“Despite his best efforts, Voynich never sold the manuscript. It spent 30 years in a bank vault after the bookseller died in 1930. In 1961, rare-book dealer Hans Peter (“H.P.”) Kraus bought it from Anne Nill, Voynich’s former secretary and confidant, for $24,500 plus half the proceeds of any future sale. Unable to sell the manuscript, Kraus donated it to the Beinecke Library in 1969.”
–Mike Cummings, YaleNews, April 24, 2017
The American history of the Voynich Manuscript is reasonably well documented. From articles like the one cited above, we learn that Hans Peter Kraus, a Viennese bookseller, owned the manuscript from 1961 until 1969.
Early Years
Ellis Island immigrant station courtesy of the U.S. Library of Congress.
Kraus was a Buchenwald survivor who, after a stay in Sweden, traveled to the U.S. in 1939, leaving behind tens of thousands of precious manuscripts from his antiquarian business in Austria.
He had a particular interest in manuscripts produced before the year 1500 and one can only wonder at what gems he was forced to abandon. After arriving in New York, Kraus rebuilt his business and his reputation as a keen-eyed collector and trader of books and acquired the Voynich Manuscript for a sum equal to the price of a new house and car.
While it was in his possession, Kraus made efforts to learn more about the Voynich Manuscript, traveling to Europe and visiting the Vatican Library in 1962, as documented on www.voynich.nu, If he could confirm that the author was Roger Bacon, it would not only establish the antiquity of the volume, but would give it the celebrity appeal that could garner a good price.
It is said Kraus made efforts to sell the VMS, but less is known about this aspect of the VMS’s history than others, since many antiquarian communications are by word of mouth. Dealers, especially those dealing in rare and collectible objects, often have a number of elite clients who receive news of new acquisitions before they are offered to the public.
Kraus didn’t rely entirely on walk-in business or word-of-mouth. He was also an effective print promoter. I happened across an auction catalog that makes a brief mention of the VMS in 1966, when it was still being called the Roger Bacon Cipher Manuscript. Here is a summary of the auction listing (the reference to the VMS has been bolded):
Lot Number: 178 Title: Miniatura
…H.P Kraus (New York) Fifty mediaeval and Renaissance manuscripts. catal. ii, pp.XII, 114 Thirty-five manuscripts. Including the St. Blasien Psalter, the Llangattock Hours, the Gotha Missal, the Roger Bacon (Voynich) Cipher Ms., catal. 100, pp. 90.24 x 12. Manuscripts + books, catal. 115, 1966. pp. 196….
It has been erroneously posted on the Web that this was a listing for the VMS to be auctioned off but that it didn’t sell. I think this is a misreading of the auction listing.
The publication mentioned in the auction is not the manuscript itself, but a catalog called Thirty-Five Manuscripts, Including the St. Blasien Psalter, the Llangattock Hours, the Gotha Missal, the Roger Bacon (Voynich) Cipher Ms. It was published by Kraus to promote the sale of some of his more prominent items, including the Voynich Manuscript, which was described at the time as being about 700 years old. Kraus produced at least half a dozen significant catalogs between 1956 and 1978 (and apparently many more that are lesser known, totaling more than 200).
Summary
I have not seen the catalog, it is difficult to find, but it is a cloth-bound hardback with 87 pages and 41+ illustrations, published in January 1962, and is said to be well annotated. I would be curious to know how Kraus described the VMS. A quick search of the Web revealed only a few copies of Thirty-Five Manuscripts available for purchase or viewing. Here are some examples:
- A copy in the holdings of the U.S. Library of Congress. Unfortunately, whoever borrowed it in Jan. 2016 neglected to return it, as it is listed as overdue.
- Abebooks lists three copies, one of which is a repeat of the copy on Amazon, and one which has library markings (should we be suspicious of its origin? ).
- A used copy on Amazon.com for $195.
- A copy available, by request, to view in the reading room of the National Library of Australia.
Even with this kind of promotion, apparently no one was interested in the odd little volume, as it was donated, unsold, to the Yale library in 1969. Whether the lack of a sale was because potential buyers doubted the authenticity of the manuscript, or its speculative provenance, or whether it was because the asked-for price was more than they cared to risk is unknown, but interest in this unique work has not declined in the intervening years. It still whispers to the curious among us about secrets as yet to be discovered.
J.K. Petersen
© Copyright 2017 J.K. Petersen, All Rights Reserved
Hello JKP,
the library of congress copy was “present” at the Folger meeting on 7 November 2014. The description was read out in part. I don’t have this text.
One interesting aspect of this particular catalogue is, that there are reportedly no prices.
It includes all of his top items, and the approach was that those who had to ask, automatically disqualified as buyers.
You may also be interested in Kraus’ autobiography, which should be easier to find, and has a section dedicated to the Voynich MS.
I have a copy, but there’s not much to learn from it.
Hi JKP,
I’m away and won’t be back at my library till next month, so I can’t check right now, but from memory I don’t recall Krauss going into much detail about the process of trying to sell it.
I can only refer you back to the quote from the Kraus autobiography I posted on the forum in the “Why Yale?” thread about Kraus’ experience trying to sell it:
p. 222: “Many clients, mostly scholars, expressed interest, but nobody bought. I felt like Voynich, who had held the manuscript for such a long time. Dozens of scholars wanted to see it, others asked for photos. Institutions asked to have it on loan. I had to decline all such requests, to preserve its commercial value. There were no buyers.”
Thank you, René, Nick, and VViews. Even though Kraus was a late arrival in the VMS history, there may be Voynich researchers interested in this part of the manuscript’s journey and I appreciate the additional information and prior references you provided.
Kraus was still a youngster in Austria when Voynich died, so they clearly never met. However, Kraus did meet Tammaro De Marinis who knew Voynich in 1911/1912, and who bought some of the books that Voynich obtained from the Jesuits.
This was at the same occasion that Kraus met Ruysschaert in the Vatican library.
You may have already seen this part:
http://www.voynich.nu/extra/trivia.html#tr06
A son and a daughter of Kraus were present at the official presentation of the Yale facsimile in New Haven, some time last year. (I wasn’t)
-JKP- Thanks for this post, and for including the fact that Kraus dated it to about the late twelfth century. It adds to the list of specialists who had first-hand experience of a great many medieval mss and who dated it to the late twelfth or thirteenth century.
To dismiss such opinions as ‘wrong’ has always struck me as a little facile, and I’ve been to some efforts to discover which aspects of the manuscript – vellum’s finish, or style of drawing, ornament, script etc – so consistently resulted in that assessment. Very interesting problem, whose exploration turned up a surprising number of (ahem) illuminating new insights.
But thanks for adding Kraus’ name to my list. I didn’t know he’d said that.
I haven’t seen the contents of Thirty-Nine Manuscripts, so I don’t know whether Kraus ascribed a specific date or date range to the Voynich Manuscript other than to promote it as a “Roger Bacon” cipher manuscript.
Most of Bacon’s scholarly activities occurred in the mid- to late-13th century, which predates the publication of Thirty-Five Manuscripts by about 700 years (a number that was broadly disseminated in a 1962 article in the New York Times).
Kraus had a great expert in his team: Hellmut Lehmann-Haupt.
We can’t be at all sure what was Kraus’ own opinion. A sales catalogue is not as reliable a source as a curatorial description, as Voynich once jokingly wrote in his own sales catalogue.
However, we do know what were Lehmann-Haupt’s considerations about the MS.
They have been recorded in D’Imperio.
“… around, or little after, the year 1400”.
-JKP –
just a technical note.
Rather than saying that Kraus’ efforts are ‘documented by voynich.nu’ it is more appropriate to direct readers to the original item e.g. ‘as documented by a letter from Kraus to William Friedman, dated July 5th., 1962.’ and then to add details of where the original document is presently kept, and then to add, if you can, any catalogue details (such as acquisition- or shelf-number) which will assist a researcher of the serious sort, able and willing to read original sources for facts and for opinions.
By all means then add whatever second- or third-level references you like, especially if they are ones that you’ve depended on, but the aim should be to allow readers to have a clear idea of the line between the documentation and others’ repetition, reproduction, edition etc. of that material.
As a model of meticulous form and standards, you might like to look over Philip Neal’s pages e.g.
http://philipneal.net/voynichsources/
O’Donovan wrote: “Rather than saying that Kraus’ efforts are ‘documented by voynich.nu’ it is more appropriate to direct readers to the original item e.g. ‘as documented by a letter from Kraus to William Friedman, dated July 5th., 1962.’ and then to add details of where the original document is presently kept, and then to add, if you can, any catalogue details (such as acquisition- or shelf-number) which will assist a researcher of the serious sort, able and willing to read original sources for facts and for opinions.”
If I did that, I would be duplicating the information and links on the Voynich.nu site and I don’t have time for that.
This blog is not specifically about Kraus, the biographical information provides context for the main focus: interpretation of the catalog entry.
I cannot devote time to primary research on behalf of other researchers—they will have to do the legwork themselves. Also, voynich.nu has additional information that might be of interest to readers, so it doesn’t hurt to make them aware of the site.
.
O’Donovan: “By all means then add whatever second- or third-level references you like, especially if they are ones that you’ve depended on, but the aim should be to allow readers to have a clear idea of the line between the documentation and others’ repetition, reproduction, edition etc. of that material.”
I rarely depend on second- or third-level references. I try to go to original sources (or scans) whenever possible. However, on subjects that are sidelines (as in the case of this blog), or for which the information is already well documented by other researchers, I will include a reference for those who are interested and they can take it from there.
My main interests are the text and the plants. The only reason I blogged about this side issue is because I had noticed Voynich researchers misinterpreting the reference to “Fifty mediaeval and Renaissance manuscripts” as a catchall phrase for an auction lot (which included the VMS) rather than as a catalog title and that’s a mistake that needs to be rectified.