The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

[proto57]

Versions of the history have been changing as more information surfaced.
This has happened continually, yet slowly, over the last 10+ years.

Older versions of this history are no longer valid - quoting such older versions will just confuse.

There is nothing suspicious about the fact that this changed.

The whole acquisition of books by Voynich was a mystery because this had to be kept secret. Evidence has been destroyed. Voynich did not say anything, except to his wife, who also did not say anything during her lifetime (and only knew a small part). Villa Mondragone was false information that has led people in the wrong direction ever since Kraus mentioned it in the early 60's.

From the first time I got in contact with researchers of the Society of Jesus, they have been telling me that Villa Mondragone could not have had anything to do with it. No evidence though.

Just to add the briefest summary of the actual state of knowledge, for people who do not want to read the whole story:

Books from the Roman College were transported to a villa in Castelgandolfo. This was a secret that the Jesuits had to keep from the government. This included the Kircher correspondence. At least by 1912, the set was split into two parts and described in two different (summary) catalogues.
One catalogue listed historical material of the Jesuits themselves, among which the Kircher correspondence. The other catalogue listed books that they agreed to sell because they needed money. Voynich got a small part of that. Yet this was 'hot' merchandise.

There is no evidence that Voynich ever visited the villa in Castelgandolfo. 

That is not an empty statement. Visitors were recorded in a visitors' log, which still exists. Strickland's name appears in it several times (his base was Mondragone). So does Ehrle from the Vatican library, when he came secretly to estimate the books' value, and Tacchi Venturi who came with him, and on other occasions. There are occasional researchers' names, such as Xavier de Bachelet S.J. who researched materials of Bellarmino (in the unsellable part).

As soon as information would leak, that the Jesuits were hiding materials that were subject to confiscation, it would all be taken away from them.

The only suggestion that Voynich ever inspected any Jesuit books, are his own words in his 1921 paper. That is part of his cover story (lie) that he discovered this collection in some forgotten trunks. In reality, they were in a hidden and guarded location.

I have taken the time to read and understand your paper, "Acquisition_RZ_2023" three times now. To be certain that I fully understood your claims in it, and the evidence you use to base those claims on, I read it again, this morning. I transferred it to my Kindle, and meticulously poured over it. My opinion has not changed, though. Your reasoning is based on a great many assumptions by you, and by making those assumptions, a great many alternative versions could be created. This one, it seems, is reactive to my determining that Voynich could have been aware of the descriptions in the Carteggio, by some means, including but not exclusive to his actually removing it.

And in relation to my plausible set of such scenarios, you have thus far ONLY repeated that one extreme, and I think I see why: It is based on the assumption that the visitor logs at Castelgandolfo were perfect, and that if Voynich visited, he certainly would have been recorded. Even if that were so, and he was not otherwise let in... to there or the Villa Mondragone... there is a selective use of the level of "secrecy" in your paper. Those facts you do not have for the movements of the books, or the Carteggio, and the books which do not show up on various lists and catalogs, including the Voynich, were do to various levels of "secrecy", but at the same time, every visitor was dutifully logged in and out of these two locations? Basically, these lines from your paper, which you consider plausible, undermine the entire case that Voynich could have not seen the Carteggio, "Did Strickland take the selected manuscripts to Villa Mondragone, so that Voynich could obtain them there 65? All are possible, but we simply do not know, and more speculation will not take us any further 66."

Point being, the entire paper of this version of events uses such speculation far more than the previous versions. Here is a list of points which occur to me, which is by no means complete. I could go line-by-line of your paper, and dissect it, showing how this is speculative, that is not known but stated as fact, the other is irrelevant, but presented as relevant... but briefly:

1) Your paper is based on the assumption that the Voynich was among these books at all, when it appears in no list, and there is no reference to it, nor anything like it.

2) It is based on the assumption that the Carteggio Kircheriano was always with the books. I think it probably was, it does not matter... but the point is, the paths of the two are being conflated here... or three, really: The Carteggio's, the other books known, the unmentioned books, such as the Marcanova and the Voynich.

3) It is based on the assumption that the visitor logs are pristine, and that no other visits by any persons would ever have been excluded, while other portions of this version rely heavily on assumptions... and realities, actually... for a very high level of secrecy. This is a common thread to making all these stories work, in order to make them seem plausible: Selective use and acceptance of assumptions of the level of secrecy, truthfulness, completeness, and accuracy of evidence. If a statement by Voynich supports the version needed, he was telling the truth; if it counters it, then he was lying. If a record of a book is missing, it is due to sloppiness or secrecy; if another is listed, it is claimed to then show how accurate these records actually were. If bookplates exist for some books, it means the bookplates for the Voynich were also there (somehow), but are just missing in that case... that a desire for secrecy eliminated some, but not all.

4) It admits the very core premise of my own, that Voynich could have seen the mentions in the Carteggio, or known of them, by admitting that Strickland certainly did have the opportunity to move items around... such as from the Castelgandolfo to the Mondragone. This alone leaves open my entire premise, that Strickland admittedly had, and therefore anyone else he so choose also had, access to the Carteggio.

In short, your new scenario, based on this new information, while interesting in its own right, does not alter my core points, as outlined in my blog post: That Wilfrid could have been privy, directly or indirectly, with the descriptions of the Baresch Manuscript in the letters of the Carteggio, by a whole host of means: By being allowed to see them, by some other party, such as Strickland, a Jesuit or other scholar, by being let into see these collections at either the Villa Torlonia or Mondragone, or really anywhere else.

And although, in keeping up with the changing versions of this story I have included the Torlonia in my page on this subject, perhaps with respect to this new version I could add a reference to it at the beginning of that page explaining how new information has come to light, but nothing has really changed:

- Still no provenance

- Still no lock and seal

The Voynich is invisible to all of history, and Wilfrid could have known of the mentions of the Baresch manuscript by various plausible paths, explaining the (very bare and even contradictory) similarities the Voynich has to them. Perhaps some other references to those other books he bought, and which he didn't buy, will turn up, and be used to attempt to (virtually) "move" the Letters further from his historic grasp. If convincing, I will of course accept such evidence and reasoning.

But my prediction is it will never be found, because I don't think... based on all the evidence we have up to now, and my opinion about it... the Voynich was never a part of this very extensive story to begin with. It just was not there. The movements of all these books, all these people, have zero to do with the Voynich Manuscript at all.