• Options
• Login
• Desktop Style

Mnišovský's report

• Index

  • The Voynich Ninja
  • Voynich Research
  • Provenance & history
  • Mnišovský's report
• Mnišovský's report

• RE: Mnišovský's report

  LisaFaginDavis > 28-06-2025, 03:11 PM

  (28-06-2025, 02:27 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  (28-06-2025, 01:50 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It is extraordinarily unlikely that Voynich added the faded marginalia on f. 1r - the Tepenec signature and the alphabets in the right-hand margin I've identified as Marci's handwriting.

  
  I know you're being diplomatic, but to me this phrasing is still giving the "Fantastic Forgings of Wilfrid Voynich" too much credit. It's like saying "it's extraordinary unlikely that a trained cat painted the Mona Lisa". Sure, we can't be 100% certain that this did not happen. Maybe Leonardo had a cat which he, in his genius, trained to paint like a master. But the thing is so clearly a fiction that, in common parlance, we can just say that it didn't happen.

  
  You're right, of course, but it's important to acknowledge that all of this is ultimately conjecture based on evidence that is open to interpretation. But it is also important to acknowledge that while nearly anything is remotely possible, some outcomes are much more likely than others. Is it POSSIBLE that Voynich himself found empty parchment, created a novel writing system and fantastical illustrations using ink and pigments consistent with medieval recipes and sewed it all together using authentic fifteenth-century cords and thread and added convincing evidence of multiple bindings, ownership, repairs, and realistic provenance which he then erased in hopes that someone someday would develop technologies that could recover this evidence? Sure. But the simplest explanation is much more likely: that the manuscript was written and illustrated by an unknown group of writers in the early fifteenth century and, like every other medieval manuscript, accreted signs of use and ownership over the last six centuries.

• RE: Mnišovský's report

  Jorge_Stolfi > 29-06-2025, 12:42 AM

  (28-06-2025, 10:14 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Then there is the 'No 19' written just below it (check the new multi-spectral scans) that Voynich does not appear to have seen, and which is a feature of all of Tepenec's books (that we know of).

  
  I agree, that '19' pretty much excludes that theory.  Voynich would have had to see not only a sample of Jacobus's signature, but also how he numbered his books.
  
  

  Quote:Whether Raphael saw it or not can be argued either way, but I think that he most probably did.

  
  But is it a viable hypothesis that Rudolf II actually bought the VMS for 600 ducats thinking it was a Bacon original?  To me, that sounds less likely than an elephant having painted the Mona Lisa...
  
  If the book that Rudolf II bought for 600 ducats was not VMS, then Rapahel could not have seen that book before he made that claim to Marci.  And if he had indeed seen that 600 ducats book and it was the VMS, why would Marci 'suspend his judgement' about Raphael's claim?
  
  

  Quote:What is certain is that Barschius was still the owner of the MS when Raphael died, so also when he mentioned his information about the sale to Rudolf for 600 ducats.

  
  Marci knew about Barschius and the VMS well before Barschius death.  Perhaps before Barschius first letter to Kircher?
  
  

  Quote:it may also be that it was the event where Raphael gave the MS to Barschius.

  
  If Raphael had ever owned the VMS, Marci's report of Raphael's claim, in the cover letter, would be quite different, no?
  
  

  Quote:you may want to check the biographies page at You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  This should also contain the answer to your question about Rafal Prinke's new information.

  
  Thanks! Yes, I was totally disconnected from the VMS for the last ~20 years...
  
  

  Quote:Voynich is entirely unlikely to have ever heard of [Tepenec]

  
  Again, I agree that the '19' drops the probability of Voynich forging the signature to pratically zero.
  
  However, I seem to recall Voynich writing to someone in Europe asking for him to find information about Jacobus.  If that is correct, was that before or after he saw the signature?  
  
  Jacobus is a big name among the Jesuits.  He was one of only a handful of "notable people" in the court of Rudolf mentioned by Schmidl, on par with Ticho Brahe.  If Voynich had consulted sources like Schmidl while looking for suitable Rudolf->Baresch intermediaries, he would have stumbled on him, and would immediately have known of his fame as a herbalist and his role as Rudolf's personal doctor.
  
  Was Voynich able to read the full name of Jacobus from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. before he knew about the man? Or did he find out about Jacobus first, from sources like Schmidl, and then could guess that the readable bits of signature must be that name?
  
  

  Quote:[Tepenec] just provides a link to Rudolf's court, which Voynich already had from the Marci letter. It does not provide a link to Bacon.

  
  The cover letter does not provide a convincing link to Rudolf's court, since Marci wrote that he himself did not believe in Raphael's claim.
  
  And Voynich needed more than just a link to the court; he needed an explanation for how such a valuable book could have left Rudof's library and ended "taking up uselessly space" on the bookshelf of a nobody like Baresch.  Jacobus could serve for that purpose: "Rudolf gave the book to Jacobus, his personal physcian, as a reward for his services, and from Jacobus it went to Baresch by any of several plausible scenarios".
  
  

  Quote:Perhaps most importantly, there is a photo of the MS made by/on behalf of Voynich, before the application of chemicals. On this, faint traces of parts of Tepenec's name can be seen.

  
  I know. But the photo would have been part of the ruse, as I explained above.

• RE: Mnišovský's report

  Bluetoes101 > 29-06-2025, 02:39 AM

  (28-06-2025, 11:31 AM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  (28-06-2025, 11:20 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.That sounds cool - is this photo available somewhere? Or do we only know it from a description?

  
  Maybe it's this one?
  
  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  
  (Edit: ) The blog post that references the image: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  
  Not that it's important in any way, but the line counts on the left side I haven't seen before, they don't even show up in the MSI images. Are these thought to have been written on the page by Wilfred Voynich in pencil then erased (or is this on the photograph?)? Was just wondering why it was deemed necessary to do so, did he (/someone else) think the line count had something to do with a possible cipher, for example.

• RE: Mnišovský's report

  LisaFaginDavis > 29-06-2025, 02:47 AM

  (29-06-2025, 02:39 AM)Bluetoes101 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  (28-06-2025, 11:31 AM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  (28-06-2025, 11:20 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.That sounds cool - is this photo available somewhere? Or do we only know it from a description?

  
  Maybe it's this one?
  
  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  
  (Edit: ) The blog post that references the image: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  
  Not that it's important in any way, but the line counts on the left side I haven't seen before, they don't even show up in the MSI images. Are these thought to have been written on the page by Wilfred Voynich in pencil then erased (or is this on the photograph?)? Was just wondering why it was deemed necessary to do so, did he (/someone else) think the line count had something to do with a possible cipher, for example.

  
  The line counts are written in pencil on the surface of the photograph.

• RE: Mnišovský's report

  ReneZ > 29-06-2025, 06:24 AM

  The item is now also available in the Beinecke's own online repository:
  
  

  Quote:Wilfred M. Voynich and Ethel Voynich Provenance and Research Files on the Cipher (Voynich) manuscript. General Collection, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Yale University. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. Accessed June 29, 2025.

  
  
  EDIT: hmmm, it should have been one of these images, but I have to say that I am not so sure about it now ...

• RE: Mnišovský's report

  ReneZ > 29-06-2025, 06:42 AM

  (29-06-2025, 12:42 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But is it a viable hypothesis that Rudolf II actually bought the VMS for 600 ducats thinking it was a Bacon original?

  
  What he bought for 600 ducats (florins, really) was a set of manuscripts, the Voynich MS being one of them. Who exactly believed that it was a Bacon original is not clear (at least to me) and in any case Rudolf may have relied on advisors. 
  
  There is of course a remaining chance that Mnisowsky was mistaken about which MS was/were acquired for this sum, but we have no argument that supports that. (He was there, we were not...).
  More details on Voynich MS day.
  
  

  (29-06-2025, 12:42 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.However, I seem to recall Voynich writing to someone in Europe asking for him to find information about Jacobus.  If that is correct, was that before or after he saw the signature?  

  
  For the details, see here:
  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  
  

  (29-06-2025, 12:42 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Jacobus is a big name among the Jesuits.  He was one of only a handful of "notable people" in the court of Rudolf mentioned by Schmidl, on par with Ticho Brahe.  If Voynich had consulted sources like Schmidl while looking for suitable Rudolf->Baresch intermediaries, he would have stumbled on him, and would immediately have known of his fame as a herbalist and his role as Rudolf's personal doctor.

  
  Schmidl was a Jesuit writing a Jesuit history, and Tepenec (who was not a Jesuit but still a catholic) was treated in detail because he left the Jesuits a fortune in his testament. With respect to the court of Rudolf, Tepenec was one of many hundreds of barely significant 'extras'. He was never Rudolf's physician.
  Voynich only consulted a historical novel, while his aide Herbert Garland found out who was Tepenec from more reliable sources, for which see the above link.

• RE: Mnišovský's report

  ReneZ > 29-06-2025, 06:54 AM

  (29-06-2025, 12:42 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.why would Marci 'suspend his judgement' about Raphael's claim?

  
  The going thinking is that Marci suspends his judgement on the Bacon authorship. After all, his late dear friend Barschius was clearly of a different opinion, about which Barschius had already written to Kircher.
• Next Oldest Next Newest