I am not convinced by the provenance history of the VMS

[proto57]

Hi, JustAnotherTheory: Yes, and I agree with you... and your first two points are ones I have also noted and long written about. You can see how "Great Minds Think Alike" in my post, "The Voynich Has no Provenance":

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

I touch on all your points in there, including that they should have mentioned the naked ladies, and seen the signature:

First of all, there are the obvious omissions of many Voynich features which would better identify it. Where are the naked women, the zodiac, the pipes, tubes and “cylinders”, and so much more. Also, there is no mention of the “signature” of Tepencz, which was You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., and therefore should have been even more visible to these men.

Which links to my post about that "signature", which really is anything but... however, real or not, the men of the Letters of the Carteggio, yes, I agree, would have certainly mentioned it. I think this strongly implies they never saw it. Well, as you have also stated.

There are many other issues, in addition to these. Among them are that the information in the 1665/66 Marci Letter does not only seem not to describe the Voynich, but that information... the Bacon Rumor, and other information that would have been of PRIMARY importance to explaining the nature of whatever manuscript they were seeing, was left out until the last couple of years of Marci's life? It makes little sense.

In any case, and not even an issue of the genuine nature, or age or origin of the Voynich... I think it is very clear that Baresch/Marci/Kinner/Kircher were owning and/or looking at an entirely different manuscript than the Voynich. I've also spent a great deal of time trying to find it, or at least determine what it may have been... what language it may have been written in, and what content it may have had... I have a few candidates, but not settled on any up to now...

One more interesting thing: This widespread insistence that the- what I call the "Baresh Manuscript", and what Jorge has dubbed "Book A"- the almost universal insistence that it is, in fact, the Voynich, has created a sort of fog in any attempts to discover what that manuscript actually was, or is. This is because, in the few instances when I've enlisted others, or others have went looking for it on their own, and so on, there is (what I consider) a mistaken belief that it would have to look something like the Voynich! No! Of course not! It is probably hiding in plain sight exactly because it looks nothing like the Voynich. It doesn't have to, of course... it just has to have stars, many and many plants, and a script and content which was unfamiliar to Baresch/Marci/Kinner/Kircher in their lifetimes, up to about 1678.

Today, it probably would look hardly unusual to us, at all. We have probably all come across it in our manuscript searches, and thought nothing of it, in fact.

Rich

As the title suggests, I'm not convinced by our current understanding of the VMS provenance timeline. I've had this feeling for a while now, but hadn't dared to share it.

I'm sure that at this point in the history of the VMS, certain events and letters are discussed as "facts", however I remain unconvinced. How is it that a 15th century manuscript divides so many medieval history experts to such a degree?

My main argument can be split into three points. I hope, despite the "well-established" provenance of the VMS, it will cast a doubt on you, too.

1. None of the alleged previous owners of the VMS mentioned any of the peculiar aspects of the VMS. Baresch, Marci, Kircher talked about an unreadable manuscript with herbal and cosmological diagrams. But everybody failed to mention the hundreds of naked nymphs, though. One would think that this distinguishing feature of of the MS would be the first thing to mention in any correspondence. After all, no other MS exists with so many weird naked ladies. Why didn't anybody write: "Hey, help me decipher this manuscript with... 300 b*tt naked ladies from the 15th century". Let's face it, the VMS is not "only" a herbal. There are thousands of herbals. Not one has this many nymphs. Also, nobody mentioned the tubes and bathing scenes either. If I would describe the VMS to someone, especially an expert, there is no way I would leave those details out. Would you?
   
2. Voynich himself noted the (faded) signature of Jacobus Tepenecz on the front page of the VMS. Yet nobody in the entire known history of the VMS mentioned anything about Tepenecz. For Baresch, Marci, Kircher and others, it would have been obvious that there is a famous signature on the front page. These were not laymen. These were experts. Yet nobody, for some reason, mentions that the personal herbalist of the mighty Holy Roman Emperor himself, Rudolf II, visibly signed the manuscript on the front page.
   
3. Kircher's letter to Moretus in 1639 says that: "I can let you know that the other sheet which appeared to be written in the same unknown script is printed in the Illyrian language in the script commonly called St Jerome's". But Voynichese is nothing like Illyrian (Glagolitic) language. It is totally different, they don't even have the same characters. Either Kircher/Moretus are totally misunderstanding basic linguistic features, of which they are allegedly era-defining experts, or... they are talking about another MS. Not the Voynich MS.
   

In conclusion, I am not convinced by the currently understood provenance history of the VMS. Not a single link seems to indicate, unambiguously, that they are talking about the VMS. Crucial details are missing from each correspondence.

Are they talking about some other manuscript instead?

If you agree that 99 percent of manuscripts from the middle ages are lost today, then it is vastly more probable that these people are talking about another, lost MS, rather than the Voynich manuscript. 

I think we need to revise the history of the VMS.