Discussion of Voynich MS-related theories

[Mark Knowles]

Of course I still have some theories. I just don't talk about them a lot.

I think not talking about theories is not necessarily a good idea.

When it comes to the authorship of the MS, I suspect that this is someone who is either barely know, or not known at all, from other historical sources.
Now this is an example of a theory that is not based on any data. It is just something that makes sense in a statistical manner. It is like a hunch. Many theories that are discussed here and elsewhere fall in the same category, i.e. not based on data but on hunches.

On the basis of my theory it is clear that the key author is not well known though he is documented in the historical record, so on that basis I am inclined to concur. I suppose it depends what you mean precisely by "barely known".

I have a theory who sold the MS to Rudolf. This is based on data, but it is not confirmed.

Nevertheless it would be interesting to hear even if it is just speculation. Even if you are wrong it might give others an idea as to what the right answer might be, so you should not shy away of presenting an idea just because there is a possibility that it is wrong, I certainly wouldn't.

I have a well advanced theory about what happened with the MS between 1870 and 1912, and where it was in the intervening time. This is based on a very large amount of documented facts, but also stories that could be just rumours. I have adapted it several times, and I had to ditch my (at the time) highly favoured theory in front of conflicting evidence.

For me personally these kind of historical details have very little interest, though I appreciate others are interested in them. From my perspective what happened with the MS between 1870 and 1912 is about as interesting as Professor Brumbaugh's favourite brand of shoe polish, but there is no reason why other people should not be interested in this.