The Book Switch Theory

[Jorge_Stolfi]

I got a private message expressing surprise at my statement that Barschius worked at Rudolph's court.

I see that I probably used the word "court" imprecisely.  


For several years of the Mailing List era all we knew about Barschius was what we had learned from the letters in the Carteggio, which is to say practically nothing.  We though he was just an obscure alchemist who was friend of Marci, but  had no connection to Rudolph, Dee, or even to Raphael.

Some of you may remember Rafal Prinke from the mailing list (not the Rafal of this forum and of the Rohonc codex).  He was a historian in real life, and did some digging, and found more about Barschius bio, which he reported at the Frascati conference.  As I recall, for some time Barschius had some government job and worked at the Prague Castle.  Isn't that detail in Rene's site? I suppose that my "at the court" was not quite the correct term.  

The Prague Castle is a HUGE place, probably bigger than most university campuses.  I suppose that Barschius never met Jacobus -- nor only because of the dates (IIRC), but also because of their very different connections to the court.  And I doubt that Rudolf II or his successor were ever aware of Barschius's existence.  

So I still don't think that "Barschius's book" or MS408 were ever in the royal library.   I don't see how such a highly valued book could have gone from there to Barschius's shelf, through Jacobus or in any other way.

By the way, IIRC all the references to Baresch we had at the time used either the Latinized name "Barschius" or the German(?) version "Baresch".  But he was Czech and his Czech name was Jiŕi Bareš.  It may have been Rafal who found that out, too.

Speaking of which, I know of no evidence for or against the claim that Wilfrid was unaware of Barschius until 1921 or even later.  However I suspect that Wilfrid had soon found the name of Marci's "good friend", either from the Carteggio letters (through his Jesuit friends) or from some other source; but if he did, he must have had the same view we had by 2000 -- that he was just an obscure alchemist with no connection to the court. 

As for the letter that Wilfrid wrote in 1921 to the national State of Bohemia, asking for information about TepenecWhatever:

If the "signature" on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. was there when he got the book, it makes sense that he would seek information about Jacobus rather than about Barschius.  What he needed was evidence (or at least a plausible story) for MS 408 being Rudolf's "600 ducats" book.  Then Jacobus would be the man of interest; the passage through Barschius was irrelevant.

If he decided to forge a "signature" of a previous owner to support that connection (the Forged Signature theory, FST), then his interest in Jacobus would have come out of a general investigation of people connected to the court of Rudolf II, who could have somehow taken the VMS out of the royal library. That investigation must have turned up Jacobus' name, and some information about him being a doctor who received a nobility title from Rudolf.  That information would have made Jacobus a prime candidate for the forgery.  When Wilfrid wrote those letters he may even had already obtained a copy of the "No//4" ex-libris.

Anyway, I do think that his behavior with regard to the letter was beyond weird.  It is one of the main reasons why I am now leaning towards the alternative story lines included in the BST and the FST.  Namely, that Wilfrid knew about Marci's letter before 1911, but he either did not get Barschius Book, or found that it was worthless; and, in any case, obtained the letter separately from the book. 

And as for the physical evidence of the letter having been attached to MS408: I am not conviced at all.  In fact, looking at the image of f0v at the Beinecke site, I would say that (1) the spacing of the marks is a bit different from the spacing of the seals on the letter, (2) the line connecting the marks has an incompatible position and tilt, (3) the paper lining we see now is not the one which was there when Wilfrid got the book, and (4) the "stains" do not look like stains but like holes on that paper sheet, like shaved-off air bubbles, that expose the tan material (vellum?) under it.  

I have asked several times on this forum for someone to confirm or refute these questions, but got no answer.  Is that Siloé fac-simile good enough to resolve (3) and (4)?

All the best, --stolfi