Voynich MS - Source texts

Or use the browser's BACK button

Introduction

Following are some source texts which are relevant for the history of the Voynich MS and its study. They are always given in the original language, and, where necessary or feasible, in English translation. They are ordered in chronological order of writing.

1. Marci about Baresch in Philosophia vetus restituta, written in 1662. It proves that they were very good friends since at least 1622, and that Marci once inherited Baresch' curiosa and alchemical library. More about this can be found in the various letters written to Athanasius Kircher.
2. The life and deeds of Jacobus Horcicky de Tepenec as described in Schmidl, 1754.
3. Arthur Dee and the book in hieroglyphics. I need to find out where this quote comes from (Fell-Smith?), but this famous quote is presented here in a larger context.
4. Voynich (and Brumbaugh) about Baresch. This is composed of two parts, the relevant one written by Voynich in 1921, which is preceded by an inaccurate quote of this letter by Brumbaugh, which was still instrumental in identifying Baresch as one of the owners of the Voynich MS. The Voynich letter is Kept in carbon copy at the Beinecke library, and Voynich's source is obviously the quote from Marci's Philosophia Vetus Restituta also included in this page.
5. Excerpts from Ruysschaert's catalogue of the Mondragone collection, which indicates that Voynich did buy some books from the Jesuits, one of which is "our" Voynich MS.
6. An excerpt from a letter from Kraus to Friedman, mentioning his trip to the Vatican library and his meeting in Rome with Mgr. Ruysschaert.
7. An excerpt from John Fletcher's "Johann Marcus Marci writes to Athanasius Kircher" (ref) relating to the correspondence of Baresch to Kircher.

Johannes Marcus Marci about Georg Baresch

From Philosophia vetus restituta, 1662.

About Jacobus Horcicky de Tepenec

From Schmidl, Historiae Societatis Jesu Provinciae Bohemiae, pars III, ab anno Christi MDCXVI ad annum MDCXXXII

Due to its length, it is provided on a separate page

About Arthur Dee

Arthur's wife, Isabella Dee, died July 24, 1634. About this time he returned to England and settled in Norwich, near his friend, Sir Thomas Browne, who was then busily engaged in writing down the ethical and theological conclusions which he called the Religio Medici. Browne was, of course, the younger man. Writing in 1658, a few years after Arthur's death, to Elias Ashmole, Sir Thomas tells of the many talks about the doings of Dee and Kelly that he had with "my familiar friend, sonne unto old Doctor Dee, the mathematician," who had "lived many years and died in Norwich." Browne sent to Ashmole "the scheme of Arthur's nativity, erected by his father, Dr. John Dee," a copy from the original, made by Arthur himself, with comments added by a Moscow astrologer, Franciscus Murrerus.

Dr. Arthur, in spite, or perhaps because, of his early environment, retained until his dying day a devout belief in the possibilities of alchemy to make projection or transmutation. He had grown up in the fixed idea that the ever-exclusive secret would soon be found out. In fact, he was persuaded that divers workers had indeed discovered the art. The child of seven or eight, who had played with quoits or playthings, which he understood had been turned into gold upon the premises, was likely to retain this conviction. To doubt it would be to cast a slur upon his father's memory. Of Kelly his recollections - the recollections of a boy under nine - could be but dim and hazy, untouched with any possible scepticism or critical judgment. After the February day when Kelly rode off to Prague in 1588, neither Arthur or his father had ever set eyes on this adventurer again.

He had succeeded in convincing his old friend of the truth of these recollections, for Browne writes of him as "a persevering student in hermeticall philosophy, who had no small encouragement, having see projection made, and with the highest asseverations he confirmed unto his death that he had ocularly, undeceivably and frequently beheld it in Bohemia. And to my knowledge, had not an accident prevented, he had, not many years before his death, retired beyond the sea and fallen upon the solemn process of the great work."

Continuing the correspondence six months later, when additional matter rises to mind, Sir Thomas writes again to Ashmole, in 1675, with more particulars of the "solemn process."

"I was very well acquainted with Dr. Arthur Dee, and at one time or another he has given me some account of the whole course of his life. I have heard the doctor say that he lived in Bohemia with his father, both at Prague and in other parts. That Prince or Count Rosenberg was their great patron, who delighted much in alchemie. I have often heard him affirme, and sometimes with oaths, that he had seen projection made, and transmutation of pewter dishes and flaggons into silver, which the goldsmiths at Prague bought of them. And that Count Rosenberg played at quoits with silver quoits made by projection as before. That this transmutation was made by a powder they had, which was found in some old place, and a book lying by it containing nothing but heiroglyphicks; which book his father bestowed much time upon, but I could not hear that he could make it out. He said also that Kelly dealth not justly by his father, and that he went away with the greatest part of the powder, and was afterwards imprisoned by the Emperor in a castle, from whence attempting to escape down the wall, he fell and broke his leg, and was imprisoned again. That his father, Dr. John Dee, presented Queen Elizabeth with a little of the powder, who having made trial thereof, attempted to get Kelly out of prison, and sent some [persons] to that purpose, who, giving opium in drink unto the keepers, laid them so fast asleep that Kelly found opportunity to attempt an escape; and there were horses readie to carry him away; but the business unhappily succeeded as is before declared. Dr. Arthur Dee was a young man [he was a boy of eight] when he saw this projection made in Bohemia, but he was so inflamed therewith that he fell early upon that study, and read not much all his life but books of that subject; and two years before his death, contracted with one Hunniades, or Hans Hanyar, in London, to be his operator. This Hans Hanyar having lived longin London and growing in yhears, resolved to return into Hungary. He went first to Amsterdam, where he was to remain ten weeks, till Dr. Arthur came to him. the Dr. to my knowledge was serious in this businesse and had provided all in readiness to go, but suddenly he heard that Hans Hanyar was dead."

Arthur's reply, dated Norwich, January 31, 1649 [50], now in the Bodleian Library, begins by expressing regret that "you or any man should take plains to translate any book of that nature into English, for the art is vilified so much already by scholars that daily do deride it, in regard they are ignorant of the principles. How then can it any way be advanced by the vulgar? But to satisfie your question, you may be resolved that he who wrote Euclid's Preface was my father. The Fasciculus, I must cofess, was my labour and work." He ends by saying that he will be in London that day week, and if Ashmole wants to see him, he may hear of him in Butler's Court at the end of Lombard Street, at his son Rowland Dee's warehouse. The writing, and especially the signature of this letter, are good testimonies to the care bestowed by William Camden of Westminster School on the boy's handwriting. His father, as we remember, had asked for special supervision of the roman hand, since matter, poor in itself, but set down in a good style, did, in his opinion, often receive more attention than good material badly written and expressed.

Browne had received from Arthur a complete catalogue of all his father's writings, both finished and intended. But there was one not included, viz., the Book of Mysteries. Sir Thomas, writing in 1675, says he never heard him say one word of "the Book of Spiritts sett out by Dr. Casaubone, which if hee had knowne I make no doubt butt hee would have spoake of it unto mee, for he was very inquisitive after any manuscripts of his father's, and desirous to print as many as he could possibly obtain." He goes on to say that Arthur understood that Sir William Boswell, the English Resident in Holland, owned a number of Dee's MSS., which he had collected and kept in a trunk in his Dutch home. Boswell refused many applications from Arthur for leave to print some of these, which the famous mathematician's son considered should not be locked up from the world. Boswell announced his intention of printing them himse, which of course he never did.

Nor did the Book of Spirits see the light of day during Arthur's lifetime. Perhaps had Casaubon appealed to him as Ashmole had done, it would never have been issued at all. A son would certainly have remonstrated against this revelations, this tearing down the veil from the inner tabernacle of his father's soul.

Voynich (and Brumbaugh) about Baresch

From Brumbaugh, The Most Mysterious Manuscript (pp.135-136):

In looking through cartons of material in the Beinecke Library files, I came across what seems an unaddressed and undated carbon of a translation of a note from Prague to Voynich. [.. ]

This was apparently in response to an inquiry about the identity of the owner who had the manuscript between the death of de Tepenecz and its acquisition by Marci. This was the owner about whom Marci wrote, that he was determined to solve it. The note says that Marci probably inherited the manuscript from George Barschius, an alchemist, since "Marci inherited Barschius' alchemical library."

From Voynich, (letter to Dr. Klicman in Prague), 1921

"... I have come to the conclusion that Marci received it about 1644. Now I have no definite information but it is possible that Marci got the Ms. at the same time that he inherited the alchemical library of Georgius Barschius, some time after 1622. I can find nothing here about Georgius Barschius. Perhaps Bohemian archives contain something about him and his connection with Marcus Marci and what connection, if any existed between Horcicky and Barschius."

Ruysschaert's catalogue of the Mondragone collection (1959)

Excerpts from Ruysschaert's catalogue of the Mondragone collection, which indicates that Voynich did buy some books from the Jesuits, one of which is "our" Voynich MS.

Kraus to Friedman about his visit of Mgr. Ruysschaert

From the carbon copy of a letter from H P Kraus to Col. William F. Friedman dated July 5 1962. The postscript of reads as follows:

"... when I was, a few weeks ago, in the Vatican Library, I found out that the Cipher Manuscript comes from the library of the Collegium Romanum, which was housed in 1911 in the Mandragone Monastery in Frascati. The Vatican Library bought the whole collection and the Cipher Manuscript with the other 17 illuminated manuscripts are still listed in the inventory. This inventory was printed by Ruysschaert – Codices Vaticani latini 11414 – 11709. And on page vii it is mentioned that the Cipher manuscript, together with others, was sold by the Jesuits to Voynich.”

Fletcher about Georg Baresch's correspondence with Kircher

From Johann Marcus Marci writes to Athanasius Kircher, 1972.

In one instance, for example, he forwards a "schaedata" drawn up by Georg BARSCH (51) "certe vir optimus et rerum Chymicarum peritissimus" (Letter 2, v. also Letter 3) whilst on another occasion he frankly submits ....

Note 51 says:
Georg BARSCH had already visited KIRCHER in Rome and on his return to Prague had praised KIRCHER's "opera ingeniosissima" v. PUG. 557 f. 353. Prague, 27 April, 1639.

Acknowledgment

I am indebted to Claudio Antonini for the exerpt of Voynich's letter to Prague which mentions Baresch and to Stefano Casotto for a copy of Ruysschaert. The text in Schmidl was transcribed by Jorge Stolfi. The text in the letter from Kraus to Friedman was kindly provided by Howard Mather.

Or use the browser's BACK button

Copyright René Zandbergen, 2004
Comments, questions, suggestions? Your feedback is welcome.
Latest update: 2004/09/27