11-01-2017, 06:54 PM
It's difficult not to indulge into a lot of speculation....
Especially considerations why people did this, or did NOT do that are risky.
I interpret the 1640 and 1641 letters as an 'aftermath' of the letters between Barschius / Moretus and Kircher.
Marci's 1640 mention is almost certainly a response to a question from Kircher about Barschius.
But what is very clear is that the whole topic of Barschius and his MS disappears from the discussion for 25 years.
The question why this is, is again hard to answer. Was that more Kircher's wish, or did Marci not care?
Kircher was not at all interested in alchemy. He had something against that, so if the book was presented in that light (and Barschius certainly was very interested in it) then that could have made the topic a taboo.
In that sense, the 1665 letter could be almost 'apologetic': sorry to bother you again with this but....
(and avoids mentioning Barschius' name).
More in a general sense, we may be overrating the importance of, or interest in the MS.
Even nowadays, where the MS is a real mystery, it is only in the interest of a few people, and barely in the mainstream medieval history / history of science.
Perhaps Barschius was a bit like Newbold, while Kircher may have been more like Thorndike....
If anything, Barschius should count as the earliest known "Voynichero".
Especially considerations why people did this, or did NOT do that are risky.
I interpret the 1640 and 1641 letters as an 'aftermath' of the letters between Barschius / Moretus and Kircher.
Marci's 1640 mention is almost certainly a response to a question from Kircher about Barschius.
But what is very clear is that the whole topic of Barschius and his MS disappears from the discussion for 25 years.
The question why this is, is again hard to answer. Was that more Kircher's wish, or did Marci not care?
Kircher was not at all interested in alchemy. He had something against that, so if the book was presented in that light (and Barschius certainly was very interested in it) then that could have made the topic a taboo.
In that sense, the 1665 letter could be almost 'apologetic': sorry to bother you again with this but....
(and avoids mentioning Barschius' name).
More in a general sense, we may be overrating the importance of, or interest in the MS.
Even nowadays, where the MS is a real mystery, it is only in the interest of a few people, and barely in the mainstream medieval history / history of science.
Perhaps Barschius was a bit like Newbold, while Kircher may have been more like Thorndike....
If anything, Barschius should count as the earliest known "Voynichero".