I have yet another key argument why the Marci letter is genuine.

It starts with the letter "R" and that means that it is most probably genuine.
After all, the vast majority of existing letters that start with an R are genuine.

Now a friend of mine suggested that a fake letter could also start with an R, but I contend that this is less likely and the argument shows that the letter is probably genuine.

[break]

So what went wrong here?
It is clear that whatever is the first character in a letter is not a discriminator for the question fake or genuine. Both options remain valid.

All of the points raised by Rich have the same problem: they are not discriminators. Both options are possible and they allow one to pick the option that one likes best.

Much the same is true for the so-called red flags. (How many of them apply to the Marci letter anyway?).
They prove nothing. Every single one can be true for a perfectly genuine item.
If there are any red flags, they can be an invitation to take a closer and deeper look.

Well this has been done, with quite satisfactory results: Barschius could be identified as the unnamed person in the letter. Dr. Raphael could be identified. The letter from Barschius describing the Voynich MS was found. Letters from Kinner confirming that Marci sent a book to Kircher was found. Another letter written in the same hand was found. Confirmation that Marci inherited the book from the previous owner was found.

It doesn't really get any better when it comes to confirming the provenance of an item.

[change of topic]

In posts 2 to 4 above, Rich wrote well in excess of 10,000 words. Not a single one addresses the main and definitive evidence that the letter is genuine, namely the existence of a genuine letter of which the main body is written in the hand of the same scribe. In fact in the image that has now been posted 2 or 3 times this part has been cut out.

That is more than just a little bit disturbing.

If the hypothetical faker could copy someone's handwriting that expertly, the whole point of tracing the signature of Marci becomes void.

But again, why is this part not addressed at all?

We have to dig a bit at Rich's blog to find any mention of the problem that this letter was not accessible to Voynich, or anyone except a few Jesuits:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Quote:4) The Kircher Carteggio (letters) was under “lock and seal”, so Wilfrid could not have seen it: Not known, in any case. There is no evidence that the Jesuits did, or would have, treated the Letters any differently than the Voynich (if they ever owned it, which is also not known), or the other books they sold to Voynich in 1911. In fact, the Villa Mondragone… where both the Voynich and the letters were stored… was a popular and respected college, which took students from the general (even non-Jesuit) population. In the summer it was a retreat for high ranking Jesuits, and even, a tourist attraction. Really anyone could get permission to visit. The photographer who took pictures of it for a 1912 tourist book was the same photographer who took pictures of Voynich’s bookstore in 1908. And Voynich was close friends with You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., the head of the Mondragone. And also, considering the great importance of Kircher to the Jesuits, it is implausible to consider they did not have some interest, and probably studied, his letters… while in their care.

First of all, that the Voynich MS was stored in Villa Mondragone is also described as a myth, on the same page:

Quote:10) Voynich found the book in the Villa Mondragone: This is still stated as fact, when most mainstream researchers understand this is not known, and, at best, based on shaky ground. Voynich himself claimed several, mutually exclusive places of origin for the ms., including “Castle in Southern Europe” and “Austrian Castle”. “Villa Mondragone” was to Ethel, in private, and only to be revealed after her death.

All of this is inaccurate.
Voynich did not name Villa Mondragone to Ethel and she did not mention in it her letter. The Voynich MS may have been in Villa Mondragone (Kraus is the source for this), but there is good reason to doubt it. Modern Jesuit researchers strongly doubt it. There is less reason to doubt that it was in Frascati, because there are two independent sources for that.

The Kircher correspondence was certainly not in Frascati. Its whereabouts are known, and I think that I already wrote it in the other thread.

The Jesuits were not only religious, and greatly interested in education, they were also ardent record keepers. Every Jesuit house had a 'diary' and keep a 'year book'. Voynich never entered the Jesuit house that hosted the Kircher correspondence. Strickland did.

I certainly cannot blame Rich for not knowing this, but it is about time acknowledge some of thee major errors in the assumptions.

I am afraid (or happy to say?) that this is my last contribution to this particular topic in this thread. I have other things that I want to spend my time on.

(09-04-2020, 09:21 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.My contention is that the reason they are not answered is because they cannot be answered. How would you answer the concerns on my Marci blog? For instance, why the fold lines do not make sense? I have a "supposition" for it, but have heard no other to explain it.

Rich, you know I have the greatest respect for you, and have so for many years.
But I'm afraid that the reasons they are not "answered" is because your forgery theory has been cunningly crafted out of bits of real theory. You collect all the bits of evidence and then re-interpret the conclusion to your own fashion, usually writted up in thousands of well crafted and persuasive words. People look at it and sigh.
For example, the folding of the letter.
From You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.:

Quote:There were two basic ways a letter was prepared for delivery in the times before manufactured envelopes became available: One, the letter itself was folded into an envelope, with the writing to the inside and the address on the outside. Then this was usually secured with a “wax” seal, impressed while hot with the emblem of the sender.

An envelope is a protective sheath - you cannot "fold the letter into an envelope". In this case, you sealed your letter and then (optionally) write the name of the addressee on the back. This was done when you knew that the letter would be protected anyway, it was being sent in a satchel or via messenger. Nobody wrote a name and address on an envelope and dropped it into a mailbox. If there were a bunch of letters in one parcel being carried to the same person, you didn't even need to write the name on the back of the letter, because all  the letters were being bundled up safely together.
A small yet crucial detail as improper use of terminology which shows lack of expertise with the subject matter. The letter may seem different and odd to you but I'm not aware that any of the historians who have studied the matter have raised any issues with the folding or materials employed. If there are any, I would appreciate you bringing this to my attention.

Quote:The 1665 Voynich/Marci letter seems different, and odd, in this area. So I printed out the 1666 Marci letter, and tried to fold it on its apparent fold lines. There are ways to fold it, but they do not make sense.

(emphasis mine)
Exactly. You don't know how to fold it. And this lack of knowledge has caused you to jump to conclusions. 
If you look at the correct way to fold it, it fits up nicely, in the same way (albeit much less dramatically) as an origami swan only works if refolded correctly.
It is nicely sealed up, with the sides coming in to prevent people snooping upon the contents / the sides snagging and tearing during travel. It's something the scribe would have done thousands of times during his working career.

(10-04-2020, 05:30 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I am afraid (or happy to say?) that this is my last contribution to this particular topic in this thread. I have other things that I want to spend my time on.

I took some time before coming back to this thread, hoping that the issues would be addressed. But you make my point again, René, as you still do not actually answer the questions and problems with the Marci Letter, as I outlined, but dismiss them on inappropriate and unrelated grounds... and then leave the discussion.This has been the same, for over a decade, with any of the many anomolies in the Voynich Ms. itself, and the word of Voynich. The problems with the Voynich, the 1665/66 Marci letter, and the word of Voynich, are indefensible, so this is understandable. The paradigm, critized, cannot properly defend itself. That is why these "Marci Letter" threads... the locked one, and this one, are so important: They demonsrate that inability, and the methods used to change the narrative, deflect, misrepresent the problems, then ignore them.

Here again are the (not properly addressed) problems with the Marci Letter: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Listed here, in brief, for reference (the particulars are on the blog post, above):

1. Voynich said he paid little attention to it, at first
2: He walked out of the Villa with it
3: Marci held back information?
4: That Latin:
5: The Folding
6: The “Signature” & Date (although I appreciate some attempt to explain these, the defences of this fall short: see below)

(10-04-2020, 05:30 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Much the same is true for the so-called red flags. (How many of them apply to the Marci letter anyway?).
They prove nothing. Every single one can be true for a perfectly genuine item.

If there are any red flags, they can be an invitation to take a closer and deeper look.

Well this has been done, with quite satisfactory results: Barschius could be identified as the unnamed person in the letter. Dr. Raphael could be identified. The letter from Barschius describing the Voynich MS was found. Letters from Kinner confirming that Marci sent a book to Kircher was found. Another letter written in the same hand was found. Confirmation that Marci inherited the book from the previous owner was found.

It doesn't really get any better when it comes to confirming the provenance of an item.

Red Flags of forgery are very important: They are how we identify what is a forgery and what is not. The Voynich hits on 9 of the 10 characteristics of forgery which is not only highly unusual in the world of known forgeries, but absolutely unheard of in any genuine item. As for "How many of them apply to the Marci letter anyway?", but my 6 point list of problems with the letter, in the blog post, and referenced above, hit on many red flags: The provenance is non-existant, as it has none before it appeared in Wilfrid's hands (provenance of one degree is no provenance at all); the very fact that he had this letter in his possession undermines the claimed provenance of it; the impossibility of folding it show the materials used are not proper, but must have been re-purposed; the content is partially copied/traced; the content is problematic, as Marci leaves out pertanant information, and the timing of the information he gives is improper; multiple expert opinions, as to the proper translation, and exactly what it means. So these and probably more, do "apply to the Marci letter".

Perhaps you and I have very different standards for provenance, but the Voynich, and letter, really have no acceptable provenance. All of the items you list in the above quote are not provenace, because they relate to information easily known by Voynich, for one thing, and also rely on speculations: For one thing, that the Voynich MS was being described by Barshius. His letter falls far short of doing anything of the kind.

While I agree that "Marci sent a book to Kircher", we don't come close to knowing what that book was. It had stars, "chemical symbolism", "unknown script", and "plants unknown to the Germans". It did exist, no doubt. But to constantly claim this proves it was the Voynich Manuscript both undermines the case the Voynich existed at all  before 1912, along with lowering the bar for acceptable standards for provenance for anything else. Not to mention the "1903" reference, also stated as fact.

There was a Baresch Manuscript, and these men did exist, and they did write to Kircher, and Kircher wrote back to one of them, at least. But there is no proof, only reasons to believe the contrary, that the mysterious book they described was the Voynich, no matter how many times this is repeated. On critical examination, these claims fall apart, as they are essentially valueless in supporting the 1420 Genuine European Cipher Herbal theory.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(10-04-2020, 05:30 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In posts 2 to 4 above, Rich wrote well in excess of 10,000 words. Not a single one addresses the main and definitive evidence that the letter is genuine, namely the existence of a genuine letter of which the main body is written in the hand of the same scribe. In fact in the image that has now been posted 2 or 3 times this part has been cut out.

That is more than just a little bit disturbing.

This is the sort of irrelevent claim made by you, which in essence is misdirection, as the point is moot, and does not address the problems with the letter. Because:

1) I do not, in any way, dispute the existance of the genuine letter, in the Carteggio, on which I believe the signature, date, and etc., are traced or copied from. So this is incorrect, moot to my point.

2) I do not dispute there is a body of writing, above those dates and signature, on the genuine letter, and on the problematic 1665/66 Marci letter. It is deflection on your part to claim that the parts of both letters that I do not show have been "cut out" for any "disturbing" reason... yes, there is stuff above the other stuff. It is as irrelevent to the argument I am making, and any possible defence of it, as anything I can imagine.

3) "Not a single one addresses the main and definitive evidence that the letter is genuine..." This is patently untrue, as all I have been doing, all along, is "address" the evidence, given by you and others, supporting your claim the "letter is genuine". That is the entire point here: I show why your evidence is faulty, and it is you who do not address the faults. Anyone can read my Marci blog post, linked above, and read through the two threads... the locked, and this one, to see that what I say is correct. I've left nothing out, and whether or not one agrees with my reasoning, I do always answer questions, give my opinions, and then support them. It is not me, but you who fail to address the points I make, and who cannot defend the issues I raise.

(10-04-2020, 05:30 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If the hypothetical faker could copy someone's handwriting that expertly, the whole point of tracing the signature of Marci becomes void.
But again, why is this part not addressed at all?

Here you do make one of your better points, for we might expect one who is expert in copying a genuine letter to not bother copying the signature and date. But of course the signature and date are the only two portions that would be the same on a real and fake letter, except for the seeming additions of a tail to turn a "0" into a "9", and a "5" into a "6". It is as though whatever could be copied, was copied, and what could not be, was not. That would be the content of the letter. But overall, this rebuttal is weak in that it relies on the general principle of "The forger would have done better; therefore it is not a forgery". A concept I often see in such arguments, which actually undermines the defense of an object as genuine: For it is an admission of the problem with the item in the first place, for it cannot be both at the same time: The letter is too good to be a forgery; but so bad the forger would have avoided looking like a forgery. No, when you learn about the thousands of art and literary forgeries... which I urge any reader here to do, before arguing any particular item "cannot be one"... one thing you learn is that almost every item is an admixture of good and poor abilties and styles and content. In fact, this is actually another red flag of forgery, and should be added to the list: Genuine items tend to be consistant; forgeries are inconsistant.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(10-04-2020, 05:30 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.We have to dig a bit at Rich's blog to find any mention of the problem that this letter was not accessible to Voynich, or anyone except a few Jesuits:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Quote:4) The Kircher Carteggio (letters) was under “lock and seal”, so Wilfrid could not have seen it: Not known, in any case. There is no evidence that the Jesuits did, or would have, treated the Letters any differently than the Voynich (if they ever owned it, which is also not known), or the other books they sold to Voynich in 1911. In fact, the Villa Mondragone… where both the Voynich and the letters were stored… was a popular and respected college, which took students from the general (even non-Jesuit) population. In the summer it was a retreat for high ranking Jesuits, and even, a tourist attraction. Really anyone could get permission to visit. The photographer who took pictures of it for a 1912 tourist book was the same photographer who took pictures of Voynich’s bookstore in 1908. And Voynich was close friends with Father Joseph Strickland, the head of the Mondragone. And also, considering the great importance of Kircher to the Jesuits, it is implausible to consider they did not have some interest, and probably studied, his letters… while in their care.

First of all, that the Voynich MS was stored in Villa Mondragone is also described as a myth, on the same page:

Quote:10) Voynich found the book in the Villa Mondragone: This is still stated as fact, when most mainstream researchers understand this is not known, and, at best, based on shaky ground. Voynich himself claimed several, mutually exclusive places of origin for the ms., including “Castle in Southern Europe” and “Austrian Castle”. “Villa Mondragone” was to Ethel, in private, and only to be revealed after her death.

All of this is inaccurate.

Voynich did not name Villa Mondragone to Ethel and she did not mention in it her letter. The Voynich MS may have been in Villa Mondragone (Kraus is the source for this), but there is good reason to doubt it. Modern Jesuit researchers strongly doubt it. There is less reason to doubt that it was in Frascati, because there are two independent sources for that.

The Kircher correspondence was certainly not in Frascati. Its whereabouts are known, and I think that I already wrote it in the other thread.

The Jesuits were not only religious, and greatly interested in education, they were also ardent record keepers. Every Jesuit house had a 'diary' and keep a 'year book'. Voynich never entered the Jesuit house that hosted the Kircher correspondence. Strickland did.

I certainly cannot blame Rich for not knowing this, but it is about time acknowledge some of thee major errors in the assumptions.

You claim my point #10 is "innacurate", then go on to repeat my point, and make my point, with, "The Voynich MS may have been in Villa Mondragone (Kraus is the source for this), but there is good reason to doubt it. Modern Jesuit researchers strongly doubt it. There is less reason to doubt that it was in Frascati, because there are two independent sources for that."

Yes Ethel does not specifically say "Villa Mondragone" in the letter, but you are splitting hairs with this, in that there is an oft-repeated assumption the Villa was meant in the letter, because of the Strickland mention, and Frascati. But you are preaching to the choir here, in now claiming there is "less reason to doubt" this, or anything... yes, of course, that is my point. The word of Voynich was varied, so we know he lied, we don't know where the Voynich came from, we cannot trust any of the information we have, and we must guess at it all. I agree with you, we agree, and it makes my point: The Voynich provenance, as given by Voynich himself, cannot be trusted. We do not know.

As for this "Jesuit diary", I first of all have to say I am not sure I am ready to accept:

1) The lack of such an entry as you describe, as "negative proof" that Voynich could not have "entered the house that hosted the Kircher correspondence".
2) Question the claim you know for certain where the letters were to begin with
3) Would point out that if such evidence can be taken as valuable, then what of the case of Voynich entering the Jesuit Villa Mondragone, and supposedly purchasing the Voynich Manuscript and other works there
4) As in the "1903" provenance you offer as fact, I think we have different standards of proof... and as in #1, "negative proof" is not really proof anyway
5) I don't contend that Voynich must have seen the original letters to begin with, and you know this. I don't even rely on his seeing them, or copies of them, to begin with, it is the genuinists who contend the letters describe the Voynich Manuscript... I do not. But I do think he was privvy to the mentions of the Baresch Manuscript in those letters, and there are multitude of probable ways he could have learned of those mentions... through some work of the Jesuits studying those letters... because they did. Or, though Strickland, and maybe other means.

The point is, you have no proof of your frequent claim the letters were "under lock and seal", and rather than support this claim, you instead continue to insist that Voynich cannot have known of the manuscript mentioned... now stating that he does not appear on a Jesuit list of visitors? Why not address the actual problems and anomolies with the Voynich, the Marci Letter, and their lack of provenance?

Again, I contend, and think I have shown, there is no way to do this. The only way to continue to project the Voynich as genuine is to avoid these issues, and/or to improperly state what those problems actually are, and/or to create unrelated rationalizations to try and explain them. And these attempts and methods are not unfamiliar to me: Read any history of any forgery from the past or modern times, and you will see that you and I are just playing out the actions and statements of many others who came long before the two of us: Me, the identifier and definer of a forgery; you, the defender of them. I have found it very valuable to realize this, as it tells me my arguments are sound, and helps me understand the methods, arguments, and processes you and others use, to defend the truly indefensible Voynich Ms.

(10-04-2020, 08:48 AM)davidjackson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.From You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.:

Quote:There were two basic ways a letter was prepared for delivery in the times before manufactured envelopes became available: One, the letter itself was folded into an envelope, with the writing to the inside and the address on the outside. Then this was usually secured with a “wax” seal, impressed while hot with the emblem of the sender.

An envelope is a protective sheath - you cannot "fold the letter into an envelope". In this case, you sealed your letter and then (optionally) write the name of the addressee on the back. This was done when you knew that the letter would be protected anyway, it was being sent in a satchel or via messenger. Nobody wrote a name and address on an envelope and dropped it into a mailbox. If there were a bunch of letters in one parcel being carried to the same person, you didn't even need to write the name on the back of the letter, because all  the letters were being bundled up safely together.

A small yet crucial detail as improper use of terminology which shows lack of expertise with the subject matter. The letter may seem different and odd to you but I'm not aware that any of the historians who have studied the matter have raised any issues with the folding or materials employed. If there are any, I would appreciate you bringing this to my attention.

You are splitting hairs with your complaint about my usage of the word "envelope", David. And I am quite aware of what process was used in these types of letters, and how they were prepared, and sent. The point is that the letter here was formed into an envelope, by folding it, so that the contents were unreadable. This method is long out of use, to my knowledge, but was the case in many of the letters of the Carteggio. They were either:

1) Formed/folded into their own envelope, with the content on the inside, the address on the outside, then sealed.
2) They were folded, with no address on them anywhere, and no seal, but placed into another sheet of paper which was folded into an envelope. That outer envelope had an address and seal.

The 1665/66 Marci letter it of the first type, whatever you choose to call it. I never believed, nor ever stated, that an envelope was "dropped into a mailbox". And it is "different and odd" not from my understanding of any modern envelope or letter practice, but "different and odd" from the practice of the time, and the other letters, in that it cannot be folded into anything. See below:

(10-04-2020, 08:48 AM)davidjackson Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Quote:The 1665 Voynich/Marci letter seems different, and odd, in this area. So I printed out the 1666 Marci letter, and tried to fold it on its apparent fold lines. There are ways to fold it, but they do not make sense.

(emphasis mine)
Exactly. You don't know how to fold it. And this lack of knowledge has caused you to jump to conclusions. 
If you look at the correct way to fold it, it fits up nicely, in the same way (albeit much less dramatically) as an origami swan only works if refolded correctly.
It is nicely sealed up, with the sides coming in to prevent people snooping upon the contents / the sides snagging and tearing during travel. It's something the scribe would have done thousands of times during his working career.

No, David, there are no ways to fold it. That is the point. As I suggested on my blog post on the subject... if one doubts me... print the letter out, on both sides of a sheet of paper, so the "seals" and lines line up, and try it.

It is not that "I" "don't know how to fold it", it is that it cannot be folded into a sheave, envelope, or whatever you want to try and fold it into. The fold lines, any or all of them, make no sense, except in the context of re-purposed piece of period paper, from which the stock to create the Marci letter was cut from.

So give it a shot, yourself, rather than assuming it can be done. Stick to the visible fold lines... no fudging here, I assume you would want to know one way or the other, for yourself. And do as I did, also, and print out other of the Carteggio letters, with fold lines, and fold those. They, on the contrary, work... as you will see.

And then, when you see all this... perhaps you can come up with a reason the fold lines do NOT work on the 1665/66 Marci letter. I can't fathom one, but that is the point, and I'm all ears...

Rich, if I answer your points, and then you say I have not answered them, then it makes no point for me to answer them again.

I do not wish to follow this discussion any further. Sorry.

René, first of all, it was not me who suggested that these questions could be answered... I actually didn't think it was possible, and it turns out, I was correct. I only brought it up here because you had written,

"The side question about the Marci letter could be a separate topic. I might respond to that one, but I'll think about it, and check if the information isn't already here in one thread or another. This letter is most certainly genuine beyond all possible doubt."

From: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

So I did that, I made it "... a separate topic".

(12-05-2020, 02:40 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Rich, if I answer your points, and then you say I have not answered them, then it makes no point for me to answer them again.

I do not wish to follow this discussion any further. Sorry.

I disagree that you have even attempted to answer the majority of the problems, in the first place... Of the six listed issues, you have actually only even mentioned a couple of them: So there is no "again" if you chose to do so. As for the ones you do mention, or offer some response to, they do not address the core of the problems, but mention issues unrelated to them, or misstate the problem as outlined.

But I don't consider this a deadlock, but a valuable answer in itself, as you have not... so cannot, I would assume... properly explain these things.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Thank you for your input and time, in any case.

Rich.