12-07-2026, 12:25 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-07-2026, 12:47 PM by Mark Knowles.)
I ask myself what would I need to find to prove authorship of the Voynich manuscript.
It would be great if I could find an enciphered letter sent to or from Antonio Barbavara for diplomatic purposes or a diplomatic cipher key used by him in correspondence if something of the kind survives in an archive somewhere. However, that wouldn't prove authorship as the cipher key would probably not have the same set of glyphs we see in the Voynich. And the value for handwriting comparison would probably be limited.
If I could find evidence that Antonio had written a herbal manuscript that would be interesting, but it would not prove that he wrote the Voynich.
If I could find evidence that he had written a cipher manuscript I think that would be proof, although I am sure some others would not consider that sufficient proof. And if the manuscript was intended to be private and secret then there may not be obvious references to it.
If one could locate a page associated with Antonio Barbavara in the style of the Voynich manuscript then that would be significant, but no such page may survive.
Similarly proving that he didn't write the Voynich manuscript would be very difficult.
That is why my current line of research has been largely focused on uncovering more examples of early 15th century cryptography in general. It is why I have been keen to located ciphers written by Francesco II Barbavara, Ducal Secretary to Filippo Maria Visconti. As I hope that these might provide more insights into the Voynich cipher. Clearly being able to decipher the Voynich could help provide clues to its authorship.
It would be great if I could find an enciphered letter sent to or from Antonio Barbavara for diplomatic purposes or a diplomatic cipher key used by him in correspondence if something of the kind survives in an archive somewhere. However, that wouldn't prove authorship as the cipher key would probably not have the same set of glyphs we see in the Voynich. And the value for handwriting comparison would probably be limited.
If I could find evidence that Antonio had written a herbal manuscript that would be interesting, but it would not prove that he wrote the Voynich.
If I could find evidence that he had written a cipher manuscript I think that would be proof, although I am sure some others would not consider that sufficient proof. And if the manuscript was intended to be private and secret then there may not be obvious references to it.
If one could locate a page associated with Antonio Barbavara in the style of the Voynich manuscript then that would be significant, but no such page may survive.
Similarly proving that he didn't write the Voynich manuscript would be very difficult.
That is why my current line of research has been largely focused on uncovering more examples of early 15th century cryptography in general. It is why I have been keen to located ciphers written by Francesco II Barbavara, Ducal Secretary to Filippo Maria Visconti. As I hope that these might provide more insights into the Voynich cipher. Clearly being able to decipher the Voynich could help provide clues to its authorship.