<![CDATA[The Voynich Ninja - Provenance & history]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/ Sat, 25 Apr 2026 04:47:33 +0000 MyBB <![CDATA[Author Leo Mec of MS-408]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5639.html Sun, 19 Apr 2026 03:21:20 +0000 oeesordy]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5639.html Register or Login to view., Mec was found there.  His name is You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.! ckhar shal ckhar shal Mec is abbreviated I surmise.  Mec comes from Mecco or Meco.

You can check with my cipher:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.



Quote:Mecacci, Mecarelli, Mecarini, Mecarozzi, Mecca, Mecchi, Mecci, Mecco, Meccoli, Mechelli, Mecherini, Mechi, Mechini, Meco, Mecocci, Meconcelli, Meconi, Mecozzi, Mecucci, Mecuzzi

From Meco, a common derivative of the first name Domenico, meaning: sacred to God
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

This is symbolic and a metaphor and I don't think he is implying a sabor tooth tiger.  It's Leo Mec saying he is speaking in tongues and it's depicting a cat symbolic of Leo with it's tongue sticking out in August.

So circa 1005-6 and Leo Mec of Northern Italy author of MS-408.



.jpg   tongues for leo.JPG (Size: 93.91 KB / Downloads: 112)

I found more details:

Quote:
Meco History, Family Crest & Coats of Arms
  • Origins Available:

  • Italy
Early Origins of the Meco family
The surname Meco was first found in at the foundations of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (Italian: Venezia), with the Minotto family.
Early History of the Meco family

This web page shows only a small excerpt of our Meco research. The years 1203, 1265, 1300, 1450, 1550, 1575, 1655, 1722, 1765, 1769, 1808, 1848, 1863, 1864, 1873, 1876, 1881 and 1886 are included under the topic Early Meco History in all our You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and printed products wherever possible.
Meco Spelling Variations
Enormous variation in spelling and form characterizes those Italian names that originated in the medieval era. This is caused by two main factors: regional tradition, and inaccuracies in the recording process. Before the last few You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. years, scribes spelled names according to their sounds. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. were the unsurprising result. The variations of Meco include Menico, Menichi, Menech, Minico, Minichi, Menego, Meneghi, Menega, Menoga, Menoghi, Minigo, Menco, Menchi, Menci, Minco, Mengo, Menghi, Menga, Mingo, Minghi, Meni, Misotti, Minuziano, Mingoti, Menochio, Minelli, Minnelli, Menis, De Minico, Menichelli, Minichelli, Minichiello, Meneghelli, Meneghello, Meneghel, Menichini, Minichini, Minichino, Meneghini, Meniconi, Meneghino, Meneghin, Menicucci, Minicucci, Meneguzzi, Menoncini and many more.
Early Notables of the Meco family
Rosso Misotti, leader of the Ghibeline faction in Ferrara in 1203. Members of the Venetian Minotto family were brave soldiers: in 1265 Tommaso Minotto led the army against the Genoese forces; and in 1300 Marco Minotto was General of 37 ships which fought against the Greeks; Alessandro Minuziano was an editor and printer in Puglia in 1450 who printed the first edition of the collected works of Cicero; Giacomo Menochio was a prominent jurist in Pavia in 1550; Giovanni-Paolo Meniconi was...
Another 81 words (6 lines of text) are included under the topic Early Meco Notables in all our You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and printed products wherever possible.
Migration of the Meco family
Immigrants bearing the name Meco or a variant listed above include: Augusta Minghelli, who arrived in America on July 2, 1884, aboard the "St. Germain;" Alessandro Minghetti, who arrived in America on Nov. 8, 1883, aboard the ".
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
]]> Register or Login to view., Mec was found there.  His name is You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.! ckhar shal ckhar shal Mec is abbreviated I surmise.  Mec comes from Mecco or Meco.

You can check with my cipher:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.



Quote:Mecacci, Mecarelli, Mecarini, Mecarozzi, Mecca, Mecchi, Mecci, Mecco, Meccoli, Mechelli, Mecherini, Mechi, Mechini, Meco, Mecocci, Meconcelli, Meconi, Mecozzi, Mecucci, Mecuzzi

From Meco, a common derivative of the first name Domenico, meaning: sacred to God
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

This is symbolic and a metaphor and I don't think he is implying a sabor tooth tiger.  It's Leo Mec saying he is speaking in tongues and it's depicting a cat symbolic of Leo with it's tongue sticking out in August.

So circa 1005-6 and Leo Mec of Northern Italy author of MS-408.



.jpg   tongues for leo.JPG (Size: 93.91 KB / Downloads: 112)

I found more details:

Quote:
Meco History, Family Crest & Coats of Arms
  • Origins Available:

  • Italy
Early Origins of the Meco family
The surname Meco was first found in at the foundations of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (Italian: Venezia), with the Minotto family.
Early History of the Meco family

This web page shows only a small excerpt of our Meco research. The years 1203, 1265, 1300, 1450, 1550, 1575, 1655, 1722, 1765, 1769, 1808, 1848, 1863, 1864, 1873, 1876, 1881 and 1886 are included under the topic Early Meco History in all our You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and printed products wherever possible.
Meco Spelling Variations
Enormous variation in spelling and form characterizes those Italian names that originated in the medieval era. This is caused by two main factors: regional tradition, and inaccuracies in the recording process. Before the last few You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. years, scribes spelled names according to their sounds. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. were the unsurprising result. The variations of Meco include Menico, Menichi, Menech, Minico, Minichi, Menego, Meneghi, Menega, Menoga, Menoghi, Minigo, Menco, Menchi, Menci, Minco, Mengo, Menghi, Menga, Mingo, Minghi, Meni, Misotti, Minuziano, Mingoti, Menochio, Minelli, Minnelli, Menis, De Minico, Menichelli, Minichelli, Minichiello, Meneghelli, Meneghello, Meneghel, Menichini, Minichini, Minichino, Meneghini, Meniconi, Meneghino, Meneghin, Menicucci, Minicucci, Meneguzzi, Menoncini and many more.
Early Notables of the Meco family
Rosso Misotti, leader of the Ghibeline faction in Ferrara in 1203. Members of the Venetian Minotto family were brave soldiers: in 1265 Tommaso Minotto led the army against the Genoese forces; and in 1300 Marco Minotto was General of 37 ships which fought against the Greeks; Alessandro Minuziano was an editor and printer in Puglia in 1450 who printed the first edition of the collected works of Cicero; Giacomo Menochio was a prominent jurist in Pavia in 1550; Giovanni-Paolo Meniconi was...
Another 81 words (6 lines of text) are included under the topic Early Meco Notables in all our You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and printed products wherever possible.
Migration of the Meco family
Immigrants bearing the name Meco or a variant listed above include: Augusta Minghelli, who arrived in America on July 2, 1884, aboard the "St. Germain;" Alessandro Minghetti, who arrived in America on Nov. 8, 1883, aboard the ".
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
]]> <![CDATA[Reconciling Millicent Sowerby's Chronology]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5490.html Mon, 30 Mar 2026 23:22:43 +0000 asteckley]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5490.html
A more definitive source of information is Millicent E. Sowerby who provides a recounting of her meeting and working for Wilfrid Voynich, in her autobiographical book (Rare People and Rare Books). Unfortunately her book contains some certain mistakes of memory on her part.

She states that she was interviewed by Wilfrid Voynich on a Monday and then began working for him one week later on Monday, December 18, 1912. This, however, is certainly incorrect since that particular calendar date was a Wednesday. Given that her (faulty) recollection was for Monday (first day of a work week) and that she is describing both an interview and the starting of a job, and also that it was one week before Christmas which would also be on a Monday -- all this would suggest that her memory was correct on the day of the week, but that it failed her on the year.  December 18, 1911, however, was a Monday, and so that is when she very likely when she actually began working at Voynich's London book shop. 

She also describes that her very first sight of Voynich (just before he sat her down to interview for the job) :
"He was standing at the far side of a long table covered with a red baize cloth, and was showing to a customer one of the magnificent illuminated manuscripts he had so recently acquired in Europe. "

Later she states:
"As I have said, he had returned from one of these European hunting trips shortly before I joined the staff, and news of the treasures he had found must have been getting about, for we had numbers of visitors, all in a state of eager anticipation... Another treasure that he had found in some ancient castle in Southern Europe was also the cause of great excitement and a large number of scholarly visitors—botanists and astronomers as well as medieval experts. This was the famous Roger Bacon cypher..."
(In the removed text of the first ellipses she describes a book in Cryillic print that he had also brought back from his trip.) 

Correcting Sowerby's reference to be 1911, would mean that Voynich acquired the manuscript in mid-to-late 1911 (shortly before Sowerby joined the staff).  This would be consistent with Wilfrid's own statement that he made in a letter early in the year 1917, wherein he said he had acquired a large collection of manuscripts, including the Voynich Manuscript, "six years ago." So this would be further evidence that Sowerby got her year wrong and not her day of the week.

On the other hand, Wilfrid stated explicitly in his 1921 lecture that he acquired the collection with the manuscript in 1912. And there seems to be several other sources indicating 1912. (Again I am not sure how definitive those other sources are that it was 1912 and that it was the VMS being referred to.)

Has anyone found a way to reconcile these conflicting statements?]]>
A more definitive source of information is Millicent E. Sowerby who provides a recounting of her meeting and working for Wilfrid Voynich, in her autobiographical book (Rare People and Rare Books). Unfortunately her book contains some certain mistakes of memory on her part.

She states that she was interviewed by Wilfrid Voynich on a Monday and then began working for him one week later on Monday, December 18, 1912. This, however, is certainly incorrect since that particular calendar date was a Wednesday. Given that her (faulty) recollection was for Monday (first day of a work week) and that she is describing both an interview and the starting of a job, and also that it was one week before Christmas which would also be on a Monday -- all this would suggest that her memory was correct on the day of the week, but that it failed her on the year.  December 18, 1911, however, was a Monday, and so that is when she very likely when she actually began working at Voynich's London book shop. 

She also describes that her very first sight of Voynich (just before he sat her down to interview for the job) :
"He was standing at the far side of a long table covered with a red baize cloth, and was showing to a customer one of the magnificent illuminated manuscripts he had so recently acquired in Europe. "

Later she states:
"As I have said, he had returned from one of these European hunting trips shortly before I joined the staff, and news of the treasures he had found must have been getting about, for we had numbers of visitors, all in a state of eager anticipation... Another treasure that he had found in some ancient castle in Southern Europe was also the cause of great excitement and a large number of scholarly visitors—botanists and astronomers as well as medieval experts. This was the famous Roger Bacon cypher..."
(In the removed text of the first ellipses she describes a book in Cryillic print that he had also brought back from his trip.) 

Correcting Sowerby's reference to be 1911, would mean that Voynich acquired the manuscript in mid-to-late 1911 (shortly before Sowerby joined the staff).  This would be consistent with Wilfrid's own statement that he made in a letter early in the year 1917, wherein he said he had acquired a large collection of manuscripts, including the Voynich Manuscript, "six years ago." So this would be further evidence that Sowerby got her year wrong and not her day of the week.

On the other hand, Wilfrid stated explicitly in his 1921 lecture that he acquired the collection with the manuscript in 1912. And there seems to be several other sources indicating 1912. (Again I am not sure how definitive those other sources are that it was 1912 and that it was the VMS being referred to.)

Has anyone found a way to reconcile these conflicting statements?]]> <![CDATA[Rauwolf & Clusius & Gessner]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5453.html Mon, 16 Mar 2026 01:28:16 +0000 stopsquark]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5453.html Register or Login to view. relevant because Rauwolf is one of the names often discussed in reconstruction of the VMS provenance. Quoting some relevant passages:

"The plants he [Rauwolf] collected formed the first two books of his plant collection. Rauwolf graduated in 1562 from the University of Valence, Dauphiné (Dannenfeldt 1968). In 1563, he carried out his "peregrinatio academica" traveling through the Alps to N. Italy. On the way, he collected the plants that formed the third book herbarium. Rauwolf visited Padua, Verona, Mantua, Ferrara, Bologna, Florence, Modena, Piacenza, Parma, Milan, and Como, heading forward through Switzerland to Germany. During this homeward journey, Rauwolf visited Conrad Gessner (1516–1565) in Zurich, accompanied by his friend and classmate from Montpellier, Johann Bauhin (1541–1613) (Durling 1965).
   
According to Legré (1900), that same year, Rauwolf met in Augsburg with Carolus Clusius (1526–1609), to which he presented the plants he had collected in France and Italy, and presumably accepted Clusius’ annotations and corrections of several plant names. Doubting Legré’s argument, Ganzinger (1963) attributed the numerous annotations and corrections found in Rauwolf’s herbaria to Leonhart Fuchs (1501–1566), suggesting that Rauwolf, on his way back to Augsburg in 1563, also visited Fuchs, his former teacher in Tübingen.

In 1571, Rauwolf was appointed city physician of Augsburg, a position that he, as a devoted Protestant, lost 17 years later due to religious conflicts.Thereby getting into financial difficulties, he decided to sell his herbaria, which he achieved for a remarkable price, 310 Reichstaler, which had to be paid to Rauwolf by the imperial chamber.The four book herbaria were bought in 1593 by a commissioner of the Habsburg Emperor Rudolf II..."



I know that Rauwolf -> Widemann-> Rudolf is a likely chain that people often suggest. When reading this paper, though, I was also quite struck by the fact that Rauwolf's "pergrinatio academica" took him directly through the regions where we expect the VMS likely originated- it seems relatively plausible that Rauwolf could have obtained the VMS at some point in 1562 or 1563. I'm curious about whether his colleagues in that region (Clusius and Gessner), both of whom were avid curiosity collectors and who have extant correspondence in libraries, have been investigated as possible Voynich-owners or annotators. The only You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. doesn't seem to mention an exchange of books aside from the one Rauwolf wrote, but I haven't found an online archive of Gessner's letters yet. Fuchs may also be worth looking into!]]> Register or Login to view. relevant because Rauwolf is one of the names often discussed in reconstruction of the VMS provenance. Quoting some relevant passages:

"The plants he [Rauwolf] collected formed the first two books of his plant collection. Rauwolf graduated in 1562 from the University of Valence, Dauphiné (Dannenfeldt 1968). In 1563, he carried out his "peregrinatio academica" traveling through the Alps to N. Italy. On the way, he collected the plants that formed the third book herbarium. Rauwolf visited Padua, Verona, Mantua, Ferrara, Bologna, Florence, Modena, Piacenza, Parma, Milan, and Como, heading forward through Switzerland to Germany. During this homeward journey, Rauwolf visited Conrad Gessner (1516–1565) in Zurich, accompanied by his friend and classmate from Montpellier, Johann Bauhin (1541–1613) (Durling 1965).
   
According to Legré (1900), that same year, Rauwolf met in Augsburg with Carolus Clusius (1526–1609), to which he presented the plants he had collected in France and Italy, and presumably accepted Clusius’ annotations and corrections of several plant names. Doubting Legré’s argument, Ganzinger (1963) attributed the numerous annotations and corrections found in Rauwolf’s herbaria to Leonhart Fuchs (1501–1566), suggesting that Rauwolf, on his way back to Augsburg in 1563, also visited Fuchs, his former teacher in Tübingen.

In 1571, Rauwolf was appointed city physician of Augsburg, a position that he, as a devoted Protestant, lost 17 years later due to religious conflicts.Thereby getting into financial difficulties, he decided to sell his herbaria, which he achieved for a remarkable price, 310 Reichstaler, which had to be paid to Rauwolf by the imperial chamber.The four book herbaria were bought in 1593 by a commissioner of the Habsburg Emperor Rudolf II..."



I know that Rauwolf -> Widemann-> Rudolf is a likely chain that people often suggest. When reading this paper, though, I was also quite struck by the fact that Rauwolf's "pergrinatio academica" took him directly through the regions where we expect the VMS likely originated- it seems relatively plausible that Rauwolf could have obtained the VMS at some point in 1562 or 1563. I'm curious about whether his colleagues in that region (Clusius and Gessner), both of whom were avid curiosity collectors and who have extant correspondence in libraries, have been investigated as possible Voynich-owners or annotators. The only You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. doesn't seem to mention an exchange of books aside from the one Rauwolf wrote, but I haven't found an online archive of Gessner's letters yet. Fuchs may also be worth looking into!]]> <![CDATA[Godefrid Alois Kinner]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5442.html Thu, 12 Mar 2026 10:39:53 +0000 ReneZ]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5442.html
Just by chance, I ran into this reference to his letters: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
and was pleased to find old Voynich researcher Philip Neal involved, together with Thomas Conlon, both of whom together also translated the Kircher letter in response to Moretus and Barschius, which is discussed in detail here:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

I have not (yet) followed any of the links in the page, but greatly appreciate the various collaborative activities of historical research it refers to.

Kinner was also mentioned in the discussion of Fabrizio Salani's document, but as this page indicates, he only became involved with the Bohemian court after 1649, well after Barschius' first letter to Kircher (1637).]]>
Just by chance, I ran into this reference to his letters: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
and was pleased to find old Voynich researcher Philip Neal involved, together with Thomas Conlon, both of whom together also translated the Kircher letter in response to Moretus and Barschius, which is discussed in detail here:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

I have not (yet) followed any of the links in the page, but greatly appreciate the various collaborative activities of historical research it refers to.

Kinner was also mentioned in the discussion of Fabrizio Salani's document, but as this page indicates, he only became involved with the Bohemian court after 1649, well after Barschius' first letter to Kircher (1637).]]> <![CDATA[Would a NEW Voynich Manuscript be valuable?]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5238.html Wed, 14 Jan 2026 18:30:17 +0000 Rafal]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5238.html
We are used to think about Voynich Manuscript as something valuable, even very valuable.

Emperor Rudolph presumably paid a nice sum for it, possibly beliving it was a lost work of Roger Bacon.
Later Wilfrid Voynich himself believed he will be able to sell it for big money.

But let's take the mainstream view that VM was made in the 1400s. Now imagine some people in the 1400s can see the shiny and new Voynich Manuscript.

Would they consider it valuable? What would the think?

It wouldn't be for them any ancient artifact, antiquity or relic. They would probably realize that it is new.
And they would see bad pictures and the writing impossible to understand.

The cleverest of them would probably know that there are many writing systems in the world. Arabs have their writing, Greeks have another one, Jews yet another one and so on. And somewhere far, far away live people who have black skin, a language impossible to pronounce and possibly yet another writing.

I would say they wouldn't really so excited by unknown writing because it would be quite natural for them that there are strange things that they don't understand.
And if it seemed a work of pagan or a sorcerer, some people possibly would feel a strong desire to burn it  Wink

So would anyone be willing to pay a big money for the new VM in the 1400s?
Were there even collectors, as we understand it today, in the 1400s?

I am considering an option of VM being a fake made for selling it to a rich collector but don't I know the reality of 1400s enough to say if it is possible.

How do you think?]]>
We are used to think about Voynich Manuscript as something valuable, even very valuable.

Emperor Rudolph presumably paid a nice sum for it, possibly beliving it was a lost work of Roger Bacon.
Later Wilfrid Voynich himself believed he will be able to sell it for big money.

But let's take the mainstream view that VM was made in the 1400s. Now imagine some people in the 1400s can see the shiny and new Voynich Manuscript.

Would they consider it valuable? What would the think?

It wouldn't be for them any ancient artifact, antiquity or relic. They would probably realize that it is new.
And they would see bad pictures and the writing impossible to understand.

The cleverest of them would probably know that there are many writing systems in the world. Arabs have their writing, Greeks have another one, Jews yet another one and so on. And somewhere far, far away live people who have black skin, a language impossible to pronounce and possibly yet another writing.

I would say they wouldn't really so excited by unknown writing because it would be quite natural for them that there are strange things that they don't understand.
And if it seemed a work of pagan or a sorcerer, some people possibly would feel a strong desire to burn it  Wink

So would anyone be willing to pay a big money for the new VM in the 1400s?
Were there even collectors, as we understand it today, in the 1400s?

I am considering an option of VM being a fake made for selling it to a rich collector but don't I know the reality of 1400s enough to say if it is possible.

How do you think?]]> <![CDATA[Possible Identification of a Handwriting Match for the Voynich Manuscript Author]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5207.html Sun, 04 Jan 2026 16:00:05 +0000 basriemin]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5207.html
How can I compare this handwriting with the Voynich text in a scientific and reliable way? Could you recommend a specialist or expert in this field?]]>
How can I compare this handwriting with the Voynich text in a scientific and reliable way? Could you recommend a specialist or expert in this field?]]> <![CDATA[How quickly did the VMS leave the possession of those who understood it?]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5083.html Fri, 28 Nov 2025 04:07:22 +0000 Skoove]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5083.html
I think that there is other physical evidence in the manuscript that prior to this, it was already in the hands of someone who didn't understand it. Namely because of the incorrect binding, incorrect painting, POSSIBLE retracing by someone who didn't get what the original glyphs were and also the marginalia? 

Since the incorrect binding happened not too long after the creation of the manuscript, I personally think that within a generation or two the manuscript somehow left those who had originally devised it then began being passed around as a curiosity by others who had no understanding of it.

I'm not sure if this conjecture would really help in solving any part of the script, but if it became 'displaced' so quickly after its creation it might suggest that it was not a wide spread task or it was only intended for usage by a single individual.]]>
I think that there is other physical evidence in the manuscript that prior to this, it was already in the hands of someone who didn't understand it. Namely because of the incorrect binding, incorrect painting, POSSIBLE retracing by someone who didn't get what the original glyphs were and also the marginalia? 

Since the incorrect binding happened not too long after the creation of the manuscript, I personally think that within a generation or two the manuscript somehow left those who had originally devised it then began being passed around as a curiosity by others who had no understanding of it.

I'm not sure if this conjecture would really help in solving any part of the script, but if it became 'displaced' so quickly after its creation it might suggest that it was not a wide spread task or it was only intended for usage by a single individual.]]> <![CDATA[On the character of Wilfrid Voynich]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5041.html Wed, 12 Nov 2025 03:23:31 +0000 ReneZ]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5041.html
Now here, I don't want to go into the aspects of how his character affects these two theories. There are already threads about that, and such aspects can be continued there. If this diverges into these directions, it can be closed. What I want to do here is look both at the evidence we have for Voynich's character, and the high level of subjectivity in this entire topic.   

This quote is a good starting point:

(11-11-2025, 06:17 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[...] the description of Voynich, by G. Orioli, to Antonio. [...] Of course Orioli got Voynich's religion incorrect, and also, it sounds somewhat bigoted on his part... but here it is:

"As to Voynich--he was a Polish Jew, a bent kind of creature and getting
on for sixty. I liked his shop in Shaftesbury Avenue; it was full of books
and well kept, and Voynich himself was most obliging to me. He gave me one
of his excellent catalogues to study, begging me to note the prices: 'Always
keep the price as high as possible, if you ever have a book to sell,' he
added. Then in a squeaky voice and in an accent which I even then recognized
as not being English he told me that he had bought a bookshop in Florence
called the 'Libreria Franceschini.'"

  "'I know that shop,' I said."

  "'Well, it is full of incunabula. Absolutely crammed with incunabula.'"

  "'Surely a bookshop ought to be full of books?'"

  "He laughed heartily at my ignorance, explained what incunabula were, and
went on in his enthusiastic fashion:"

  "'Millions of books, shelves and shelves of the greatest rarities in the
world. What I have discovered in Italy is altogether unbelievable! Just
listen to this. I once went to a convent and the monks showed me their
library. It was a mine of early printed books and codexes and illuminated
manuscripts. I nearly fainted--I assure you I nearly fainted on the spot.
But I managed to keep my head all the same, and told the monks they could
have a most interesting and valuable collection of modern theological works
to replace that dusty rubbish. I succeeded in persuading the Father
Superior, and in a month that whole library was in my hands, and I sent them
a cartload of modern trash in exchange. Now take my advice: drop your
present job and become a bookseller.'"


Now there is a bit of "all booksellers are liars, said a bookseller" in this. 

This is not trying to be smart, but shows how easy it is, on such a subjective topic, to trust the things one wants to believe, and to distrust what one does not want to believe.
This is so easy, that it may not even be done consciously.

To be very specific: 
should we doubt that Voynich discovered a faded signature on the first folio of the MS?
yet at the same time:
take literally that he exchanged valuable old books for a cartload of modern trash?
(Sounds like bragging to me).

Should we trust Orioli?
Voynich was not Jewish, not near his sixties (he was 47 in 1912) and he was described by others quite differently from a bent creature.

Here is my attempt at a biography of Voynich: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
which suffers in some areas from the same unreliability of evidence.
The best description of Voynich's person is the quoted chapter by E.Millicent Sowerby, which I can thoroughly recommend. It brings him to life.

One has to recognise when she repeats exaggerated stories by Voynich of his earlier life though.
She takes very strong issue with Orioli's description of Voynich, and quotes how Voynich's wife descibed him as having the head and shoulders of a 'Norwegian god'.

I also quote a statement from one of Voynich's Polish friends, found by Rafal Prinke:

"He [Wojnicz] had exuberant phantasy and took its results for reality, in which he solemnly believed. Later he became [...] a very practical antiquarian books dealer and made a considerable fortune, which he was always happy to share with anyone. And so in that man lived in agreement incredible phantasy (others call it lies), truly American pragmatism and good heart"

There is also a published obituary by James Westfall Thompson, which is entirely laudatory and we should not consider useful.

PS: minor details in the biography are not up to date anymore, e.g. I also have a copy of Orioli now. 
I would appreciate hearing about additional references if known.]]>
Now here, I don't want to go into the aspects of how his character affects these two theories. There are already threads about that, and such aspects can be continued there. If this diverges into these directions, it can be closed. What I want to do here is look both at the evidence we have for Voynich's character, and the high level of subjectivity in this entire topic.   

This quote is a good starting point:

(11-11-2025, 06:17 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[...] the description of Voynich, by G. Orioli, to Antonio. [...] Of course Orioli got Voynich's religion incorrect, and also, it sounds somewhat bigoted on his part... but here it is:

"As to Voynich--he was a Polish Jew, a bent kind of creature and getting
on for sixty. I liked his shop in Shaftesbury Avenue; it was full of books
and well kept, and Voynich himself was most obliging to me. He gave me one
of his excellent catalogues to study, begging me to note the prices: 'Always
keep the price as high as possible, if you ever have a book to sell,' he
added. Then in a squeaky voice and in an accent which I even then recognized
as not being English he told me that he had bought a bookshop in Florence
called the 'Libreria Franceschini.'"

  "'I know that shop,' I said."

  "'Well, it is full of incunabula. Absolutely crammed with incunabula.'"

  "'Surely a bookshop ought to be full of books?'"

  "He laughed heartily at my ignorance, explained what incunabula were, and
went on in his enthusiastic fashion:"

  "'Millions of books, shelves and shelves of the greatest rarities in the
world. What I have discovered in Italy is altogether unbelievable! Just
listen to this. I once went to a convent and the monks showed me their
library. It was a mine of early printed books and codexes and illuminated
manuscripts. I nearly fainted--I assure you I nearly fainted on the spot.
But I managed to keep my head all the same, and told the monks they could
have a most interesting and valuable collection of modern theological works
to replace that dusty rubbish. I succeeded in persuading the Father
Superior, and in a month that whole library was in my hands, and I sent them
a cartload of modern trash in exchange. Now take my advice: drop your
present job and become a bookseller.'"


Now there is a bit of "all booksellers are liars, said a bookseller" in this. 

This is not trying to be smart, but shows how easy it is, on such a subjective topic, to trust the things one wants to believe, and to distrust what one does not want to believe.
This is so easy, that it may not even be done consciously.

To be very specific: 
should we doubt that Voynich discovered a faded signature on the first folio of the MS?
yet at the same time:
take literally that he exchanged valuable old books for a cartload of modern trash?
(Sounds like bragging to me).

Should we trust Orioli?
Voynich was not Jewish, not near his sixties (he was 47 in 1912) and he was described by others quite differently from a bent creature.

Here is my attempt at a biography of Voynich: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
which suffers in some areas from the same unreliability of evidence.
The best description of Voynich's person is the quoted chapter by E.Millicent Sowerby, which I can thoroughly recommend. It brings him to life.

One has to recognise when she repeats exaggerated stories by Voynich of his earlier life though.
She takes very strong issue with Orioli's description of Voynich, and quotes how Voynich's wife descibed him as having the head and shoulders of a 'Norwegian god'.

I also quote a statement from one of Voynich's Polish friends, found by Rafal Prinke:

"He [Wojnicz] had exuberant phantasy and took its results for reality, in which he solemnly believed. Later he became [...] a very practical antiquarian books dealer and made a considerable fortune, which he was always happy to share with anyone. And so in that man lived in agreement incredible phantasy (others call it lies), truly American pragmatism and good heart"

There is also a published obituary by James Westfall Thompson, which is entirely laudatory and we should not consider useful.

PS: minor details in the biography are not up to date anymore, e.g. I also have a copy of Orioli now. 
I would appreciate hearing about additional references if known.]]> <![CDATA[Cipher or unknown language - historical perspective]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-4874.html Sun, 17 Aug 2025 00:51:08 +0000 ReneZ]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-4874.html
When Voynich first presented the MS to the world, he had made up his mind: this has to be a cipher, and ever since, the MS has been called a cipher manuscript.
 
Nowadays, we can be certain beyond reasonable doubt, that the Voynich MS is not an example of some old writing system. No other examples have ever been found, and we know that because, in the modern world, research is accessible globally.
Did Voynich have a similar consideration, or was it commercial decision? A Roger Bacon cipher should sell for more than some unknown language. 
We don't know what his reasoning was, and it does not really matter. 

But what would people well before the 20th century have thought?
What was the question from Prague to Kircher?
A) please translate this language
B) please solve this cipher

This question has been asked before, and Marci's letter is neutral about this.

Barschius also does not express this very clearly in his surviving letter, which is the second about this topic.
Still, there are two hints.
First, he repeats in his letter that the reason he approached Kircher was his (supposed) success in deciphering egyptian.
Second, from Kircher's answer we know that he (or Moretus) sent Kircher a sample of a printed text in Glagolitic.

Both suggest that he was approaching Kircher for a translation of an unknown language.

Barschius certainly could not have our overview of foreign writing systems, so this is not a strange viewpoint at all.

Is this then also how people in even earlier times would have seen the MS? I do think so.]]>
When Voynich first presented the MS to the world, he had made up his mind: this has to be a cipher, and ever since, the MS has been called a cipher manuscript.
 
Nowadays, we can be certain beyond reasonable doubt, that the Voynich MS is not an example of some old writing system. No other examples have ever been found, and we know that because, in the modern world, research is accessible globally.
Did Voynich have a similar consideration, or was it commercial decision? A Roger Bacon cipher should sell for more than some unknown language. 
We don't know what his reasoning was, and it does not really matter. 

But what would people well before the 20th century have thought?
What was the question from Prague to Kircher?
A) please translate this language
B) please solve this cipher

This question has been asked before, and Marci's letter is neutral about this.

Barschius also does not express this very clearly in his surviving letter, which is the second about this topic.
Still, there are two hints.
First, he repeats in his letter that the reason he approached Kircher was his (supposed) success in deciphering egyptian.
Second, from Kircher's answer we know that he (or Moretus) sent Kircher a sample of a printed text in Glagolitic.

Both suggest that he was approaching Kircher for a translation of an unknown language.

Barschius certainly could not have our overview of foreign writing systems, so this is not a strange viewpoint at all.

Is this then also how people in even earlier times would have seen the MS? I do think so.]]> <![CDATA[Why I think that the copyist(s)/scribe(s) did not fully understand the material]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-4853.html Tue, 05 Aug 2025 07:40:27 +0000 ReneZ]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-4853.html
For this, let's look at the pharmaceutical section.
This consists of three sheets (bifolia), each with a single page to the left and a foldout page to the right:

f88+f89
f99+f102
f100+f101

Of these, the third: f100 + f101 appears incomplete, probably unfinished: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. has no labels at all, and on f101v, the labels of the bottom row are missing.
On f100, the containers appear to have no labels.

The other two bifolios consistenly have one label for each container and one label for each plant fragment.
The container label may be written below it, on it (under the paint) or next to it.
But let's look at the top of f88r:

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

This has five plant parts, and six words surrounding them. 
However, the leftmost word is the container label and should have been written near the container.

I can only conclude that the scribe was not aware of this.]]>
For this, let's look at the pharmaceutical section.
This consists of three sheets (bifolia), each with a single page to the left and a foldout page to the right:

f88+f89
f99+f102
f100+f101

Of these, the third: f100 + f101 appears incomplete, probably unfinished: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. has no labels at all, and on f101v, the labels of the bottom row are missing.
On f100, the containers appear to have no labels.

The other two bifolios consistenly have one label for each container and one label for each plant fragment.
The container label may be written below it, on it (under the paint) or next to it.
But let's look at the top of f88r:

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

This has five plant parts, and six words surrounding them. 
However, the leftmost word is the container label and should have been written near the container.

I can only conclude that the scribe was not aware of this.]]> <![CDATA[L. Rauwolf]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-4849.html Sun, 03 Aug 2025 16:48:26 +0000 N._N.]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-4849.html
Unfortunately, this opinion is not based on any archival material or other new findings. I hope to have managed to get my hands on most relevant publications including S. Guzy's elusive German-language article, although I could only read it at a library in a break while working on my actual project, so my apologies if there is something I misrepresent. Beyond that, my thoughts here are informed by my own studies on early modern provenance, book acquisitions, history of knowledge etc. which was a core element of my PhD thesis, in which somehow Rauwolf is mentioned exactly once.

The core question I started asking myself regarding the manuscript's history from Widemann to Kircher (which I will treat as a given here, since there is little point in discussing several aspects at once): When and why did knowledge about the previous owner(s) end? Obviously, Widemann himself must have known how he acquired the book. Mnišovský, Barschius and Marci must have had additional knowledge beyond the little that is mentioned in the letters to Kircher. The latter two may have only sent information that they thought would encourage Kircher to take an interest in the matter, but unless they knew the manuscript was a hoax, they probably did not misrepresent their information on purpose. So, why did they convey this exact information to Kircher? Let me structure my assumptions on the matter a bit:

1. It makes sense to not mention all the less relevant people such as Widemann, Geizkofler, Tepenec and whoever might have owned it after them. Kircher would not have known them and they provide little additional value for the understanding of the manuscript. Therefore, there is no insight to be gained from this omission.

2. 'Name-dropping' the emperors, including the price of sale, and Bacon is reasonable to draw Kircher's interest. Mentioning Mnišovský, who, by the way he is described, Marci did Kircher not expect to be familiar with, seems like an attempt of Marci to describe the Bacon-theory without fully owning it. This all is logical as well in my opinion.

3. Regarding Rauwolf the question is: If the Barschius-Marci generation of Voynich scholars was aware of his involvement, would they have mentioned him? I think the answer is almost certainly yes. After Kircher's "success" with hieroglyphs, which Barschius even mentions, it would be strange to omit such a direct connection to an "oriental" origin and rather mention it indirectly like Barschius did. Instead, Marci offers a geographically opposing explanation in the follow-up letter, which I would consider unlikely if they had any solid information on Rauwolf or even just a vague record of the manuscript's "oriental" origin. From my research, Rauwolf was also relatively well known in the 17th and 18th century and respected as a overseas traveller with a scholarly background, which would have been another reason to convey this information to Kircher.

4. It also seems unlikely to me that such potentially relevant information as a previous ownership by Rauwolf was lost in the less than 40 years since the sale to Rudolf, while the exact price was still discussed. Perhaps Rudolf could have only mentioned the value to highlight the generosity of his gift to Tepenec, if that was how the book was transferred between them - there are possible explanations for why Rauwolf was forgotten in that time frame. However, because there seems to have been a significant level of discussion about the cipher manuscript in Prague in the 1600s and several people involved in the transactions, it is hard to imagine a particular point at which the information was lost, be it through death or the deliberate decision to not provide it to others.

5. The most likely candidate to have obscured the manuscript's provenance before Widemann is actually Widemann himself. First, he had the opportunity, in contrast to the later scenarios where a larger number of people had knowledge of relevant events. Second, he had a financial motive: The value of a manuscript depended significantly on its previous owners or author(s), meaning Widemann had an incentive to tell the most enticing story to his potential customer. I think Rauwolf might have been a reasonably convincing (=valuabe) background story, so there would probably be no need to make up another explanation, such as possibly one involving Kelly and England that might have led Mnišovský to his theory. The only somewhat realistic scenario I can come up with where Widemann omits the connection to Rauwolf is one where he obtained the manuscript in a not exactly clean way, i. e. he simply kept it after the Rauwolfs' death and sold it as soon as no heirs claimed it, this would fit the timeline reasonably well. But this is pure conjecture and certainly less plausible than a number of theories of pre-Widemann ownership that do not involve Rauwolf at all.

In summary, while what I write here is just a mix of assumptions, probabilities and context clues, in my opinion, nothing really more convincing is available in favor of Rauwolf's ownership. Therefore, it seems more likely that Wiedemann had acquired the manuscript from someone else than that Rauwolf's involvement and the implications in terms of its origin were forgotten by the time Barschius and Marci wrote their letters.

That's it, I hope posts like this one are at least as welcome here as another brilliant theory on which language the cipher is derived from... I would of course gladly discuss this further and plan to be around here a bit in the future, focusing primarily on provenance and history.]]>
Unfortunately, this opinion is not based on any archival material or other new findings. I hope to have managed to get my hands on most relevant publications including S. Guzy's elusive German-language article, although I could only read it at a library in a break while working on my actual project, so my apologies if there is something I misrepresent. Beyond that, my thoughts here are informed by my own studies on early modern provenance, book acquisitions, history of knowledge etc. which was a core element of my PhD thesis, in which somehow Rauwolf is mentioned exactly once.

The core question I started asking myself regarding the manuscript's history from Widemann to Kircher (which I will treat as a given here, since there is little point in discussing several aspects at once): When and why did knowledge about the previous owner(s) end? Obviously, Widemann himself must have known how he acquired the book. Mnišovský, Barschius and Marci must have had additional knowledge beyond the little that is mentioned in the letters to Kircher. The latter two may have only sent information that they thought would encourage Kircher to take an interest in the matter, but unless they knew the manuscript was a hoax, they probably did not misrepresent their information on purpose. So, why did they convey this exact information to Kircher? Let me structure my assumptions on the matter a bit:

1. It makes sense to not mention all the less relevant people such as Widemann, Geizkofler, Tepenec and whoever might have owned it after them. Kircher would not have known them and they provide little additional value for the understanding of the manuscript. Therefore, there is no insight to be gained from this omission.

2. 'Name-dropping' the emperors, including the price of sale, and Bacon is reasonable to draw Kircher's interest. Mentioning Mnišovský, who, by the way he is described, Marci did Kircher not expect to be familiar with, seems like an attempt of Marci to describe the Bacon-theory without fully owning it. This all is logical as well in my opinion.

3. Regarding Rauwolf the question is: If the Barschius-Marci generation of Voynich scholars was aware of his involvement, would they have mentioned him? I think the answer is almost certainly yes. After Kircher's "success" with hieroglyphs, which Barschius even mentions, it would be strange to omit such a direct connection to an "oriental" origin and rather mention it indirectly like Barschius did. Instead, Marci offers a geographically opposing explanation in the follow-up letter, which I would consider unlikely if they had any solid information on Rauwolf or even just a vague record of the manuscript's "oriental" origin. From my research, Rauwolf was also relatively well known in the 17th and 18th century and respected as a overseas traveller with a scholarly background, which would have been another reason to convey this information to Kircher.

4. It also seems unlikely to me that such potentially relevant information as a previous ownership by Rauwolf was lost in the less than 40 years since the sale to Rudolf, while the exact price was still discussed. Perhaps Rudolf could have only mentioned the value to highlight the generosity of his gift to Tepenec, if that was how the book was transferred between them - there are possible explanations for why Rauwolf was forgotten in that time frame. However, because there seems to have been a significant level of discussion about the cipher manuscript in Prague in the 1600s and several people involved in the transactions, it is hard to imagine a particular point at which the information was lost, be it through death or the deliberate decision to not provide it to others.

5. The most likely candidate to have obscured the manuscript's provenance before Widemann is actually Widemann himself. First, he had the opportunity, in contrast to the later scenarios where a larger number of people had knowledge of relevant events. Second, he had a financial motive: The value of a manuscript depended significantly on its previous owners or author(s), meaning Widemann had an incentive to tell the most enticing story to his potential customer. I think Rauwolf might have been a reasonably convincing (=valuabe) background story, so there would probably be no need to make up another explanation, such as possibly one involving Kelly and England that might have led Mnišovský to his theory. The only somewhat realistic scenario I can come up with where Widemann omits the connection to Rauwolf is one where he obtained the manuscript in a not exactly clean way, i. e. he simply kept it after the Rauwolfs' death and sold it as soon as no heirs claimed it, this would fit the timeline reasonably well. But this is pure conjecture and certainly less plausible than a number of theories of pre-Widemann ownership that do not involve Rauwolf at all.

In summary, while what I write here is just a mix of assumptions, probabilities and context clues, in my opinion, nothing really more convincing is available in favor of Rauwolf's ownership. Therefore, it seems more likely that Wiedemann had acquired the manuscript from someone else than that Rauwolf's involvement and the implications in terms of its origin were forgotten by the time Barschius and Marci wrote their letters.

That's it, I hope posts like this one are at least as welcome here as another brilliant theory on which language the cipher is derived from... I would of course gladly discuss this further and plan to be around here a bit in the future, focusing primarily on provenance and history.]]> <![CDATA[The Canary islands]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-4730.html Tue, 27 May 2025 20:33:23 +0000 Cile cile]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-4730.html As somebody who's gotten into analysing it fairly recently compared to a lot of people, I used my simple logic to try to find data that matches the information in VM. I know that the similarities I've noticed could just be coincidental, but hopefully what I say can give some a different approach.
In my humble opinion, the manuscript has some connections with the Canary islands. I think that it was written by someone who wanted to note down the unusual plants (as islands do have them since they are isolated), the religion of the Guanches people, their myths, and the use of real life celestial bodies as a seasonal calendar (relating to meteor showers).
And I think that it could possibly explain the rare alphabet used, especially considering the history of the languages present in the area in the past.
I've been looking into this for a while now, there are a few more interesting connections I haven't mentioned, but I want to hear if maybe this was already debunked in the past.]]> As somebody who's gotten into analysing it fairly recently compared to a lot of people, I used my simple logic to try to find data that matches the information in VM. I know that the similarities I've noticed could just be coincidental, but hopefully what I say can give some a different approach.
In my humble opinion, the manuscript has some connections with the Canary islands. I think that it was written by someone who wanted to note down the unusual plants (as islands do have them since they are isolated), the religion of the Guanches people, their myths, and the use of real life celestial bodies as a seasonal calendar (relating to meteor showers).
And I think that it could possibly explain the rare alphabet used, especially considering the history of the languages present in the area in the past.
I've been looking into this for a while now, there are a few more interesting connections I haven't mentioned, but I want to hear if maybe this was already debunked in the past.]]> <![CDATA[Una hipótesis]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-4703.html Wed, 14 May 2025 09:17:13 +0000 Crispin Elicea]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-4703.html
"En el año santo de nuestro señor, bajo dios y Cristo que es dios juro: desde la torre de la iglesia de la orden sagrada, observando desde un lugar alto, en la casa pura de la luz y la casa de dios,, linajes del pasado de nobles del pasado y los linajes de 100 nobles, y cuento por rey, por año, por días, las propiedades y riquezas que tienen por toda la tierra"



Crispín Elicea]]>
"En el año santo de nuestro señor, bajo dios y Cristo que es dios juro: desde la torre de la iglesia de la orden sagrada, observando desde un lugar alto, en la casa pura de la luz y la casa de dios,, linajes del pasado de nobles del pasado y los linajes de 100 nobles, y cuento por rey, por año, por días, las propiedades y riquezas que tienen por toda la tierra"



Crispín Elicea]]> <![CDATA[Castle Runkelstein & The Vintlers]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-4644.html Wed, 23 Apr 2025 14:45:52 +0000 008348dc760f858fd668476b75fb6f]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-4644.html Register or Login to view..


.jpg   Patterns.jpg (Size: 35.89 KB / Downloads: 275)

I'll update this thread once I've compiled the whole image comparison.]]> Register or Login to view..


.jpg   Patterns.jpg (Size: 35.89 KB / Downloads: 275)

I'll update this thread once I've compiled the whole image comparison.]]> <![CDATA[Castelbuono - Ghibelline Presence in Palermo, Sicily]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-4561.html Sun, 30 Mar 2025 05:58:10 +0000 Dobri]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-4561.html Register or Login to view. in Sicily still preserves mixed features of both You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and Swabian architecture. 

[Image: p0l0z4b6.jpg.webp]]]> Register or Login to view. in Sicily still preserves mixed features of both You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and Swabian architecture. 

[Image: p0l0z4b6.jpg.webp]]]>