• Options
• Login
• Desktop Style

L. Rauwolf

• Index

  • The Voynich Ninja
  • Voynich Research
  • Provenance & history
  • L. Rauwolf
• L. Rauwolf

• RE: L. Rauwolf

  kckluge > 11-10-2025, 01:13 AM

  (10-10-2025, 11:51 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This is absolutely correct. It is just not very convenient to add "if he was indeed the seller" every time his name is mentioned....

  
  Sure, every time, but maybe just once at the start...:-)
  
  Speaking of "If indeed he was the seller..." (and maybe this should be a new thread), should that lead to a reconsideration of possible influence of the Voynich Mss. on the Rosicrucian manifestos given Widemann's involvement in the circle of folks that produced/disseminated them?

• RE: L. Rauwolf

  ReneZ > 11-10-2025, 07:35 AM

  IIRC, this was also one of Nick Pelling's thoughts after the 2012 Mondragone event, when Wideman was first mentioned. He spent some time after that looking at various Rosicrucian aspects, but I did not really follow that up. My feeling is that Widemann was more of a follower than a leader, but I may be wrong in that.

• RE: L. Rauwolf

  N._N. > 11-10-2025, 08:14 AM

  (11-10-2025, 01:13 AM)kckluge Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  (10-10-2025, 11:51 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This is absolutely correct. It is just not very convenient to add "if he was indeed the seller" every time his name is mentioned....

  
  Sure, every time, but maybe just once at the start...:-)

  
  This is indeed what I meant to do in the first post of the thread, maybe this was not explicit enough:
  

  Quote: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)

  
  I certainly could have elaborated on the likelihood of the whole premise, but to what end? Discussing Rauwolf only really makes sense if you either discard the Widemann research by René and S. Guzy completely (and offer an alternative theory on Rauwolf's involvement) or try to connect with at least the general gist of it. Since I think the Widemann research is sound in its approach and clearly the most convincing attempt to work on the manuscript from the archival angle, I went with the latter here.
  
  It seems to me like research into the Rosicrucians is a bit on hold since Carlos Gilly's works on them have been announced for years if I am not mistaken, meaning everything one could do in that direction might be outdated as soon as they are published.
• Next Oldest Next Newest