(14-06-2026, 07:44 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.So, the theory goes, Wilfrid manipulated things to make that claim seem more likely.
But this is really more likely. What, however, was Wilfrid's motive? It seems to me that he did not try to inflate its value, but he might have tried to attract the attention of specialists to it by claiming that it was written by Roger Bacon.
(14-06-2026, 12:41 PM)ololololo Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.What, however, was Wilfrid's motive? It seems to me that he did not try to inflate its value, but he might have tried to attract the attention of specialists to it by claiming that it was written by Roger Bacon.
He was an antique books dealer, not a scholar. AFAIK he (and his successor Kraus)
did try to sell the book as a probable Bacon original, for the corresponding price.
I suppose that he honestly believed the Bacon claim at first. My guess is that he first knew about Marci's letter, including Raphael's claim, through Strickland or other Jesuits who had access to the hidden stash of Kircher's stuff. Smelling the book deal of his lifetime, he then convinced the Jesuits to sell him the book, disguised among a couple dozen other "ordinary" ones.
Whether he continued believing the Bacon origin to the end is more doubtful. All Bacon experts he consulted must have told him "no way, absolutely not".
Maybe he went through a process that I have seen happen with many inventors turned scammers more recently. Like Pons and Fleischmann and Elizabeth Holmes. Namely, when further research showed that their big discovery or invention was a dud, instead of admitting it (and thus losing all the perks they had obtained from it), or shifting into outright fraudster mode, they convinced themselves internally that the facts were no longer important and that truth was defined by belief, not by external reality. Thus they just had to continue to defend their original claim, carefully avoiding any thoughts that would have led away from it...
So perhaps Wilfrid
did forge the You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. "signature and/or removed problematic pages, but all the time telling himself that he was only helping others see what he was convinced was the truth...
All the best, --stolfi
(13-06-2026, 07:52 PM)Jimmy123 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Do you think it is impossible that some theory is correct? Do you think that one theory is impossible? Please share your thoughts
I don't rule out anything, almost literally anything. I can't possibly know enough to cover every single possibility, so I will never rule anything out. To do so has the possibility of dismissing the solution when/if I come across it.
So I don't
completely rule out substitution in some unknown way, or gibberish, or a hoax theory, or that it's a far older work, or a far newer work, or that it's from the americas, africa, asia or even, believe it or not, Bigfoot's personal diary of his favourite plants and his research on human women.
The only theories I rule out are specific theories that are not logically consistent, or rely on verifiably incorrect information.
I was also thinking that I don't want to rule out any class of theory, even if I think the likelihood is extremely small of them being useful.
But apart from dumb stuff like bigfoot or fairies, there may be one exception, which is basically any theory that would lead to a million different translations if done by a million different people. Like any substitution theory with interpretative steps. That's just creative writing.
(14-06-2026, 03:17 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.All Bacon experts he consulted must have told him "no way, absolutely not".
This is not what happened, at all! In reality he found a lot of support from highly respectable people in the book and library world.
There were also a few detractors, not very many and not very loud, but people who are fixated on a theory tend not to be easily convinced by these.....
I just hope it is not boring.
A proof of concept for mass producing manuscripts with a small team that was quickly dispatched by the printing press.
All the text is just to fill space, the drawings are quick sketches of other stuff they had on hand, but later "fiddled with" to look weird.
Something like this. A total "nothing burger".
I'd like it to be anything else.
(14-06-2026, 11:18 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (14-06-2026, 03:17 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.All Bacon experts he consulted must have told him "no way, absolutely not".
This is not what happened, at all! In reality he found a lot of support from highly respectable people in the book and library world.
Rene, could you explain where there is evidence that Wilfrid received a lot of support from highly respectable people?
I have little to no expertise regarding Bacon’s work, but my understanding has always been that no plausible evidence was ever offered, by Wilfrid or anyone else, to connect the manuscript to Roger Bacon. As far as I know, the claim rested mainly on a presumed date of origin, for which there was no real evidence (and which of course later proved to be incorrect), and on the fact that the manuscript appeared to involve some kind of encryption. But encryption was hardly a feature that would point specifically to Bacon.
In fact, my understanding is that the manuscript seemed to argue against a Bacon attribution, since it is visibly unlike Bacon’s known work.
Given that, I find it hard to believe that any serious scholar, when faced with Wilfrid’s claim that the manuscript was by Bacon, would not have said something like “no way, absolutely not.” It seems even harder to believe that they would have supported the claim.
(14-06-2026, 11:55 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.but my understanding has always been that no plausible evidence was ever offered, by Wilfrid or anyone else, to connect the manuscript to Roger Bacon.
Whether or not his arguments were plausible is of course a different question. He managed to convince a lot of people.
The idea that this is not a Bacon MS really only gained traction after Voynich's death.
People supporting him (and Newbold) included You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. , You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. , You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
(15-06-2026, 04:13 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (14-06-2026, 11:55 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.but my understanding has always been that no plausible evidence was ever offered, by Wilfrid or anyone else, to connect the manuscript to Roger Bacon.
Whether or not his arguments were plausible is of course a different question. He managed to convince a lot of people.
The idea that this is not a Bacon MS really only gained traction after Voynich's death.
People supporting him (and Newbold) included You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
So you are saying that those people expressed concurrence with Wilfrid's claim that Bacon was the author?
(Where?)