• Options
• Login
• Desktop Style

The Book Switch Theory

• Index

  • The Voynich Ninja
  • Voynich Research
  • Theories & Solutions
  • The Book Switch Theory
• The Book Switch Theory

• The Book Switch Theory

  Jorge_Stolfi > 5 hours ago

  Hi all, I am creating this thread for a theory that is quite distinct from the Modern Forgery Theory, even though it potentially involves foul play by Voynich.
  
  The Book Switch Theory claims that the VMS that we know, Beinecke MS408, is not the book that is mentioned in Marci's letter (hereinafter called "BookA").  There are two variants of this theory:

  • H1: When Voynich acquired MS408, Marci's letter was attached to it
    
  • H2: It was Voynich who attached Marci's letter to MS408.
    

  Here are the factual claims pertinent to this theory, which, AFAIK,  are supported by good evidence.  Because of H2, I do not consider "good" any evidence that depends on anything that Voynich said or wrote, or any material evidence that he could have easily misrepresented, planted, adulterated, or forged.

  • F1: Rudolf II once bought from Widemann a set of book for 600 ducats.  Evidence: accounting records found by Rene and others.
    
  • F2: In the early 1600s, Barschius had a book (BookA) with figures of plants that were not known in Europe, written in a language that no one could identify.  He wrote about it to Kircher, with a few sample pages.  Kircher did not recognize the language and was intrigued enough to ask for the whole book. Barschius did not send it.  When Barschius died, his friend Marci sent BookA to Kircher.  Evidence: the letters between Kircher, Barschius, Marci, and others, that mention BookA. (While Voynich could have forged Marci's letter, the ensemble of the letters is strong evidence that it is genuine.)
    
  • F3: Thousands of Kircher's books ended up in various locations in Rome, under control of the Jesuits.  Evidence: various catalogs and other records collected by Rene and others.
    
  • F4: In ~1911, Voynich acquired hundred of books from the Jesuits in Rome. Evidence: accounting records of the Jesuits.
    
  • F5: MS408 was written in the 1400s.  Evidence: the C14 date for the vellum and all the stylistic and statistical details. It is very unlikely that a forgery by Voynich or someone could have faked those details so well that it evaded all the tests that were developed and used in the last 100 years.
    

  And that seems to be all that we have good evidence for.  Factual claims for which we do not have good evidence include:

  • C0: BookA was ever in possession of Rudolf II
    
  • C1: MS408 was ever in possession of Rudolf II
    
  • C2: Sinapius ever owned MS408.
    
  • C3: BookA was one of the books held by Jesuits by 1911.
    
  • C4: MS408 was one of the books held by Jesuits by 1911.
    
  • C5: Marci's letter was held by the Jesuits by 1911.
    
  • C6: Voynich ever got hold of BookA.
    
  • C7: Voynich bought MS408 from the Jesuits.
    
  • C8: Voynich got Marci's letter from the Jesuits.
    
  • C9: Marci's letter was attached to MS408 when Voynich obtained it.
    

  In particular, the only evidence for C2 is the signature on f1r; but that is not good evidence, because there is no record of the signature having been seen by anyone before Voynich obtained MS408.
  
  Before we discuss the likelihood of these or other claims, it is worth noting the following features of probabilities:

  • P0. There is no certainty anywhere, only probabilities.
    
  • P1. There is no such thing as the probability of an event.  A probability is a numeric expression of the strength of one's belief in some claim, and therefore it is inherently subjective and personal. So there is only my probability, your probability, etc.
    
  • P2. While Bayes's formula specifies how a rational person should change his probabilities of certain hypotheses on the face of evidence, it depends on his prior probabilities, and on his probabilities that each hypothesis produces observable consequences. Therefore, even after being presented with a ton of supposedly hard evidence, perfectly rational people can still have radically different probabilities for any hypothesis.
    

  All the best, --stolfi

• RE: The Book Switch Theory

  Jorge_Stolfi > 4 hours ago

  The Book Switch Theory (BST) and the Modern Forgery Theory (MFT) have vastly different implications for research on MS408. 
  
  If MFT were true, there would be no point in trying to decipher MS408, since its contents would be gibberish or uninteresting.
  
  In contrast, whether BST is true or not, it would make little difference for our research.  MS408 would continue to be an intriguing document from the 1400s, and our expectations about its contents would not change.  
  
  Except that, if MS408 is not BookA, then we cannot expect to get any clue about the former by tracking down the history of the latter.   In particular, we would not know the whereabouts of MS408 in the early 1600s.
  
  But anyway, assuming that it was in Prague by that time (as we have done so far) still does not give us any clue about its origin or contents...
  
  All the best --stolfi

• RE: The Book Switch Theory

  Mauro > 3 hours ago

  (4 hours ago)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If MFT were true, there would be no point in trying to decipher MS408, since its contents would be gibberish or uninteresting.

  
  I agree on most you say, but can't agree on this. Even if the VMS was written in the XVth century its content is probably the same, uninteresting or gibberish (unless it's, say, a copy of some previously lost and important book, who knows). And second, the mistery of how the VMS text was created stays the same, even if it was penned by Voynich (or by anyone else before the computer era). Cheers up 

• RE: The Book Switch Theory

  ReneZ > 2 hours ago

  Just two initial points.
  
  

  (5 hours ago)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.F4: In ~1911, Voynich acquired hundred of books from the Jesuits in Rome. Evidence: accounting records of the Jesuits.

  
  Fact check: the best guess is 30-ish, as explained here: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  There may have been some early prints as well, but I never looked into that. One or two of his catalogues might shed light on this.
  It will not have been much, because it just increased the risk for the Jesuits, and Voynich would not have been able to make such a huge profit on them.
  
  

  (5 hours ago)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.C2: Sinapius ever owned MS408.

  (5 hours ago)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In particular, the only evidence for C2 is the signature on f1r; but that is not good evidence, because there is no record of the signature having been seen by anyone before Voynich obtained MS408.

  
  I have to disagree. An 'ex libris' is generally good evidence that a certain person owned a book.
  
  I can see that this is an important point for your hypothesis that book A is not MS408, as it strongly links MS408 to Prague.
  
  With respect to [C3] and [C4], I guess you will agree that they held one of the two.

• RE: The Book Switch Theory

  Kaybo > 1 hour ago

  (5 hours ago)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Hi all, I am creating this thread for a theory that is quite distinct from the Modern Forgery Theory, even though it potentially involves foul play by Voynich.

  
  I tried to make a summary from your text with chatgpt and it failed. Maybe the talks here have their own encryption.
• Next Oldest Next Newest