My recent “Pax Nax Vax revisited” post led me to a new Voynich hypothesis that I don’t recall reading anywhere. Given that (as Jan Hurych helpfully pointed out) our Voynich-owning chum Jakub Hořčický (Sinapius) became capitaneus / administrator of the properties of St George’s Convent in Prague Castle in 1606, might Sinapius have simply swiped the Voynich Manuscript from the convent’s library?
It’s a decent enough question, but is it one that can be answered?
St George’s Convent
As you’d probably expect, the Czech Wikipedia page on Prague’s St George’s Convent is the place to start. And, thanks to the magic that is Google Translate, we can see the broad sweep of the convent’s history clearly enough.
Culturally, the convent’s Golden Age was at the beginning of the 14th century. Under Abbess Kunhuta (who her brother Wenceslas II had previously kind-of-forced into an unsuccessful political marriage to the Duke of Mazovia), its scriptorium (founded in about 1294) produced many beautiful illuminated manuscripts (e.g. this one).
[This was also the period when a second convent (Ducha a Milosrdenství Božího, the Spirit and Mercy of God) was founded in Prague: administration of this was passed over to St. George’s Convent in the mid-16th century.]
However, the Hussite Wars marked an abrupt change in St George’s Convent’s fortunes. When the Abbess refused to sign an agreement handing it over, “the convent was plundered, the nuns were forced to flee, and the convent’s property was sold off”.
The convent was restored to use during the 16th century: a carving above a doorway dating to 1515 depicts St George defeating his dragon. A fire in 1541 then wrecked the convent, which was followed by more rebuilding, at which point the buildings were used as an armoury. It has a nice frontage:
Nuns only returned to the convent (in the western part of the nave) in 1608-1612 under Abbess Žofie Albínka z Helfenburku. According to (Czech) Wikipedia, “During her office the monastery library was restored and most of the older texts were provided with a new Baroque binding, during which the text and paintings were often disturbed. The binding from that period gave today’s appearance to the vast majority of manuscripts.“
Can This Theory Be Tested?
Right now, I’m not sure. Even though we have indirect evidence (specifically, a hole in the vellum made by a woodworm) that the Voynich Manuscript had a wood cover at around this period in its history, I haven’t yet read of anyone going looking for tiny fragments of wood embedded in its outermost bifolios. And then they’d have to take samples from the Baroque wood covers of the Kunhuta-period manuscripts for comparison. And then they’d have to work out how to compare them in a useful way.
Similarly, the next research step would be to read the earliest history of St George’s Convent, which (Wikipedia assures us) was written in 1715 by Jan Florian Hammerschmidt at the request of Abbess František Helena Pieroniána of Galiana. I believe this is his Historia in qua primaeva fundatio Et Institutio Regiorum Ac Antiquissimorum Monasteriorum S. Georgii In Castro Pragensi, S. Spiritus Vulgo ad Misericordias Dei In antiqua Urbe Pragensi Ordinis SP Benedicti Sancti-Monialium: Cum omnibus there Pontificijs, Quam Caesareus , Immunitatibus, Concessionibus, per distinctos Paragraphos recensentur. Honori celsissimae Franciscae Helenae Pyeronianae de Galliano, Dei Gratia Principissae & Abbatissae supra fatorum Monasteriorum dicata / and Joanne Floriano Hammerschmidt, SS. Theologiae Doctore, Proto-Notario Apostolico, Comite Palatino, Auratae Militiae Equite, Regiae, Exemptae & Nullius Dioecesis Ecclesiae SS. Petri & Pauli in Wissehrad, & SS. Cosmae & Damiani Canonico, pt Regiae Urbis Vetero-Pragensis BVM in Coelos Assumptae in Teyn Curato. Catchy title. 🙂
It’s online here (as a PDF), though given that it’s made up of a long series of fragments diligently copied from old documents, anyone expecting to find a single timeline will quickly be disappointed. All the same, this does cover the right period, e.g. p.88 says (my corrections to the OCR):
Annô Domini 1606. Principissae ad S. Georgium Sophia Al-
bince de Hellfenburg rebellârunt cives Trzebenicenses, ei in nullo
voluerunt obedire, vineas pro oblata solutione excolere, Pa-
rocho decimas dare noluerunt, claves illi ab Ecclesia accepe-
runt, illum ab ingressu Ecclesiae excluserunt. De qua rebel-
lione vide §. sequentem in serie Abbatissarum.
There’s more of the same on pp.107-112, but I was completely unable to find any trace of Hořčický / Sinapius there. All the same, perhaps other people’s eyes will prove to be sharper than mine. 🙂
Incidentally, the prize for Best Name In This Book surely goes to Abundantia Bukowskin dе Hustirzan.
Nick, I somehow doubt that you are taking this hypothesis too seriously…
Of course it is one, and it is one in a long list.
However, it looks to me like a fine example of a hypothesis that creates more questions than it answers.
Some evidence that we can use against it is that Jacobus wrote his name in his books in different ways, allowing us to discern if he wrote it before or after October 1608. In the Voynich MS it is “after”, at a time he was no longer involved with the St.George monastery.
On another topic, indeed, no wood splinters have been found in the binding of the Voynich MS (so far), but there are fragments of leather, which points into the same direction of leather-covered wooden boards.
Rene: the gap there is sufficiently narrow that we can’t rule out this suggestion. And as you have found no evidence of the manuscript arriving in Prague, I think it’s not entirely crazy to wonder whether it might have been there all along. 🙂
Nick – although there’s no way to know when a person might write his name (or anyone else inscribe it) in one of his books – and his doing so bears no relation to the book’s age or the source from which he has obtained it – cultural and religious attitudes of that time make it seem unlikely to me that nuns would keep and rebind a manuscript presenting imagery like the Vms’. Even in our enlightened times, I expect such a gift might be rejected.
Nice to know more about Hořčický’s job, though. All I could find, earlier, suggested he’d been caretaker of buildings effectively abandoned and half-derelict.
I’ve never been able to find why the notion arose that Hořčický acquired the Vms dishonestly.
Is there any evidence or it or was it just a bit of colour added to some hypothetical-fictional story?
Earlier, some tales had the ms “probably stolen by Jesuits” too.
What’s the evidence or this ‘stolen’ theme – do you know?
I’s just think we don’t know how he came by it, but I should think that on simple percentage probability, purchase or inheritance would be most likely. If I were inclined to theorise, I’d say he had it from the other pharmacist-physician to whom he’d been apprenticed and who preceded him as one of Rudolf’s local pharmacist-physicians.
If you know how the ‘pinched it’ story started, I’d be very glad to know. I’ve been hunting the origin of that idea, now, for more than a decade.
It certainly may have been in Prague all along. It may even have been conceived and written in Bohemia.
However, I can easily think of at least 10 ways in which Tepenec may have obtained it.
Rene: thinking about it, if there are flecks of leather binding still embedded in the outer leaves, we could compare not the wood but the DNA in the leather binding. This may yet be the best physical test we have for extending the provenance backwards in time. 🙂
Yes, there are at least ten ways that Tepenec may have obtained, but I’m trying to find ones that can actually be tested.
Diane: I certainly didn’t come up with the idea. All I’m suggesting here is a specific way in which the manuscript might have initially come to Prague and into Sinapius’ possession that can be physically tested.
Anyone can come up with a Voynich theory, but the clever bit is working out how it can be tested.
Ad Abundantia Bukowskin dе Hustirzan: “Bukovský” was apparently a family name of a clan from Hustířany (https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hust%C3%AD%C5%99any) a village in eastern Bohemia.
Borek: for such a very small village they have great taste in names. 😉
The name sounded familiar, but of course the great alchemist Bavor Rodovský was from there too.
Nick,
the question whether Horczicky bought the VM or “stole” it is not really substantial, we can only guess. That he was not an author, is surely ruled out by carbon dating. As for the VM scribblings, we do not have their dating, except for his “exlibris” which could have happened only after he was nobilitated . As for the scribbling you discussed, it is probably the closest to the time the VM was written.
Horczicky – as an administrator – apparently had an access to ALL books, not only for accounting. That he had interest in old manuscripts was already established.
As for him buying or any other way obtaining the possession of the VM is very probable: he had a motive, opportunity and means.
Whether it was there first place for that we still need some proofs.
Jan
Rene: a quick question, seeing as you’re here… the 2009 McCrone report says that their sample #16 was taken from f116v, but the offsets given in Table 1 (“6.9cm from top, 2.9cm from left”) appear to be swapped. Have you seen Figures 16A / 16B that show where they actually sampled from? Was this the tall ‘s’ of “gas mich”?
I did some image processing on 116v and I can’t tell if it is a scrape or if it is a slight abrasion from a worm trail (abraded a bit but not eaten through), but it looks like there is a slight “channel” going mostly vertical through several lines of text. The “dip” in the parchment interfered with the ink so that several letters have small pen skips (including the long-ess).
I don’t know where McCrone sampled, but what I was seeing in the image-processed scan didn’t look like a scientific-sampling scrape. It looked like something that had been there for a long time, considering it affected several lines of text but… it’s hard to interpret it without seeing the actual item.
Nick, in all cases the first figure (‘A’) shows the location where the sample was taken. For sample 16 this photo was either not taken or it had failed.
Figure 16A shows the ‘EDS spectrum’ (identifying chemical elements) and Figure 16B the ‘IR spectrum’.
The fact that the location photo does not exist presumably caused the mistake in the coordinates, or at least they could not be verified.
Nick – re physical testing… fair enough.
Genetic testing is certainly out there – I haven’t kept up with it and not sure if DNA or RNA is being used, but it has been used to identify breeds of cattle used in connection with manuscripts and that is one way to help decide where a manuscript was made and/or bound.
The real problem is that the reaction of Voynich theorists, over the years, towards specialists rendering a negative opinion on a given theory has tended to be so extreme that I doubt you’d find anyone willing to do this without payment and three stages of protection between themselves and the ‘voynich community’ in case their results show popular theories wrong. It’s so much easier with a theory, you can say, ‘my theory has the manuscript made in Norway’ and when the specialist says ‘fifteenth century manuscripts from Norway didn’t display vellum of such finish, nor quires or such form, nor ink of this type and density, nor images in this style’, the theorist says, ‘pay no attention, they’re just trying to impress us’. 😀
Still, it could be possible, I think.
Hi ants. Page 116 v. It is very good page on witch is written instructions for translation of the manuscript. So study here well.
D.N., that’s a very strange projection about how people feel about genetic testing for the parchment. Maybe you should ask them or let them speak for themselves instead of speaking for them.
The reaction I saw on the forum to the possibility of genetic testing is that researchers (including me) would be quite excited to find out where the writing medium may have originated.
What an inanely ludicrous path Diane has chosen to take herself down; suggesting that results of more up to date scientific velum testing might well give rise to fear and indignation for those well satisfied with the Mcrone ink/wash and selective carbon dating methodology. That’s how scientific progress works to the best of my simple understanding and I’m sure that our more enlightened VM fraternity would welcome new testing irrespective of costs. Methinks the ‘satisfied’ lady in question protesteth too much if you get my drift.
Josef Zlatoděj. prof. boyfrd. champln.
Calling other people ants, that doesn’t make you a giant, just giANT…
Ant Chakarov, should work more on the manuscript. To be a great scientist, too. So be mad and study.
J.K. – Perhaps you weren’t around when the radiocarbon dating was first done; there were howls of objection because it demolished the ‘its-late-sixteenth-or-seventeenth-century-central-European-magical-and-alchemical’ group of theories which were all the rage at that time – despite McLean’s having said in 2001 or so that nothing in the manuscript recalls the style of western alchemical works.
As I recall (and Nick will, I hope correct me if I omit anyone) the only people left standing when the radiocarbon dates came out were Pelling, Neal, Sherwood, Lockerby and me.
At first, certain theorists just began asserting as if it were so that the dating said ‘1480s..’ and this bit of legerdemain almost became another canonised myth. Then, over a period of about *four or five years*, the radiocarbon dates were slowly accepted.
McCrone’s letter says almost nothing – because the limits of the commission prevented them from doing much, though with a free hand they could have tested more interesting samples and run more reasonable tests for the pigments’ binder – which would have been very informative indeed.
In the same way, Touwaide suggested the plant-pictures were fake – that’s how little they fit into the Mediterranean tradition of medicine and herbals. So, was the ‘herbal’ theory abandoned?
Two specialists in the history of astrology have recently been kind enough to go on record saying the month-folios don’t present as do astrological and horoscopic charts or diagrams. if Joyous thanks and abandonment of such theories followed, I’ve not seen much evidence of it.
The historical record shows, since the time Friedman became involved, that theorists tend to have so much faith in their theory (joint- or singly held) that they readily assume specialists fools and amateurs ‘expert’. And think nothing of deriding and denigrating, if they don’t just ignore, the opinions of experts.
This is so well known that even the Yale facsimile edition (in which one usually finds a great deal of independent expert information) had essays which might have been compiled from online sources, and paid no attention to anything done since d’Imperio, except Clemens’ using (uncredited) Claston’s suggestion of similarities between the bathy- section and copies of the Balneis Puteolanis.
If Collins will do the DNA tests – and I rather doubt it – I wonder which Voynicheros will be looking for the animals’ DNA and which will be more keen to see if the right sort of human DNA turns up to suit their theory.
Theory-driven hopes can skew the brief, too.
@Diane
I couldn’t help laughing. You write “Then, over a period of about *four or five years*, the radiocarbon dates were slowly accepted.”
I don’t think it was the radiocarbon test that was not accepted for so long.
It was the realization that one’s work is wrong where it has taken so long.
What does the DNA test say? That it was a cow?
Scottish highland cattle, East Frisian cow. And the rest the brown one.
You might as well say that V.M. is from Europe. It takes a lot of optimism to filter a place from a DNA.
Most of the breeds descend from the brown cow. And the data speaks for itself.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braunvieh
And if Touwaide still believes that the herbs are fakes, he is just a moron.
D.N. wrote: “J.K. – Perhaps you weren’t around when the radiocarbon dating was first done; there were howls of objection “
I was gradually becoming aware of other researchers around the time the radiocarbon dating was released to the public and I don’t remember howls of objections. If the results disagree with a person’s theory they tend to simply ignore it, even now.
Whether people objected or not, you always state things as though it’s all or nothing—as though the majority of Voynich researchers hold a certain viewpoint (usually one opposite to your own) when this is rarely true.
This kind of generalization does not accurately characterize the diversity of views held by Voynich researchers.
“If the results disagree with a person’s theory they tend to simply ignore it, even now.” JKP
Alain Touwaide is an eminent specialist in the history of medicine and medical works (including herbals) within the European, Byzantine and Arabic traditions.
His considering the possibility that the ms plants might be fake is that it does not present in a way commensurate with theories involving those medical and herbal traditions.
Such reflexive resort to ad.hominems – along the line of ‘if x doesn’t agree with our theory.. just ignore/abuse..” is precisely why so few scholars want anything to do with Voynicheros.
I happen to like the manuscript itself. I think it deserves to be studied. I wish it were being studied, but what appears is usually focused on the study and promotion of some theory. This habit is so common that even if people don’t do that, but study it as manuscripts are usually studied, they are accused of ‘having a theory’ and abused for forming opinions which do not conform to some theory.
(For examples of all these Voynich modes see comments from Sanders and JKP, above).
I have always written for people who – to use Reeds’ phrase – are ‘friends of the manuscript’. The numbers of readers to voynichrevisionist tell me their number is not inconsiderable, even if they are a largely invisible audience.
One point I repeat, from time to time, is that a person can only form a theory within the limits of what they know and can imagine – which is why it is probably better to work on expanding one’s knowledge base rather than on forming theories about material the person finds very difficult to understand.
and Nick – thank you for your patience. This really is a sort of forum in the pacific as well as the bloody sense, and I say – all the more leaves to your laurel for it.
Diane: be careful with that airbrush, heaven knows you might accidentally cover up your own long barren years as a Voynich theorist, fighting bitterly to support a theory that does not so much use evidence of fifteenth century origins as explain it away.
Ode to the cap wearer: The skunk sat on a stump; The stump thought the skunk stunk, and the skunk thought the stump stunk.
Dear Josef Zlatoděj. prof.
I have already learned a lot, especially the last verse from the poem by the ant Alexander Sergeyevich Pushkin “Exegi Monumentum”:
“To God and his commands pay Thou good heed, O Muse.
To praise and slander both be nonchalant and cool.
Demand no laureate’s wreath, think nothing of abuse,
And never argue with a fool.” (Translated by A.Z. Foreman)
Basically, if you make a comparison and it doesn’t match, I don’t have to call it a fake but think about whether you are looking in the wrong place.
That’s probably the first thing a qualified person should notice.
If you compare the drawings with other books and also consider the intended use, a match can’t be denied.
You don’t need 100% for this, just the fact that it is probable should be enough.
Whether a plant now looks like yarrow, fennel, or wild carrot is debatable. But it is there and has been used.
Even the text to the individual plants makes sense, if you think about the processing. Example: Only use fresh, root can also be dried. Suitable for fermentation.
Simply what I can do. This applies exactly to the drawn plant. But the text can also apply individually to other plants. Therefore possibly the overlap over all plants.
But even this should be noticed by a professional.
D.N. O’Donovan wrote: “Alain Touwaide is an eminent specialist in the history of medicine and medical works (including herbals) within the European, Byzantine and Arabic traditions.
His considering the possibility that the ms plants might be fake is that it does not present in a way commensurate with theories involving those medical and herbal traditions.”
I’m not sure how you seguéd from my comment about radiocarbon dating to Alan Touwaide’s opinion about the plants, but time will tell whether they are “fake” or whether they fit.
Although the VMS plants “present” in a somewhat original way, I think, for the most part, they do fit with medieval herbal traditions.
Nick –
The amount of commentary I’ve provided over a period of years has been enough to fill a couple of volumes – a lot of it explaining formal analytical method, and an awful lot explaining why theorising is a waste of time. Hardly barren years.
If you mean the information all fell on deaf ears, it would only be partly true. It was certainly unwelcome, because I was unable to conform to the usual theories.
Yet so much of what I contributed later turned up, distorted to make it fit some theory, that you can’t even say no-one listened.
( I understand there’s yet another effort being made, at present, to re-create the work demonstrating common use of certain motifs in the Vms – including the Vms map – and the sort of cartes marine that appeared in 14thC Genoa, Majorca and then Venice. Just one more instance of the distortion-and-replication.
What most intrigues me is the constant assertion that *all* commentary on this manuscript’s images are a product of some ‘theory’.
When Voynicheros speak of cryptography they don’t suggest the writer is inventing the history and methods of cryptography as they go; it is understood that the subject is a larger set, applied to the Vms as a smaller set.
Yet there is some shared fantasy that the subject of art history or iconographic analysis doesn’t exist, and that whatever is said about the images is invention and ‘theory’.
I feel no need to invent theories. There’s a wealth of solid information to work from, and if my conclusions are incompatible with some theory, I’m happy to debate the evidence.
PS – as it happens, I’ve just published that brief-and-easy guide about the psychology of perception that I promised a while ago.
Dear Chakarov. I like Pushkin. And I like ants too. And that´s why I´m not arguing with you. ( translated by Zlatoděj. prof.)
JKP – you may think they fit. The question, as ever, is the quality of evidence adduced. Now, if you look into what is known about herbal manuscripts, you find that the ‘chain of evidence’ – stemmata – is pretty well mapped. And that’s the sort of thing the specialists know. They don’t need to theorise or rely on subjective ideas – they know. And Touwaide is not only a specialist, but one the most eminent. So he knows how each herbal relates to others, and in addition has a fair knowledge of stylistics. That is, how to distinguish a work produced in France from one produced in southern Italy, and both from one made in southern England or in Byzantium.
So the problem you face is that of presenting enough solid evidence to make a sensible argument for placing the Vms plant-pictures within that known ‘map’.
It hasn’t been done yet, in more than a century, and this is yet another instance of theorists rejecting a specialist’s assessment for no reason other than that it is not very friendly to their theory.
As it happens, I agree they don’t fit in the family-tree of western herbals, and even that they are artificial (not literal) forms, though I shouldn’t cry ‘fake’ unless someone tried to sell it to me claiming it was a herbal in the western, Dioscoridan tradition.
But the whole ‘strange Latin herbal’ theory is only a theory, and no matter how long it has been around, there’s no evidence for it, but much opposing it. So on one side of the scales you have a great heap of speculation and on the other, all the solid evidence, both positive and negative, as well as informed and specialist opinion.
I accept that most botanists have begun by assuming the plant-pictures a form of herbal and concentrated on trying to name the plants, but so far as I know none has attempted to prove the case in historical or iconographic terms. O’Neill serves as paradigm there.
Diane,
The amount of commentary you have provided over a number of years has been enough to fill an hundred volumes – the dreary lot in exalting virtues of the formal D.N. O’Donovan analitically retentive method, the sorry lot of it trying to explain away all other opposing theory. A complete waste of time and not worth all those barren years of self indullgence.
D.N. O’Donovan wrote: “Just one more instance of the distortion-and-replication.”
Distortion? Maybe whoever you’re talking about just has a different point of view. Maybe they think your viewpoint is the distortion. There’s been no proof yet of which interpretation of the “map” folio might be correct. They might all be wrong.
Replication? We’re all looking at the same manuscript. And replication is inevitable if your original writings are closed off and cannot be seen by other researchers. Do you honestly think they can avoid replication of something they haven’t seen?
I’m still lurking, Nick!
Greatly enjoying reading everyone’s perspectives. I like to think I have half a mind to sort out the bogus.
Does anyone else think that Zlatoděj and Chakarov are like the comedic relief in a play?
Regards from “Orchid Hangers”
P.S. when is Curse of the Voynich, 2nd. Ed. due? 😉
Dear Josef Zlatoděj. prof.
That’s how I like it. At least Pushkin you didn’t call an ant. Work more in this direction.Good luck.
Orchid Hangers: lurking is good too. Are you thinking of Rosenkr-ants and Guildenstern, by any chance? :-p
I’m not sure the world is ready for a new Curse just yet, but maybe in a little while… 😉
Or maybe St-ant-ler and Waldorf, if you’re a fan of the Muppets. 😉
Waldorf and Statler?
Jacobus de Tepenec is a truly interesting figure in any case, and it’s a pity that the discussion got diverted into the less-than-relevant question “who was thinking what before December 2009”. It seems to have been the usual vague and off-topic accusations posted on 25 Feb at 11:11 that triggered it.
I agree that Jacobus’ involvement with the St.George convent, if it is indeed reliable, is close enough to his nobilitation such that he could have used the name ‘de Tepenec’ while he was still involved with it. However, his biography is based on a selection of sources of all ranges of reliability.
The main question remains how the book would have gotten into this convent, given the evidence that it was with Rudolf (and there is none that it was in this or any other convent).
Checking his summary biography at my web site, he was the administrator of the ‘properties of the St.Georg convent’. This is rather likely to refer to their gardens or vineyards. I will need to look into the sources in more detail.
Rene: if the Abbess crowned the queen, this was clearly a convent that had a major political significance. And we also know that the administration of a second ‘town’ convent was passed over to it during the sixteenth century. Given that so many monasteries and convents were secularised and/or shut down during the Reformation, it’s entirely reasonable to wonder whether the Voynich Manuscript was passed to the St George’s Convent as part of the large scale monastic restructuring that happened at that time.
One may certainly wonder, but it remains a hypothesis for which there is no evidence, either direct or indirect. For some of the many other alternatives, there is some (very) indirect evidence, e.g.:
– he got it from Rudolf, Matthias, or even Ferdinand II, or one of their officials: Rudolf’s ownership is attested in a letter
– he got it from Pontanus: he had another document previously owned by Pontanus
– he got it from Wroblicius: same argument
Dear Chakarov and Comedic Hagedorn and Ants.
You are here on the forum as a new ant. And so I want to remind you that Nick a few years ago. Here he wrote this. We all work on the manuscript here, diligently as ants.
So dont be sad that I like the connection enough.
And study hard too.
I translated the entire manuscript. 🙂
The manuscript is written in Czech language. And encrypted – Kabalistic numerology system gematria.
The author of the book is Elizabeth of Rosenberg.
I bet with every scientist nd ant about $ 10 000, that I´m right. 🙂
Rene: conversely, you’re assuming that Rudolf gave it to Sinapius. I’m wondering whether Sinapius sold it to Rudolf. In the absence of any other evidence (for which goodness knows you’ve looked hard), why not?
Nick, while this is hypothetically possible, it still does not help in terms of evidence (direct or indirect) for the presence of the book in the St. George convent….
And it is a much less likely scenario for several reasons.
Ok bohemians, Show your proof it wasn’t written by Hussites.
Count Zizka commands you.
Rene: errrm… I think you need a bit more evidence than none at all to start talking about probabilities. 🙂
From the point of view of Sinapius, I’d say it’s just as likely he sold it to Rudolf as received it from Rudolf. But that’s because I have exactly the same amount of evidence for both scenarios (i.e. none), and I’m not trying to weight one over the other. 🙂
Xplor,
Well yes and no; seems that a couple of defrocked Papist monks from Turkey, Cec & Meth. left the dioccese of Constantinople around 836 a.d. and turned up, of all places in the vale of Wilenow, set deep in the Kunwald valley region of Northern Bomemia, right by the Polish border. It was home to a very peaceloving society of naturapathic Adamite-Waldensiens, whose women were said to be fair, plump and rather lax in private. To cut a long story short, the new arrivals were delighted in their find so in the interests of a means by which to preach their gospel (Jeremiah) developed a simple unique Greco/Coptic script form to suit the local indigenous dialects. This written word of God was eventually adopted by the arrival in 1400 of secretive anti papal Brethren Moravian God botherers like Jon Hes, Peter Chelcic, Jon Rockycana, Gregory the Patriarch and like adherents that followed during the heady reformist period of the mid 15th century. Then with the passage of time and improved means if communication, the written words from Chelcicki’s original language script pamphlets fell into disuse. That is until it’s partial rediscovery by a Polish former revolutionary named Wojnicz, who came across it by chance in the London Museum (Library) while visiting with his future wife Lily in the 1890s. He may have recognised the script from his days as a fugitive hiding in the Glatz Mountains region on the Polish border, right by the ruins of old Tipitz Castle with its eerie ‘V’ battlement merlons most by then fallen to the encroaching forest floor…So there you have it xplor, all’s wilenow for Count Zisca and the Hussites!
Well, there is quite a bit to consider.
In general, given the history of the two people, it seems unlikely that Jacobus would ever sell a book or MS to Rudolf. Rudolf already owed him a great deal of money (this is documented).
Furthermore, Rudolf has been acquiring books throughout his reign. A sale by Jacobus would have taken place in his latest years 1608-1612, and is quite unlikely. I have 147 book-related entries in the Hofkammer records, from 1576 to 1612, and only 2 are after Jacobus’ nobilitation.
Thirdly, a sale by Jacobus would not have to involve a ‘bearer’ as mentioned in the Marci letter, but this is clearly a minor point.
The time span that Jacobus could have obtained the MS is 1608-1622, i.e. 14 years.
Rene wrote: “Thirdly, a sale by Jacobus would not have to involve a ‘bearer’ as mentioned in the Marci letter, but this is clearly a minor point.”
It might not be a minor point. Jacobus was one of the few people with direct access to Rudolf. It is said that the emperor was not fond of company and avoided it when he could. Most people probably had to contact him through an intermediary.
Rene: layering up a probabilistic argument from essentially tertiary evidence is the kind of thing you’d think poorly of in other people, and I can say that it doesn’t look that great on you either. 🙁
Far better to use this kind of thing as a provocation to ferret out better historical evidence. For example, I’ve today emailed a Czech Benedictine monastic librarian PhD student asking her for help in understanding the structure and nature of Czech Benedictine monastic archives, with the idea that these may turn out to hold more information about St George’s Convent than the other (fairly scant) sources we’re aware of.
For many decades we’ve (collectively) run with the assumption that Rudolf passed the manuscript to Sinapius, but have found basically zilch. All I’m saying is that if we also explore the (not obviously less probable) scenario that Sinapius passed the manuscript to Rudolf, I think we can come up with a fair few basic research questions we can formulate and explore in parallel.
Rene: John Sanders is a troll of the worst type. He is posting some disgusting lies about my father and mother, both dead, on another site in the hope of garnering a response. My father served in the RAAF during WW2, and to have his name besmirched by a cowardly troll such as Sanders, an Australian Army deserter living Vietnam, has prompted me to find out more about him.
He is the worst of men.
Peter Bowes.
Thanks for putting that up, NickP, appreciated. And be sure to let me know when the Somerton Man comes up again for discussion.
Rene: Peteb’s remarks, whilst interesting enough to his followers, perhaps an enditement of his accused or to his own credibility if put to the truth test, they hardly relate to this developing thread. The ongoing saga of who had what first and when, Sinapius or Rudolf is the real essence of the discussion, certainly not my perceived character flaws, of which I have some. At the end of the day England may have been the source without accompanying notification, in which case my money would be on the man in the chair, not withstanding the provisor that I’m not talking about VM but perhaps a similarly compiled piece for translation.
The Hammerschmidt book is online
https://reader.digitale-sammlungen.de/de/fs1/object/display/bsb10006505_00009.html
Peteb: Sorry Pete, no not for any comments made about dear old Fred, as taken with much undeserved respectful softening from Sqn. Leader W.J. Harper’s secret report on his disasterous affiliations with the reluctant pilots (3 in particular) of 453/21 cringing Kookaburra Sqn. during the ill fated Malayan campaign ’41/’42. Just stating the facts which of course with many others even more damning, you must surely be cognizant…As for your mum, you’re gonna have to point out to the lads, the so called disgusting lies I told about her; all I’m able to refer to is a post about her not belting the living s… out of her miscreant pansy handled boy Kerrie which is the name she called you apparently. Nothing disgusting there apart from you my man.
Thanks for puting that up, Massa Nick P. appreciated. And be sure to let me know when you could use a good boot licking, so’s dey come up nice’n shiny jes like dee Somerton Man’s, whose discussion is over according to brown nose Peteb.
Thank you John.
The carbon-14 data points to Charles University faculty of arts
in Prague. May be the VM was there all the time.
Nick, I am sorry but I can’t agree with either your reasoning or your assessment of the evidence.
Yes, like I already wrote before, it is possible that Jacobus was the one selling the MS to Rudolf, but in my opinion it is far more likely that it was someone else, and Jacobus ended up with the MS sometime after that. This question of probability was doubted by you and I logically provided probabilistic evidence to support this opinion. Undoubtedly, it is far more likely that Rudolf acquired the MS before 1608 than after, and that is not just because there are more years before than after.
Furthermore, this is based on primary evidence, namely account registers (with indices) written during the end of the 16th century and the start of the seventeenth.
On the other hand, there is no evidence that the MS was ever in any monastic library and it seems unlikely due to the nature of the book.
The precise role of Jacobus w.r.t. the St.George convent is not clearly formulated and the source is not clear. His involvement is an example of uncertain and indirect evidence.
Finally, if the St.George convent had a book that interested Rudolf, he could have simply asked for it or taken it. He did this in other cases. Also that is reliably on record. He would not have to spend large numbers of gold coins to get it via Jacobus.
Getting documentary evidence is of course the best way forward, and there are very many in addition to the St.George convent that warrant a closer look.
Rene: I can’t agree with the strength of any of your conclusions here, and I think – in this instance – you’re giving out all the signs of cherrypicking fragments to suit a narrative you have chosen for entirely separate reasons.
I would say – from the quire numbering style – we have reasonably persuasive evidence that the VMs was in a Swiss monastic library in the second half of the XV century. And I think the charm-like text on f116v supports this quite well.
I also think this is more persuasive and direct physical evidence than anything else you cite.
We know – without any real doubt – that it ended up on Sinapius’ bookshelf in Prague. But I don’t think you’ve yet formed even the outlines of an argument as to where it was immediately before that.
Nick: I’m wondering, should it be ascertained for a certainty that, Sinapius the mustard man had the manuscript in his lawful possession, irrespective as to how or when he came by it or to whom he later disposed of it, only the time frame of such ownership would be relevant, when considering it’s presumed authenticity.
That is to say, had he owned it at the time of his connection with St. Georges’ in say around 1604 eg., then passed it on to whomsoever prior to 1607, when he was elevated to the Tepenec title, then the signature on f1r could in all probability be called in to question….I’m speaking from a novice perspective of course, and with all due respect to many who are more educated in such matters.
As an extension to questioning the Tepenec (sic) signature which of course has been subject to much scrutiny, and controversy over many years, I’m still of the opinion that Wilfred’s near failed obliteration attempt, which of itself is such a standout feature on both F1r&v pages, might be successfully pigment tested to identify it’s composition ie., coffee tea or Bonox.
John, is there evidence that Wilfrid tried to obliterate it? I can’t remember the details or where I saw it, but I thought he had tried with chemicals to bring up the text so it could be better seen.
Booksellers don’t usually remove signatures from antique books. Signatures add value because they help confirm the provenance. It is usually subsequent owners who obliterate the previous owner’s ex lib. In which case, it’s more likely that Marci or Kircher removed the signature.
JKP: Only hearsay with some circumstantial evidence, though it stands to reason that Wilfrid being a trained chemist should have had good knowledge on care for his valubable books. One could assume that the man must have had experience in how solutions reacted with old velum or common gall inks and besides it would seem that the full Tepenecz signature may well have been quite legible prior to it’s alleged raising attempt. It is also considered likely that due to his close association with John Manly during the war, Voynich would have been a visitor at least, to the MI8 secret ink lab in NY close by his lodgings and whose experts were on hand to advise him on a process for raising a signature without causing damage, like that evidenced.
But I trust the worms.
There are characteristics of the worms before they become blurred ( dark colour ) and there are feeding places where they develop afterwards. ( light traces )
The rest needs no explanation.
John, maybe the chemical damage on f1r was there before Wilfrid acquired the VMS. Maybe Wilfrid made it worse, or maybe he didn’t, but we don’t know when the more significant damage occurred.
In the 15th century, they sometimes used scraping and sometimes used chemicals (and sometimes both) to remove old Ex Libris marks.