VMs: Re: Voynich & Baresch, boring(?) historical detals

["Rafal T. Prinke" <rafalp@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Rene Zandbergen wrote:

> > But he was certainly alive still in 1639 and 1640
> > (letters by himself and Marci, respectively [...]
> > So the death of  Baresch (and inheritance of the
> > VMS by Marci) can now be dated to between 1640
> > and 1662.
> 
> Even after 1641, see letter 3 of 12 January, where
> Baresch is mentioned in the same breath as Santinus(!)

Yes, I forgot about that one (I have now found it on the old
site at:

    http://193.206.220.68/kircher/aspimage.asp?ID=1442

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? His titulature "R.P." [Reverendissimus Pater?]
indicates a church person. And note that Baresch is titled
"Dominus" - which confirms our earlier suspicion that
his "M." elsewhere may not be "Monachus" but rather "Magister".
He was certainly not a monk or priest.

The "Dominus Comes Bernardus" in the sentence before that
is count Bernard Ignac z Martinic I mentioned earlier,
who held conversations with Marci about philosophy etc.

> Now Baresch' birth should therefore be dated between
> 1571 and 1592 (compare de Tepenecz 1575 and
> Marci 1595) but the latter date is too high since he
> went to the Sapienza in 1605. A life span of
> 1585 - 1655 cannot be more than 5 years off the
> mark, in my opinion. 

I would say 1590 should be the latest for his birth
(he wrote that he was "preparing" for the Sapientia in 1605
which may mean entering the university - which may be possible
at 15 but not very likely unless his family was quite rich)
but 1585 is more probable.

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

> The Kircher letters could still
> tell us more (maybe there is a letter mentioning his
> death) since there is also still that strange remark
> by Fletcher about Baresch' visit to Kircher.

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?

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"? I found the letter at:

    http://193.206.220.68/kircher/aspimage.asp?ID=7722
    http://193.206.220.68/kircher/aspimage.asp?ID=7723

and following, with the above quote at the bottom of:

    http://193.206.220.68/kircher/aspimage.asp?ID=7724

and it goes on to:

    http://193.206.220.68/kircher/aspimage.asp?ID=7725

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

Best regards,

Rafal