31-03-2026, 12:22 AM
Almost all sources describe Wilfrid Voynich's acquisition of the manuscript somewhat ambiguously by stating it happened in "1911/1912". There are some documented references that are believed to refer to the manuscript that put the acquisition by Voynich specifically in 1912. But I am unclear how definitive those references are.
A more definitive source of information is Millicent E. Sowerby who provides a recounting of her meeting and working for Wilfrid Voynich, in her autobiographical book (Rare People and Rare Books). Unfortunately her book contains some certain mistakes of memory on her part.
She states that she was interviewed by Wilfrid Voynich on a Monday and then began working for him one week later on Monday, December 18, 1912. This, however, is certainly incorrect since that particular calendar date was a Wednesday. Given that her (faulty) recollection was for Monday (first day of a work week) and that she is describing both an interview and the starting of a job, and also that it was one week before Christmas which would also be on a Monday -- all this would suggest that her memory was correct on the day of the week, but that it failed her on the year. December 18, 1911, however, was a Monday, and so that is when she very likely when she actually began working at Voynich's London book shop.
She also describes that her very first sight of Voynich (just before he sat her down to interview for the job) :
"He was standing at the far side of a long table covered with a red baize cloth, and was showing to a customer one of the magnificent illuminated manuscripts he had so recently acquired in Europe. "
Later she states:
"As I have said, he had returned from one of these European hunting trips shortly before I joined the staff, and news of the treasures he had found must have been getting about, for we had numbers of visitors, all in a state of eager anticipation... Another treasure that he had found in some ancient castle in Southern Europe was also the cause of great excitement and a large number of scholarly visitors—botanists and astronomers as well as medieval experts. This was the famous Roger Bacon cypher..."
(In the removed text of the first ellipses she describes a book in Cryillic print that he had also brought back from his trip.)
Correcting Sowerby's reference to be 1911, would mean that Voynich acquired the manuscript in mid-to-late 1911 (shortly before Sowerby joined the staff). This would be consistent with Wilfrid's own statement that he made in a letter early in the year 1917, wherein he said he had acquired a large collection of manuscripts, including the Voynich Manuscript, "six years ago." So this would be further evidence that Sowerby got her year wrong and not her day of the week.
On the other hand, Wilfrid stated explicitly in his 1921 lecture that he acquired the collection with the manuscript in 1912. And there seems to be several other sources indicating 1912. (Again I am not sure how definitive those other sources are that it was 1912 and that it was the VMS being referred to.)
Has anyone found a way to reconcile these conflicting statements?
A more definitive source of information is Millicent E. Sowerby who provides a recounting of her meeting and working for Wilfrid Voynich, in her autobiographical book (Rare People and Rare Books). Unfortunately her book contains some certain mistakes of memory on her part.
She states that she was interviewed by Wilfrid Voynich on a Monday and then began working for him one week later on Monday, December 18, 1912. This, however, is certainly incorrect since that particular calendar date was a Wednesday. Given that her (faulty) recollection was for Monday (first day of a work week) and that she is describing both an interview and the starting of a job, and also that it was one week before Christmas which would also be on a Monday -- all this would suggest that her memory was correct on the day of the week, but that it failed her on the year. December 18, 1911, however, was a Monday, and so that is when she very likely when she actually began working at Voynich's London book shop.
She also describes that her very first sight of Voynich (just before he sat her down to interview for the job) :
"He was standing at the far side of a long table covered with a red baize cloth, and was showing to a customer one of the magnificent illuminated manuscripts he had so recently acquired in Europe. "
Later she states:
"As I have said, he had returned from one of these European hunting trips shortly before I joined the staff, and news of the treasures he had found must have been getting about, for we had numbers of visitors, all in a state of eager anticipation... Another treasure that he had found in some ancient castle in Southern Europe was also the cause of great excitement and a large number of scholarly visitors—botanists and astronomers as well as medieval experts. This was the famous Roger Bacon cypher..."
(In the removed text of the first ellipses she describes a book in Cryillic print that he had also brought back from his trip.)
Correcting Sowerby's reference to be 1911, would mean that Voynich acquired the manuscript in mid-to-late 1911 (shortly before Sowerby joined the staff). This would be consistent with Wilfrid's own statement that he made in a letter early in the year 1917, wherein he said he had acquired a large collection of manuscripts, including the Voynich Manuscript, "six years ago." So this would be further evidence that Sowerby got her year wrong and not her day of the week.
On the other hand, Wilfrid stated explicitly in his 1921 lecture that he acquired the collection with the manuscript in 1912. And there seems to be several other sources indicating 1912. (Again I am not sure how definitive those other sources are that it was 1912 and that it was the VMS being referred to.)
Has anyone found a way to reconcile these conflicting statements?