• Options
• Login
• Desktop Style

I am not convinced by the provenance history of the VMS

• Index

  • The Voynich Ninja
  • Voynich Research
  • Provenance & history
  • I am not convinced by the provenance history of the VMS
• I am not convinced by the provenance history of the VMS

• I am not convinced by the provenance history of the VMS

  JustAnotherTheory > Yesterday, 09:55 PM

  As the title suggests, I'm not convinced by our current understanding of the VMS provenance timeline. I've had this feeling for a while now, but hadn't dared to share it.
  
  I'm sure that at this point in the history of the VMS, certain events and letters are discussed as "facts", however I remain unconvinced. How is it that a 15th century manuscript divides so many medieval history experts to such a degree?
  
  My main argument can be split into three points. I hope, despite the "well-established" provenance of the VMS, it will cast a doubt on you, too.
  
  

  1. None of the alleged previous owners of the VMS mentioned any of the peculiar aspects of the VMS. Baresch, Marci, Kircher talked about an unreadable manuscript with herbal and cosmological diagrams. But everybody failed to mention the hundreds of naked nymphs, though. One would think that this distinguishing feature of of the MS would be the first thing to mention in any correspondence. After all, no other MS exists with so many weird naked ladies. Why didn't anybody write: "Hey, help me decipher this manuscript with... 300 b*tt naked ladies from the 15th century". Let's face it, the VMS is not "only" a herbal. There are thousands of herbals. Not one has this many nymphs. Also, nobody mentioned the tubes and bathing scenes either. If I would describe the VMS to someone, especially an expert, there is no way I would leave those details out. Would you?
     
  2. Voynich himself noted the (faded) signature of Jacobus Tepenecz on the front page of the VMS. Yet nobody in the entire known history of the VMS mentioned anything about Tepenecz. For Baresch, Marci, Kircher and others, it would have been obvious that there is a famous signature on the front page. These were not laymen. These were experts. Yet nobody, for some reason, mentions that the personal herbalist of the mighty Holy Roman Emperor himself, Rudolf II, visibly signed the manuscript on the front page.
     
  3. Kircher's letter to Moretus in 1639 says that: "I can let you know that the other sheet which appeared to be written in the same unknown script is printed in the Illyrian language in the script commonly called St Jerome's". But Voynichese is nothing like Illyrian (Glagolitic) language. It is totally different, they don't even have the same characters. Either Kircher/Moretus are totally misunderstanding basic linguistic features, of which they are allegedly era-defining experts, or... they are talking about another MS. Not the Voynich MS.
     

  
  In conclusion, I am not convinced by the currently understood provenance history of the VMS. Not a single link seems to indicate, unambiguously, that they are talking about the VMS. Crucial details are missing from each correspondence.
  
  Are they talking about some other manuscript instead?
  
  If you agree that 99 percent of manuscripts from the middle ages are lost today, then it is vastly more probable that these people are talking about another, lost MS, rather than the Voynich manuscript. 
  
  I think we need to revise the history of the VMS.

• RE: I am not convinced by the provenance history of the VMS

  Koen G > Yesterday, 10:14 PM

  About 2, wasn't the whole point that the signature had been erased to near-invisibility?

• RE: I am not convinced by the provenance history of the VMS

  JustAnotherTheory > Yesterday, 10:29 PM

  (Yesterday, 10:14 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.About 2, wasn't the whole point that the signature had been erased to near-invisibility?

  
  In the 20th century, maybe. But these people allegedly owned the VMS from the 17th century onward.
  
  300 years earlier, why would it be faded at all?
  
  And even if it was a little faded, these were manuscript experts. It would have been trivial for them to remark such a signature.

• RE: I am not convinced by the provenance history of the VMS

  nablator > Yesterday, 10:42 PM

  (Yesterday, 09:55 PM)JustAnotherTheory Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Voynich himself noted the (faded) signature of Jacobus Tepenecz on the front page of the VMS. Yet nobody in the entire known history of the VMS mentioned anything about Tepenecz. For Baresch, Marci, Kircher and others, it would have been obvious that there is a famous signature on the front page. These were not laymen. These were experts. Yet nobody, for some reason, mentions that the personal herbalist of the mighty Holy Roman Emperor himself, Rudolf II, visibly signed the manuscript on the front page.

  
  Famous? The Sinapius name might have been recognized because of aqua sinapis, but Tepenecz?
  
  

  Quote:Kircher's letter to Moretus in 1639 says that: "I can let you know that the other sheet which appeared to be written in the same unknown script is printed in the Illyrian language in the script commonly called St Jerome's".

  
  This translation by Philip Neal is wrong. It's not "the same". "ipsi" does not mean "the same". Check it yourself:
  
  

  Quote:himself/herself/itself; the very/real/actual one; in person; themselves (pl.);

  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  
  Alterum denique folium quod ipsi ignoto characteri genere scriptum videbatur illyrico idiomate, charactere quem D. Hieronymi vulgo vocant, impressum sciat; utunturque eodem charactere hic Romae in missalibus aliisque sacris libris illyrico sermone imprimendis.
  
  Translation by David Jackson (I can't find the link):
  Finally the other leaf upon which are written types of unknown characters I observe are in the Illyric language, characters the printing of which I know are commonly called D. Hieronymi; characters used here in Rome in various Holy Books and Illyrician printed sermons.
  
  Translation by ChatGPT4:
  Furthermore, let it be known that the other leaf which seemed to be written in an unknown character type, is actually in the Illyrian idiom, printed in the character commonly called St. Jerome's; this character is also used here in Rome for printing missals and other sacred books in the Illyrian.
  
  Funny factoid: the word "même" in French means "the same" and also is used in the meaning of "himself/herself/itself, this very..." so it is easy to make the mistake if you use a Latin-French dictionary. "Ipsi" here is an intensifier that can't be translated word-for-word.

• RE: I am not convinced by the provenance history of the VMS

  oshfdk > Yesterday, 10:53 PM

  (Yesterday, 10:29 PM)JustAnotherTheory Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In the 20th century, maybe. But these people allegedly owned the VMS from the 17th century onward.
  
  300 years earlier, why would it be faded at all?
  
  And even if it was a little faded, these were manuscript experts. It would have been trivial for them to remark such a signature.

  
  1) It was likely erased, not faded, so it could have been erased before Marci and others could see it.
  2) Reportedly, Voynich didn't see it either, until he saw the photograph of the first folio that he had taken. It's quite possible that the sensitive B/W film could capture more than the eye could see, for example some extra short wavelengths. Then Voynich tried to enhance the signature chemically. It's not impossible that prior to this enhancement the signature was completely invisible to the naked eye.
  
  Edit: I think this has been discussed many times, it's quite possible that mentioning naked nymphs would be a faux pas in correspondence (Kircher was a Jesuit priest, if I'm not mistaken) and the balneological section is relatively short and its main feature, again, are bathing ladies, otherwise the manuscript is mainly plant images and some cosmological diagrams, which seems a correct neutral description of it.

• RE: I am not convinced by the provenance history of the VMS

  rikforto > Today, 12:30 AM

  (Yesterday, 09:55 PM)JustAnotherTheory Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.None of the alleged previous owners of the VMS mentioned any of the peculiar aspects of the VMS. Baresch, Marci, Kircher talked about an unreadable manuscript with herbal and cosmological diagrams. But everybody failed to mention the hundreds of naked nymphs, though. One would think that this distinguishing feature of of the MS would be the first thing to mention in any correspondence. After all, no other MS exists with so many weird naked ladies. Why didn't anybody write: "Hey, help me decipher this manuscript with... 300 b*tt naked ladies from the 15th century". Let's face it, the VMS is not "only" a herbal. There are thousands of herbals. Not one has this many nymphs. 

  
  I have a fairly narrow question about this, and would like to hear from people with knowledge of correspondence of the time. Would this kind of sexual (or potentially sexual) description have gone in a letter in that era? I know as a rule people were fairly guarded about sexuality in letters through history---but for when they weren't---and it's an actual impediment to historians of sexuality. Would men of this era advertise that they were swapping drawings of naked women, even if the actual explanation was much more innocent than that summary?

• RE: I am not convinced by the provenance history of the VMS

  DG97EEB > 4 hours ago

  (Yesterday, 11:57 PM)PIOCTOEMW Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  (Yesterday, 09:55 PM)JustAnotherTheory Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.As the title suggests, I'm not convinced by our current understanding of the VMS provenance timeline. I've had this feeling for a while now, but hadn't dared to share it.
  
  I'm sure that at this point in the history of the VMS, certain events and letters are discussed as "facts", however I remain unconvinced. How is it that a 15th century manuscript divides so many medieval history experts to such a degree?
  
  My main argument can be split into three points. I hope, despite the "well-established" provenance of the VMS, it will cast a doubt on you, too.
  
  

  1. None of the alleged previous owners of the VMS mentioned any of the peculiar aspects of the VMS. Baresch, Marci, Kircher talked about an unreadable manuscript with herbal and cosmological diagrams. But everybody failed to mention the hundreds of naked nymphs, though. One would think that this distinguishing feature of of the MS would be the first thing to mention in any correspondence. After all, no other MS exists with so many weird naked ladies. Why didn't anybody write: "Hey, help me decipher this manuscript with... 300 b*tt naked ladies from the 15th century". Let's face it, the VMS is not "only" a herbal. There are thousands of herbals. Not one has this many nymphs. Also, nobody mentioned the tubes and bathing scenes either. If I would describe the VMS to someone, especially an expert, there is no way I would leave those details out. Would you?
     
  2. Voynich himself noted the (faded) signature of Jacobus Tepenecz on the front page of the VMS. Yet nobody in the entire known history of the VMS mentioned anything about Tepenecz. For Baresch, Marci, Kircher and others, it would have been obvious that there is a famous signature on the front page. These were not laymen. These were experts. Yet nobody, for some reason, mentions that the personal herbalist of the mighty Holy Roman Emperor himself, Rudolf II, visibly signed the manuscript on the front page.
     
  3. Kircher's letter to Moretus in 1639 says that: "I can let you know that the other sheet which appeared to be written in the same unknown script is printed in the Illyrian language in the script commonly called St Jerome's". But Voynichese is nothing like Illyrian (Glagolitic) language. It is totally different, they don't even have the same characters. Either Kircher/Moretus are totally misunderstanding basic linguistic features, of which they are allegedly era-defining experts, or... they are talking about another MS. Not the Voynich MS.
     

  
  In conclusion, I am not convinced by the currently understood provenance history of the VMS. Not a single link seems to indicate, unambiguously, that they are talking about the VMS. Crucial details are missing from each correspondence.
  
  Are they talking about some other manuscript instead?
  
  If you agree that 99 percent of manuscripts from the middle ages are lost today, then it is vastly more probable that these people are talking about another, lost MS, rather than the Voynich manuscript. 
  
  I think we need to revise the history of the VMS.

  
  Your eyes are opening and yes you are in the right direction now, that's is my opinion.  There are bigger reasons for why the VMS must maintain this History as it's a mystery?  Many questions arise?  The You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. show a different time period then the vellum's date and yes the artist was terrible and I don't believe the many scribe theory either he was the artist as well.  The You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. does not fit the timeline too that's in the voynich.
  
  What I think about this site is amazing and shows really about how many glyphs were used when you combined eva t,k,f and p with the gallows.  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..
  
  About the VMS I don't think the majority of it holds much meaning yet there is some meaning to it.
  
  Any man would mention the naked woman you completely right so there you go fake provenance part of the mystery.

  
  Oh look, a "Pangolin" in a mid 15th century European manuscript...

• RE: I am not convinced by the provenance history of the VMS

  Antonio García Jiménez > 3 hours ago

  The provenance history of the Voynich manuscript has been explained with convincing supporting evidence by ReneZ.
  
  It is not at all unusual that female figures went unmentioned in the 17th century. This was not out of prudishness, but because people were accustomed to the symbolic imagery of alchemy and to seeing human figures inside flasks. They would have viewed them as something related to birth or plant growth.
  
  There is no pangolin or armadillo in the Voynich. It is a complete mirage.

• RE: I am not convinced by the provenance history of the VMS

  JustAnotherTheory > 3 hours ago

  If I remember correctly, in a letter to Kircher, the VMS is described as having "alchemical symbolism". This is also inconsistent with the VMS. There is no such symbolism anywhere, that a trained alchemist could undoubtedly identify as "alchemical".
  
  At this point I believe these people were talking about some other manuscript. Not the VMS.

• RE: I am not convinced by the provenance history of the VMS

  Antonio García Jiménez > 3 hours ago

  There are those on this forum who have also thought they saw alchemical symbols. It is easy to get that impression because in alchemy we see human figures inside flasks, whereas in the Voynich manuscript we see female figures with their hands and feet inside tubes.
• Next Oldest Next Newest