even matter whether Rudolf believed it was authentic. The fact that he spent the money shows -- dare I say "proves' -- that there was indeed sufficient motivation for someone to spend the time to make a manuscript like the VMS and that it was not necessary to make it of any higher quality than it turned out to be. (Also, not only did Rudolf reportedly pay a lot of money, but Marci seems to have brought up the point of the purchase in order to bolster his case that the manuscript was something of value and therefore worthy of Kircher's time to decipher it.)
Koen's point that Rudolf's willingness and ability to pay a lot of money for it in his timeframe is removed from the original motives of the (much earlier) manuscript producers is true, but I'm not sure it is therefore irrelevant. Just how much do we think human behaviours change over time? How little time between the production and the buying is necessary before it IS relevant? If there was demonstrable evidence that the manuscript could convince a wealthy buyer to part with a lot of money 400 years ago, is it that much less evidence that they would part with it 600 years ago?
There are a lot of reasons to believe that the manuscript was produced for very different reasons than to just scam a potential buyer and it has a lot of features (a LOT!) that are inconsistent with that motive. But to say that it isn't plausible because we don't think anyone should have paid for it, or that it wasn't worth the buyer's money, or the seller's efforts, that there was no profit motive available -- that just doesn't hold water.