VMs: Re: Voynich & Baresch, historical detals

[Rene Zandbergen <r_zandbergen@xxxxxxxxx>]

My original reply, which I accidentally sent
to voynich@xxxxxxxx seems to have gone lost, so
here goes again...

--- "Rafal T. Prinke" <rafalp@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Rene Zandbergen wrote:

> > Even after 1641, see letter 3 of 12 January, where
> > Baresch is mentioned in the same breath as
> > Santinus(!)

> [...]
> The interesting thing is that both are called
> "amici communes" which I interpret as "our mutual
> friends". But who was Santinus? Wasn't he the
> provincial of Soc. Jes. who carried the VMS to
> Rome? 

Not yet :-)
But he may have been the 'certain religious person'
who carried Baresch' first letter (now lost) to
Kircher.
Maybe they are correspondence friends, or maybe they
met...
Marci mentions Santinus immediately after Baresch
in his 1662 book. He too seems to have died by
then.

> And how did you arrive at 1571 as the earliest date?

He was alive in 1641, so I subtracted the 70 years
life span which Marci reports (but could of course
be off by up to 2 years due to rounding).

> This is strange - as he (Fletcher) makes a
> reference to the well known to us 27 April 1639
> letter of Baresch as if it contained any hint
> about his visit to Rome - but it certainly
> does not?

A mistake by Fletcher, but is it a mistaken letter
reference, or a mistaken identity? I know from
M.J. Gorman that Fletcher had only little time
with the letters and had to work largely from his
notes.

> Interestingly, Fletcher's footnote before that one
> says:
> 
>     In 1633 the eminent French humanist FABRI de
> PEIRESC, in 
>     forwarding to KIRCHER, a sketch of letters
> engraved on 
>     the sword of GUSTAVUS ADOLPHUS , pointed out
> that they: 
>     "ne sont pas sans qudq rapport d'ailleurs de vos
> alphabets 
>     de Barachias, si la memoire no me trompe" v.
> PUG. 568 f. 364. 
>     Aix, 30 March 1633., 
> 
> My French (or rather lack of it) does not let me
> understand
> what "Barachias" may stand for here? Can't it be
> corrupted
> "Barschius"? 

1633 is very early, Kircher was only just in Rome
and had only a few correspondents. Baresch
was prompted to write Kircher after the 1636
appearance of the book on Hieroglyphics/Coptic.
So I am afraid it is not more than a tantalising
coincidence.

> but can't see the sketch of any engraved letters.

It is more a rule than an exception that such
attachments with transcriptions and drawings are
lost. There should have been up to four (!)
transcriptions from the VMs in the correspondence,
but we have none.

Rafal, didn't I once see a copy of this sword
somewhere on your web site? Or is it another one...

Cheers, Rene

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more
http://games.yahoo.com/