02-02-2026, 04:56 AM
(This post was last modified: 02-02-2026, 02:41 PM by asteckley.
Edit Reason: Corrected spelling of poor Wilfred's name.
)
I’ll admit that over the past few months my attention has been taken up by that smaller part of our lives on Earth that is unrelated to the Voynich Manuscript, so forgive me if I’ve missed something critical in this long-running discussion. That said, I’m genuinely confused about something:
What actual evidence—however weak or strong—has been presented in all of this discussion about the transactions of the Jesuits, the Vatican, Voynich, and other figures, that demonstrates that the Voynich Manuscript (or even it's accompanying Marci letter for that matter) was a part of those collections of manuscripts and letters -- and that, consequently, it existed before Voynich himself owned it? (And I'm talking specifically about those aforementioned people, events, and documents, -- not the Kircher/Marci/Baresh letters of the 17th century which are a separate matter.)
"Evidence", in this case, would have to be concrete data: words, drawings, descriptions in letters, line items in bills of sale, inventories, or other documents, that specifically refer to Voynich's manuscript in some identifiable way -- something that actually ties the manuscript to all those events and people being discussed. All their secrecy and motives may be historically intriguing in their own right, but the fact remains still, after all this back and forth, that the only thing that puts the Voynich Manuscript into that arena are Wilfrid's own words. (And, as has been pointed out before, his claims and motivations were, at very least, suspect.)
Without documentation from someone, somewhere, that clearly points to this particular manuscript, the debate feels substantively off-track, however deceptively relevant it may appear.
It is possible that the secrecy of the Jesuits, the movement of manuscripts, and the exchange of letters all occurred exactly as some suggest. It’s equally possible that none of it happened as described, as others have argued. But regardless of which version is true, none of this constitutes meaningful evidence that they even physically included the Voynich Manuscript.
We might just as well argue about whether a pocket watch produced from Wilfrid’s jacket after his return to London in 1912 was a centuries-old artifact or simply a trinket that he bought from a local watchmaker on his way back the train station. Without direct, specific documentation linking the manuscript to the documents being handled by the various players back in Italy, these narratives carry no evidentiary weight.
So what am I missing?
What actual evidence—however weak or strong—has been presented in all of this discussion about the transactions of the Jesuits, the Vatican, Voynich, and other figures, that demonstrates that the Voynich Manuscript (or even it's accompanying Marci letter for that matter) was a part of those collections of manuscripts and letters -- and that, consequently, it existed before Voynich himself owned it? (And I'm talking specifically about those aforementioned people, events, and documents, -- not the Kircher/Marci/Baresh letters of the 17th century which are a separate matter.)
"Evidence", in this case, would have to be concrete data: words, drawings, descriptions in letters, line items in bills of sale, inventories, or other documents, that specifically refer to Voynich's manuscript in some identifiable way -- something that actually ties the manuscript to all those events and people being discussed. All their secrecy and motives may be historically intriguing in their own right, but the fact remains still, after all this back and forth, that the only thing that puts the Voynich Manuscript into that arena are Wilfrid's own words. (And, as has been pointed out before, his claims and motivations were, at very least, suspect.)
Without documentation from someone, somewhere, that clearly points to this particular manuscript, the debate feels substantively off-track, however deceptively relevant it may appear.
It is possible that the secrecy of the Jesuits, the movement of manuscripts, and the exchange of letters all occurred exactly as some suggest. It’s equally possible that none of it happened as described, as others have argued. But regardless of which version is true, none of this constitutes meaningful evidence that they even physically included the Voynich Manuscript.
We might just as well argue about whether a pocket watch produced from Wilfrid’s jacket after his return to London in 1912 was a centuries-old artifact or simply a trinket that he bought from a local watchmaker on his way back the train station. Without direct, specific documentation linking the manuscript to the documents being handled by the various players back in Italy, these narratives carry no evidentiary weight.
So what am I missing?