• Options
• Login
• Desktop Style

Why Roger Bacon?

• Index

  • The Voynich Ninja
  • Voynich Research
  • Provenance & history
  • Why Roger Bacon?
• Why Roger Bacon?

• Why Roger Bacon?

  J.R Moore > 24-06-2019, 04:39 AM

  It's universally agreed that Roger Bacon had nothing to do with the VMS for obvious reasons, but what's less clear is why that was ever supposed in the first place. The theory's origin can be traced to Mnisovsky via Marci's letter to Kircher:
  
  "Dr. Raphael, tutor in the Bohemian language to Ferdinand III, then King of Bohemia, told me said book had belonged to the emperor Rudolf and that he presented to the bearer who brought him the book 600 ducats. He believed the author was Roger Bacon.”
  
  It's also generally agreed that there's nothing in the contents of the MS itself to suggest a Baconian origin. All the 20th century scholarship on the subject was clearly a post-hoc contrivance predicated on this letter. Had there been no such letter it's entirely likely that no one would have ever thought to mention Bacon. 
  
  What I'm curious to know is why did [font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]Mnisovsky assume it to be the work of Bacon in the first place? If we accept that there's nothing to indicate Bacon in the VMS itself, then we must assume that the theory arose for other reasons. I believe the most likely alternative is that he was either told this by somebody else and was merely passing on the information to Marci, or that he himself made the assumption based on circumstances of the MS's arrival in Rudolf's court. Either way, I find myself returning the same individual: John Dee. At the time, Dee had the world's largest known collection of Bacon's works at his home library in Mortlake, and held him as a personal hero. Dee was an associate of Edward Kelly who himself had a working relationship with Karl Wideman. I know positing Dee as the seller has long been out fashion, and that's not the point I'm trying to make. Dee may not have been the seller, but I cannot think of a simpler, more compelling, explanation for the origin of the Bacon theory as other than having something to do with Dee.  [/font]
  
  [font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]Dee may not have ever touched the VMS in his life for this to still be true. It's entirely plausible that it was sold to Wideman via Kelly sometime after Dee's departure from the continent. He could have easily claimed that it came from Dee's Bacon collection which would have been perfectly consistent with his well documented charlatanism. Regardless of whether or not the VMS was in the possession of Dee, I'd like to know if there is a more compelling source of the Bacon theory other than stemming from the world's most prolific Bacon devotee who happened to be in the right place and right time for such a idea to catch on? For if not stemming from Dee in some way, why not claim a Czech or German author? Or a scholar from anywhere but England for that matter? [/font]

• RE: Why Roger Bacon?

  Helmut Winkler > 24-06-2019, 07:39 AM

  Roger Bacon is one of the few medieval scholars who are very much present in the 16th and early 17th c. as an alchemist and as opponent of reactionary clerics and scholars, , read  the section Legacy in the English wikipedia article about RB as a first introduction

• RE: Why Roger Bacon?

  Monica Yokubinas > 24-06-2019, 01:25 PM

  (24-06-2019, 04:39 AM)J.R Moore Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It's universally agreed that Roger Bacon had nothing to do with the VMS for obvious reasons, but what's less clear is why that was ever supposed in the first place. The theory's origin can be traced to Mnisovsky via Marci's letter to Kircher:
  
  "Dr. Raphael, tutor in the Bohemian language to Ferdinand III, then King of Bohemia, told me said book had belonged to the emperor Rudolf and that he presented to the bearer who brought him the book 600 ducats. He believed the author was Roger Bacon.”
  
  It's also generally agreed that there's nothing in the contents of the MS itself to suggest a Baconian origin. All the 20th century scholarship on the subject was clearly a post-hoc contrivance predicated on this letter. Had there been no such letter it's entirely likely that no one would have ever thought to mention Bacon. 
  
  What I'm curious to know is why did [font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]Mnisovsky assume it to be the work of Bacon in the first place? If we accept that there's nothing to indicate Bacon in the VMS itself, then we must assume that the theory arose for other reasons. I believe the most likely alternative is that he was either told this by somebody else and was merely passing on the information to Marci, or that he himself made the assumption based on circumstances of the MS's arrival in Rudolf's court. Either way, I find myself returning the same individual: John Dee. At the time, Dee had the world's largest known collection of Bacon's works at his home library in Mortlake, and held him as a personal hero. Dee was an associate of Edward Kelly who himself had a working relationship with Karl Wideman. I know positing Dee as the seller has long been out fashion, and that's not the point I'm trying to make. Dee may not have been the seller, but I cannot think of a simpler, more compelling, explanation for the origin of the Bacon theory as other than having something to do with Dee.  [/font]
  
  [font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]Dee may not have ever touched the VMS in his life for this to still be true. It's entirely plausible that it was sold to Wideman via Kelly sometime after Dee's departure from the continent. He could have easily claimed that it came from Dee's Bacon collection which would have been perfectly consistent with his well documented charlatanism. Regardless of whether or not the VMS was in the possession of Dee, I'd like to know if there is a more compelling source of the Bacon theory other than stemming from the world's most prolific Bacon devotee who happened to be in the right place and right time for such a idea to catch on? For if not stemming from Dee in some way, why not claim a Czech or German author? Or a scholar from anywhere but England for that matter? [/font]

  
  In my opinion, it is because the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. deals with necromancy and familiar spirits. There are lines that seem to be rubbed out, so you cannot have a completed translation, in the 9th circle that mentions necromancy. "// Infant necromancy wooden object*, after cold. White hated one fair to spin ______Unreadable_____.Utterly supplant, spirit of the dead diverse colors, wooden object* then idol. Wooden object* then brother fool, my own possession. Gasp for breath innocent, end of days lament. Brother to curse unripe fruit, my own god of brother bull, of firepot moral filth, to breach a promise moral filth. Long suffering take refuge scapegoat dust and spin idol." 

• RE: Why Roger Bacon?

  nablator > 24-06-2019, 01:43 PM

  (24-06-2019, 01:25 PM)Monica Yokubinas Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In my opinion, it is because the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. deals with necromancy and familiar spirits.

  Not likely, as he wrote You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. strongly condemning this kind of magic.

• RE: Why Roger Bacon?

  Monica Yokubinas > 24-06-2019, 01:58 PM

  (24-06-2019, 01:43 PM)nablator Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  (24-06-2019, 01:25 PM)Monica Yokubinas Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In my opinion, it is because the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. deals with necromancy and familiar spirits.

  Not likely, as he wrote You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. strongly condemning this kind of magic.

  
  A legendary tale indeed, that persisted. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
• Next Oldest Next Newest