The Book Switch Theory

[proto57]

Anyway, there would be a far greater coincidence that cannot be explained away.  The Marci letter says that the previous owner left him the book in an inheritance, and that owner also wrote to Kircher. Now we don't know from how many people Marci inherited stuff, but one person from whom he did inherit was Barschius, and Barschius indeed wrote to Kircher, and the one surviving letter describes a book that closely fits the Voynich MS.  That is too much of a coincidence.

I don't see the "too much" in that coincidence.  We both agree that Wilfrid though about Bacon only because he read Letter 67, right?  Besides the Bacon connection, that letter says that Marci's "good friend" had written to Kircher about the book.  Wilfrid must then have tried to find out more about that book.  As a minimum, he must have asked his Jesuit friends/partners to scan Kircher's Carteggio for any letter from anyone in Prague about a mysterious book.  They would have easily found Barschius's letter (just as we did 20 years ago, as soon as the index of the Carteggio became available online).

Then, if he decided to substitute some bogus book for BookA, as the BST claims (because he either did not get BookA, or realized that BookA was obviously not a Bacon Original), he would have looked for one that fit Barschius's description and could be sold to a stupid rich banker as a Bacon Original -- using Letter 67 as "proof".

True, he could have been unable to find such a book.  In which case he would just have given up on that plan. But there exists at least one book that fits that description, namely MS408; why not more than one? There are many books written in scripts that would have been baffling to Barschius, Marci, and their contacts in Prague (even if they would be recognizable today), and many books with pictures of unknown plants, stars, and "chemical symbolism".  Why can't there exist another book with both features, besides MS408?

I agree, Mr. Stolfi: The premise that Book A (my "Baresch Manuscript" of course... maybe we should flip a coin and choose a name? JK) "is" the Voynich relies on not critically examining the actual descriptions, nor the timeline of literary, scholarly knowledge at the time it was being examined and described. It is one of those things which has been stated with authority so often that people don't look at the real nuts and bolts any longer... they just accept it at face value, and don't really question it. This has long been a part of my shtick. There were a great many scripts these men were unfamiliar with, in their time, which they would have described Book A the way they did. There are of course hundreds of books on the history of our knowledge of languages and scripts, but I have long suggested Maurice Pope's, "The Story of Decipherment: From Egyptian Hieroglyphs to Maya Script.": You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

From that book I compiled a list of all the scripts which I could reasonably ascertain would have been "unknown" to the Men of the Letters, and it quickly added up to over 100.

I think it is only when we look at the descriptions in the letters with modern standards, with our current knowledge of scripts, that we equate Voynichese with what these men were seeing and describing as the only possible script they could have seen, because today Voynichese is one of the few still unknown to us. But no, they had dozens, if not hundreds, of such scripts. We have to look through their 17th century eyes, not ours, which then expands out the possibilities greatly. And accurately. Then "Voynichese" is no longer alone, it gets lost in a storm of unknown scripts.

And also, their list of known scripts would have even spanned, and increased during the range of the letter dates. I mean, the knowledge was increasing greatly during this time. You can see this in the 1678 De Sepi, which shows a great many samples of scripts known, or at least published by Kircher over time, in various other books. The dates of those publications must be kept in mind when trying to determine the known scripts against a background of the letter dates. It gets complicated trying to recreate such a timeline, but I feel it is very important to do. It will help us narrow down just what book Book A really was. I hope that book is still extant, and believe that when we see it, we will know it. Of course, I think there is a very real possibility Book A was destroyed, if it were some poor, low value thing... which most herbals were in Voynich's time... because the modern equivalent of well over a million dollars was at stake (I liken this to the effect of a large budget movie blowing up some classic car, or destroying a fine guitar, and so on, because the value is peanuts compared to the end gain of the movie sales).

The timeline of their "familiarity with scripts" is also affected by one's opinion/judgement on the Marci letter's date of 1665/66. That is, if real, it extends out to that date. If not, then the range is shorter.

And I think I have several candidates, written in several scripts unknown to them, with plants which would have mystified them, and with what might be considered stars and chemical symbolism. I've even looked through some of Voynich's catalogs, wondering if he found and listed the book they saw. For one thing, one clue, it may have been in Kircher's collections, since they may have sent it to him (as reported), so that may be a good cross reference.

I think there is a chance we have all seen Book A, but can't yet say I know what it is/was.

Also, and this relates to this issue directly I think, and applies to the BST: For those unfamiliar, years ago I looked at every page of the Carteggio, and found several loose sheets, seemingly unconnected to nearby letters. I long wondered if any of these contain the script said copied from Book A, and belong with one of their known letters. I compiled just a few of the scripts on a composite:

   

There are many more. Some of them have notes, by someone or someones jotting down possible identities for them. But I've been yelling a the wall for well over a decade that Book A may be out there somewhere, because to me... as it is to the creators and proponents of the BST... I really don't think the Voynich we see is that book, not by a long shot. It is almost like just saying it is, is the only reason to believe it could be.

Rich.