29-06-2024, 10:58 AM
1. Voynichese text, or part of it, contains (semantic) meaning. 90%
2. The contents have been enciphered with simple substitution or something close to it. 10%
3. The contents have been enciphered using a more complex cipher. 85%
4. The contents have been obscured, but not by means of a cipher. 5%
5. The images match the text 80%
6. The plants are meant to refer to real plants 90%
7. The majority of the plants is exotic from a European perspective (Asian, African, American...) 5%
8. The images have been made ambiguous or otherwise strange to conceal their true meaning 10%
9. Alchemy is an important part of the MS. 20%
10. Astronomy and/or astrology are an important part of the MS. 95%
11. Medicine an important part of the MS. 90%
12. The MS is the creative product of one mind, i.e. an author. (Taking into account the possibility that one or more scribes helped to fashion the physical manuscript)
I am inclined to the view that there are multiple authors, though this is in significant part assuming that Lisa Fagin-Davis's work showing multiple scribal hands is correct. 30%
13. The MS is authored by a known historical figure. Let's define "known" as "has a Wikipedia entry".
Given my theory that the Voynich was written by Antonio Barbavara possibly in collaboration with some or all of his brothers Marcolino, Francesco, Giovanni, Pietro, Nicolino. This theory lies on the very edge of "known" Antonio Barbavara does not have his own Wikipedia page, although he is mentioned on the Wikipedia page of the Abbey for which he was Abbot. Giovanni Barbavara does have his own Wikipedia page. Marcolino Barbavara and Francesco Barbavara have quite long biographies on Treccani the Italian historical encyclopedia. On this basis I will say that the author of the Voynich only just fits into the "known" historical figure category, though on the very edge of the category. So on this basis I will give it an 85% of my theory of authorship being correct.
14. One day, we will be able to read the MS. 85%
15. There will be a breakthrough in Voynich studies in 2024-2025. 10%
16. The MS is some kind of hoax (i.e. the main motivation for making it was to deceive others). 5%
17. Have (part of) your views about the MS changed notably over the last few years? Not sure how long "few" is. 10%
2. The contents have been enciphered with simple substitution or something close to it. 10%
3. The contents have been enciphered using a more complex cipher. 85%
4. The contents have been obscured, but not by means of a cipher. 5%
5. The images match the text 80%
6. The plants are meant to refer to real plants 90%
7. The majority of the plants is exotic from a European perspective (Asian, African, American...) 5%
8. The images have been made ambiguous or otherwise strange to conceal their true meaning 10%
9. Alchemy is an important part of the MS. 20%
10. Astronomy and/or astrology are an important part of the MS. 95%
11. Medicine an important part of the MS. 90%
12. The MS is the creative product of one mind, i.e. an author. (Taking into account the possibility that one or more scribes helped to fashion the physical manuscript)
I am inclined to the view that there are multiple authors, though this is in significant part assuming that Lisa Fagin-Davis's work showing multiple scribal hands is correct. 30%
13. The MS is authored by a known historical figure. Let's define "known" as "has a Wikipedia entry".
Given my theory that the Voynich was written by Antonio Barbavara possibly in collaboration with some or all of his brothers Marcolino, Francesco, Giovanni, Pietro, Nicolino. This theory lies on the very edge of "known" Antonio Barbavara does not have his own Wikipedia page, although he is mentioned on the Wikipedia page of the Abbey for which he was Abbot. Giovanni Barbavara does have his own Wikipedia page. Marcolino Barbavara and Francesco Barbavara have quite long biographies on Treccani the Italian historical encyclopedia. On this basis I will say that the author of the Voynich only just fits into the "known" historical figure category, though on the very edge of the category. So on this basis I will give it an 85% of my theory of authorship being correct.
14. One day, we will be able to read the MS. 85%
15. There will be a breakthrough in Voynich studies in 2024-2025. 10%
16. The MS is some kind of hoax (i.e. the main motivation for making it was to deceive others). 5%
17. Have (part of) your views about the MS changed notably over the last few years? Not sure how long "few" is. 10%
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)