<![CDATA[The Voynich Ninja - Provenance & history]]>

<![CDATA[The Voynich Ninja - Provenance & history]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/ Sun, 25 Oct 2026 02:16:40 +0000 MyBB <![CDATA[New missing piece: Córdoba?]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-6236.html Thu, 22 Oct 2026 15:13:51 +0000 todihk]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-6236.html New missing piece: Córdoba?
While researching the “primer analogy”, looking more closely into Bessarion, and following historical references in the Voynich forum, I came across Fernando de Córdoba almost by accident.

Core idea
Fernando de Córdoba's De artificio omnis et investigandi et inveniendi natura scibilis may provide a historical comparison to the structure of the Voynich Manuscript that has so far received surprisingly little attention.
This is explicitly not an attempt to declare Córdoba the author of the Voynich Manuscript, nor to claim that his work provides a direct key to Voynich.
The more interesting question is whether the general, multi-layered and combinatorial method described by Fernando shows functional similarities to structures that are already known in the Voynich Manuscript or are currently being investigated.

Facts about Fernando de Córdoba's De artificio omnis et investigandi et inveniendi natura scibilis and the structure of the Voynich Manuscript
According to Fernando's own account, Bessarion explicitly instructed him to interrupt his ongoing study of Plato and Aristotle and work instead on the De artificio.
The work was dedicated to Bessarion in 1468/69. The exact date of Bessarion's original request is unknown.
→ Could Bessarion at this point already have had an idea related to “Voynich”, or even had access to an already existing Voynich Manuscript?
Highly hypothetical.
Fernando describes his goal as a:

Quote:“unica et indivisibilis ars”

In other words, a single and indivisible method.
Its basic idea can roughly be described as:

Quote:“I am developing a method by which the possible questions, concepts, relationships, proofs and conclusions relating to any field of knowledge can be generated systematically.”

So the aim is not simply to collect existing knowledge, but to create a systematic procedure or rule-based method through which knowledge can be investigated and generated.

The basic system
Córdoba distinguishes, among other things, 25 transcendental determinations:
perfection, quantity, possibility/power, duration, rest, force, inclination, being or non-being, mediation, limit, principle, degree, order, unity, number, positive, privative, habit, measure, and so on.
From these, theoretically:
25 × 25 = 625 possible combinations
can be produced.
In addition, there are 31 absolute perfections.
These are organised using basic distinctions such as:
absolute / relative
substance / accident
real / rational
simply / in a certain respect
act / potency
simple / composite
necessary / contingent
infinite / finite
independent / dependent
positive / negative
identical / different
If there is any relation to the Voynich Manuscript, its own system could of course contain a completely different number of such “categories”.
The numbers 25 and 31 are therefore not meant to be transferred directly to Voynich. They belong first and foremost to Córdoba's own system.

Llull, Scotus and Aristotle
According to Rafael Ramis Barceló, the work is not simply inspired by Lullism, but represents a strong connection between Llull and Scotism.
Scotus is one of the most prominent scholastic authors in the work. The Scotists are even the most frequently mentioned philosophical school.
In simplified terms, one could say:
Llull mainly provides the idea of the method.
Scotus provides a large part of its philosophical fine structure.
Aristotle is also an important basis for the logical and demonstrative structure.
One important difference from Llull himself is that Córdoba's system does not necessarily require combinatorial wheels.
Combination is not abandoned. It is transformed and integrated more strongly into a logical, scholastic system of investigation and demonstration.

Antecedent, consequence and relationships
In the second book, Fernando develops rules for:
antecedent, consequence, agreement, difference, opposition and relationships between concepts.
Bonilla counts, among other things, 85 possible rules of comparison.
Fernando is strongly influenced here by Aristotle, particularly the Topics and the syllogistic tradition:
premise → conclusion
Combination is therefore not removed; it is made logically traceable.
One might say that:

Quote:Fernando turns the Lullian combinatorial machine more strongly into a scholastic search and demonstration machine based on Aristotelian philosophy.

Fernando also describes a procedure by which one can move from concepts to their consequences, antecedents, opposites and so on.
In a sense, this allows one to move through a space of relationships.
The principle is not:
A + B + C = secret meaning
but rather:
A has relation R to B.
B includes C.
C contradicts D.
D belongs to class E.
This produces a rule-governed catalogue of concepts — obviously not in our modern mathematical terminology, but functionally similar.
This particular point may be considerably more interesting for Voynich than the search for a simple, classical cipher.

A small basic inventory can generate an enormous space of possibilities
Fernando himself makes some remarkable claims.
By combining transcendental concepts + related concepts + subordinate concepts + question forms + rules, he says that an enormous number of possible arguments can be generated for a single question.
At one point, he speaks of more than 60,000 possible lines of argument.
This does not mean that a medieval scholar would have had to write out 60,000 possibilities.
It simply means:

Quote:A small, finite inventory of rules and basic elements can create a very large space of possible states.

And this is structurally important.
A system based on such procedures could outwardly generate a very large number of different “words” or combinations even if the underlying grammar consisted of relatively few elements.
This is obviously not evidence that Voynich works this way.
But it does provide a historical mechanism that makes this general type of behaviour understandable.

From universal concepts to concrete things
It becomes even more interesting when Fernando moves from universal concepts toward more concrete things.
He begins with general categories and then moves increasingly toward specific classes.
The surviving description includes, among other things:
the heavens, elements, seas, rivers, mountains, winds, stones, fish, animals, birds, etc.
This suggests that the “universal Ars” was not intended simply as philosophy reflecting on itself.
It was meant to be applied to real domains of knowledge and objects in nature.
The basic scheme would therefore look roughly like this:

Code:
universal operators
→ general categories
→ field of knowledge
→ concrete class of objects
→ concrete object
→ questions
→ relationships
→ possible conclusions

This comes surprisingly close to a formal system for organising knowledge.

The ten questions
In the third part, Fernando shows how one is supposed to find all possible questions relating to a given object.
To do this, the ten types of questions are combined with the different levels of concepts and categories.
For example:

Code:
quid + plant
quare + plant
quantum + plant
ubi + plant
cum quo + plant

and then the same procedure is repeated with subclasses and properties.
The system therefore does not merely generate answers.
It first generates the space of possible questions.
As a theoretical idea, this is extremely important.
Fernando is attempting to formalise the process of scientific investigation itself.

The later parts of the system
The final parts are shorter or less completely developed.
Fernando attempts to establish:

[]how the objects belonging to a science can be derived from the subject of that science,[]how possible conclusions can then be produced,
and how tracing the antecedents backwards can eventually lead to the first principles of that science.

From a modern point of view, this could roughly be written as:

Code:
object → properties → relationships → questions → propositions → consequences → first principles

This gives the whole work an almost algorithmic form.
Not an algorithm in the modern mathematical sense, but a rule-based workflow.

The problem of the missing Practica
This leads to one of the most interesting problems in the transmission of the work.
Fernando repeatedly refers to a “Practica” or “Exercitatio”, in which the application of the Artificium was apparently supposed to be demonstrated in practice.
He even states that certain things would be explained there by means of examples or viva voce — orally.
This practical elaboration has not survived.
Whether it was ever fully developed as a separate work cannot currently be established with certainty.
Bonilla explicitly points out in his edition that Fernando repeatedly refers to this Practica or Exercitatio. No separate, completely preserved practical work is known.
This means:

Quote:We largely possess the rulebook, but apparently not the complete exercise or application book.

For Voynich, this gap is methodologically important.
We should therefore not make the mistake of claiming that Voynich is Fernando's lost Practica.
There is absolutely no evidence for that.
What we can say is:

Quote:At present, we do not know what a practically applied Cordoban system would have looked like on the page.

And for that reason, we should not automatically expect its practical application to resemble a theoretical Latin treatise.

The early Bessarion copy in the Marciana
The important early Bessarion copy of the De artificio is now held in the Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana:
Marc. Lat. Z. 481 (=1915), fols. 4r–88v.
It contains Bessarion's ex libris and his coat of arms.
At present, I have not found a freely accessible complete online viewer for this codex.
It is therefore currently not possible to check directly whether this early copy contains, besides text, initials and decoration, any schematic, tabular or other visual forms of organisation.
A direct examination of this manuscript would therefore be particularly interesting for the Voynich comparison.

And Plato?
This is where Bessarion becomes important.
As mentioned earlier, according to Fernando's own account, Bessarion caused him to interrupt his work on Plato and Aristotle and instead write the De artificio.
This fits remarkably well with Bessarion's intellectual environment and with the way in which, between Byzantine traditions influenced by Aristotle, Plato and Plethon, he did not simply want to discard Aristotle and replace him with Plato.
The aim was to compare knowledge and, where possible, to “reconcile” it.
Technically, however, Fernando is by no means simply a Platonist in the De artificio.
Bonilla already emphasised in 1911 that the actual work was much more strongly shaped by Aristotle, Scotus and Llull than by Plato.
Monfasani's later research has tended to confirm rather than contradict this impression.
One could therefore say:

Quote:The broader goal shows a Platonic tendency toward the unity of knowledge.
The machinery underneath is predominantly influenced by Aristotle, Scotus and Llull.

And what about You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and f66r?
The unusual pages You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. had already been connected with one another long before this Córdoba comparison.
Their possible relationship should therefore not be attributed to Fernando.
Whether these pages actually represent parts of a general rule system or application system must be tested independently of the historical comparison.
Córdoba does not provide a key to them.
For this reason, a statistical investigation of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is being carried out deliberately separately from the historical Córdoba hypothesis.
The results and the methods used in those tests will be presented in a separate post.
This should make it possible to examine later whether the statistically observed structures actually fit such a historical comparison, without mixing the two approaches from the outset.

What possibilities arise from the relationship between Voynich, Bessarion and Córdoba?
The following examples are explicitly speculative.
They are intended to illustrate possible historical directions, not to prove any of them.
Possibility A: A common origin
The similarity between Voynich and Córdoba's work could represent a kind of family resemblance.
They would not necessarily have to know one another.
Both could have a common origin and represent different developments within a reform of the Lullian tradition.
Possibility B: Only a historical comparison
Voynich and the De artificio may have no direct genealogical connection at all.
Córdoba could still be relevant because his work demonstrates that a comparable type of method was historically real in the fifteenth century.
This would be the most cautious possibility.
Possibility C: Voynich influences Bessarion
Bessarion gains access to the Voynich Manuscript.
He is able to understand its content and therefore encourages Córdoba to “create” a universal language or universal method influenced by Llull.
Possibility D: Bessarion cannot understand Voynich
Bessarion gains access to the Voynich Manuscript.
He cannot understand its content, but while investigating it he develops the idea of creating a universal system or universal language.
Córdoba is subsequently encouraged to pursue this idea.
Possibility E: Voynich is created within Bessarion's circle
Bessarion himself, or a Bessarion circle, creates Voynich.
As a basis, he — or the circle — uses the De artificio omnis et investigandi et inveniendi natura scibilis in order to apply its own script as a universal language in practice.
Possibility F: Voynich as the practical application
Voynich represents the missing practical part of the work of De artificio omnis et investigandi et inveniendi natura scibilis.
Again:
There is currently no direct evidence for this.

The chronological problem with E and F
The parchment was radiocarbon-dated to 1404–1438.
This establishes the production date of the parchment, but does not necessarily date the writing itself to the same period.
However:

Quote:A substantially later inscription would in principle be possible, but would have to be demonstrated independently.

Since Córdoba's work was completed in 1468/69, Possibilities E and F create a substantial chronological conflict.
A “Bessarion circle”, meaning a close group of people within his network, could also potentially have written Voynich collectively — purely hypothetically.
However, the chronological factor remains an important obstacle to this possibility.

Additional thoughts
Why might Córdoba have been overlooked until now?
Could the inaccurately transmitted hare story — historically documented differently from the way it was presented in the forum in connection with Cusanus — be one reason why Cusanus / Nicholas of Cusa was investigated, while Córdoba remained largely overlooked?
Is Bessarion the pivotal figure?
His network, his history, his motives and his opportunities could explain a great deal.
Even without factual evidence, Bessarion remains a possible and fascinating candidate in the history of the origin and development of the Voynich Manuscript.

Sources
Fernando de Córdoba and the De artificio
Adolfo Bonilla y San Martín, Fernando de Córdoba (¿1425–1486?) y los orígenes del Renacimiento filosófico en España. Episodio de la historia de la lógica. Madrid: Victoriano Suárez, 1911.
This remains one of the most important sources for the De artificio. It contains extensive discussion and textual material relating to the 25 transcendental determinations, the 625 combinations, the 31 absolute perfections, the rules of comparison, the claim of more than 60,000 possible arguments, and Fernando's references to a Practica and Exercitatio.
Rafael Ramis Barceló, “Fernando de Córdoba y el lulismo del siglo XV,” Mediaevalia. Textos e estudos 34 (2015), pp. 127–144. DOI: 10.21747/21836884/med34a8.
Particularly important for the modern reassessment of Fernando as a syncretic rather than simply anti-Lullian thinker, the connection between Lullism and Scotism, and the interpretation of the De artificio as an attempt to construct a general method for all sciences.
John Monfasani, Fernando of Cordova: A Biographical and Intellectual Profile. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, vol. 82, part 6. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1992.
The major modern biographical and intellectual study of Fernando, including his relationship with Cardinal Bessarion and the wider intellectual context of his works.
Bessarion and the Marciana manuscript
John Monfasani, Bessarion Scholasticus: A Study of Cardinal Bessarion's Latin Library. Byzantios: Studies in Byzantine History and Civilization 3. Turnhout: Brepols, 2012.
Important for Bessarion's Latin and scholastic library, his intellectual circle and the manuscript tradition associated with his collection, including Marc. Lat. Z. 481 (=1915).
Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, Venice, Marc. Lat. Z. 481 (=1915), fols. 4r–88v.
Early manuscript witness of Fernando de Córdoba's De artificio associated with Bessarion.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Bessarion.”
Useful as a modern overview of Bessarion's relationship to Platonism, Aristotelianism, scholasticism and the Plato–Aristotle controversy.
Llull and fifteenth-century Lullism
Ramon Llull Database, Universitat de Barcelona.
Bibliographical resource for Ramon Llull, Lullism and the transmission and transformation of Lullian thought.
Rafael Ramis Barceló, “Fernando de Córdoba y el lulismo del siglo XV,” Mediaevalia 34 (2015), pp. 127–144.
Especially relevant for Fernando's position within fifteenth-century Lullism and Scoto-Lullism.
Voynich: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and f66r
Minutes of the Teddington Voynich Meeting, 1998.
Important because the possible relationship between You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. was already explicitly discussed there. The participants noted the rare word dairal, unusual sequences on both pages, and the possible significance of 17 elements on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. versus 34 on f66r.
The statistical investigation referred to in this post is separate from the Córdoba hypothesis and will be presented independently.
Voynich dating
University of Arizona radiocarbon analysis of Beinecke MS 408, carried out in 2009.
Four parchment samples were tested. The commonly cited combined result places the parchment in the 1404–1438 range with approximately 95% probability.
The important limitation is that radiocarbon dating dates the parchment support, not the act of writing on it.
René Zandbergen, “Radio-carbon dating of the Voynich MS,” Voynich.nu.
Detailed documentation of the Arizona measurements, calibration and surviving internal report.
Beinecke Rare Book & Manuscript Library, Yale University, Beinecke MS 408.
Repository and manuscript record for the Voynich Manuscript.
Earlier Voynich discussion
Voynich Ninja, “A Cusanus Ladin Hypothesis” discussion, 2022.
Relevant to the earlier discussion involving Cusanus, Llull and Bessarion, including the transmission of the so-called hare/hunting anecdote.
This forum discussion should be distinguished from the primary and scholarly sources listed above.

Quote:“unica et indivisibilis ars”

In other words, a single and indivisible method.
Its basic idea can roughly be described as:

Quote:“I am developing a method by which the possible questions, concepts, relationships, proofs and conclusions relating to any field of knowledge can be generated systematically.”

So the aim is not simply to collect existing knowledge, but to create a systematic procedure or rule-based method through which knowledge can be investigated and generated.

Quote:Fernando turns the Lullian combinatorial machine more strongly into a scholastic search and demonstration machine based on Aristotelian philosophy.

Quote:A small, finite inventory of rules and basic elements can create a very large space of possible states.

Code:
universal operators
→ general categories
→ field of knowledge
→ concrete class of objects
→ concrete object
→ questions
→ relationships
→ possible conclusions

This comes surprisingly close to a formal system for organising knowledge.

Code:
quid + plant
quare + plant
quantum + plant
ubi + plant
cum quo + plant

The later parts of the system
The final parts are shorter or less completely developed.
Fernando attempts to establish:

[]how the objects belonging to a science can be derived from the subject of that science,[]how possible conclusions can then be produced,
and how tracing the antecedents backwards can eventually lead to the first principles of that science.

From a modern point of view, this could roughly be written as:

Code:
object → properties → relationships → questions → propositions → consequences → first principles

This gives the whole work an almost algorithmic form.
Not an algorithm in the modern mathematical sense, but a rule-based workflow.

Quote:We largely possess the rulebook, but apparently not the complete exercise or application book.

Quote:At present, we do not know what a practically applied Cordoban system would have looked like on the page.

And for that reason, we should not automatically expect its practical application to resemble a theoretical Latin treatise.

Quote:The broader goal shows a Platonic tendency toward the unity of knowledge.
The machinery underneath is predominantly influenced by Aristotle, Scotus and Llull.

Quote:A substantially later inscription would in principle be possible, but would have to be demonstrated independently.

Note: This post was originally written in German. The English translation was produced with AI assistance. AI was also used to optimise paragraph structure and visual readability. The underlying arguments, hypotheses, source selection and conclusions are my own.]]> <![CDATA[I am not convinced by the provenance history of the VMS]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-6031.html Wed, 19 Aug 2026 20:55:09 +0000 JustAnotherTheory]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-6031.html
I'm sure that at this point in the history of the VMS, certain events and letters are discussed as "facts", however I remain unconvinced. How is it that a 15th century manuscript divides so many medieval history experts to such a degree?

My main argument can be split into three points. I hope, despite the "well-established" provenance of the VMS, it will cast a doubt on you, too.

None of the alleged previous owners of the VMS mentioned any of the peculiar aspects of the VMS. Baresch, Marci, Kircher talked about an unreadable manuscript with herbal and cosmological diagrams. But everybody failed to mention the hundreds of naked nymphs, though. One would think that this distinguishing feature of of the MS would be the first thing to mention in any correspondence. After all, no other MS exists with so many weird naked ladies. Why didn't anybody write: "Hey, help me decipher this manuscript with... 300 b*tt naked ladies from the 15th century". Let's face it, the VMS is not "only" a herbal. There are thousands of herbals. Not one has this many nymphs. Also, nobody mentioned the tubes and bathing scenes either. If I would describe the VMS to someone, especially an expert, there is no way I would leave those details out. Would you?
Voynich himself noted the (faded) signature of Jacobus Tepenecz on the front page of the VMS. Yet nobody in the entire known history of the VMS mentioned anything about Tepenecz. For Baresch, Marci, Kircher and others, it would have been obvious that there is a famous signature on the front page. These were not laymen. These were experts. Yet nobody, for some reason, mentions that the personal herbalist of the mighty Holy Roman Emperor himself, Rudolf II, visibly signed the manuscript on the front page.
Kircher's letter to Moretus in 1639 says that: "I can let you know that the other sheet which appeared to be written in the same unknown script is printed in the Illyrian language in the script commonly called St Jerome's". But Voynichese is nothing like Illyrian (Glagolitic) language. It is totally different, they don't even have the same characters. Either Kircher/Moretus are totally misunderstanding basic linguistic features, of which they are allegedly era-defining experts, or... they are talking about another MS. Not the Voynich MS.

None of the alleged previous owners of the VMS mentioned any of the peculiar aspects of the VMS. Baresch, Marci, Kircher talked about an unreadable manuscript with herbal and cosmological diagrams. But everybody failed to mention the hundreds of naked nymphs, though. One would think that this distinguishing feature of of the MS would be the first thing to mention in any correspondence. After all, no other MS exists with so many weird naked ladies. Why didn't anybody write: "Hey, help me decipher this manuscript with... 300 b*tt naked ladies from the 15th century". Let's face it, the VMS is not "only" a herbal. There are thousands of herbals. Not one has this many nymphs. Also, nobody mentioned the tubes and bathing scenes either. If I would describe the VMS to someone, especially an expert, there is no way I would leave those details out. Would you?
Voynich himself noted the (faded) signature of Jacobus Tepenecz on the front page of the VMS. Yet nobody in the entire known history of the VMS mentioned anything about Tepenecz. For Baresch, Marci, Kircher and others, it would have been obvious that there is a famous signature on the front page. These were not laymen. These were experts. Yet nobody, for some reason, mentions that the personal herbalist of the mighty Holy Roman Emperor himself, Rudolf II, visibly signed the manuscript on the front page.
Kircher's letter to Moretus in 1639 says that: "I can let you know that the other sheet which appeared to be written in the same unknown script is printed in the Illyrian language in the script commonly called St Jerome's". But Voynichese is nothing like Illyrian (Glagolitic) language. It is totally different, they don't even have the same characters. Either Kircher/Moretus are totally misunderstanding basic linguistic features, of which they are allegedly era-defining experts, or... they are talking about another MS. Not the Voynich MS.

In conclusion, I am not convinced by the currently understood provenance history of the VMS. Not a single link seems to indicate, unambiguously, that they are talking about the VMS. Crucial details are missing from each correspondence.

Are they talking about some other manuscript instead?

If you agree that 99 percent of manuscripts from the middle ages are lost today, then it is vastly more probable that these people are talking about another, lost MS, rather than the Voynich manuscript.

I think we need to revise the history of the VMS.]]> <![CDATA[Missing folios]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5959.html Sat, 25 Jul 2026 17:21:12 +0000 Malatin_1]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5959.html
It is generally accepted that several folios are no longer part of the manuscript, although exactly when they disappeared remains unknown. If the missing leaves once contained text and illustrations similar to the surviving sections, they could potentially provide valuable clues about the manuscript as a whole.

One observation often mentioned in discussions of the manuscript is that the missing leaves appear to fall near major transitions between different sections of the book. Whether this is significant or merely coincidental is impossible to say, but it raises an interesting question: were these particular folios somehow considered more useful or more interesting than others?

Another point that has been noted by researchers is the foliation. As far as I understand it, the missing leaves were already absent by the time the manuscript received its present folio numbering, which suggests that their removal may have taken place before that stage of the manuscript’s history. If that interpretation is correct, then the loss probably predates the seventeenth-century foliation.

Assuming this is the case, one possible period worth considering is the late sixteenth or early seventeenth century, when the manuscript is generally believed to have been associated with the court of Emperor Rudolf II in Prague.

This leads to an interesting possibility rather than a conclusion.

Rudolf II’s court was famous for its interest in alchemy, natural philosophy, rare manuscripts, and unusual books. If the Voynich manuscript was indeed present there, it is not difficult to imagine that individual leaves might have been removed for closer examination, copying, comparison with other manuscripts, or some other purpose. At present, however, I am not aware of any direct evidence demonstrating that this actually happened.

Another possibility is that the folios became separated later, during the dispersal of Rudolf II’s collections. The political upheavals of the seventeenth century, particularly the events surrounding Prague, created many opportunities for manuscripts and loose leaves to become scattered.

There is also the well-known historical practice of reusing medieval parchment in later bookbindings and archival material. Thousands of manuscript fragments have survived only because they were recycled in this way. If the missing Voynich folios were ever detached from the manuscript, it seems at least conceivable that they could have followed a similar path.

If that happened, where might they be today?

One obvious place to consider would be collections that received material originating from Prague after the Thirty Years’ War. Swedish collections naturally come to mind because of the transfer of many manuscripts from Prague in 1648. Austrian collections might also be relevant if material from the Habsburg libraries remained there. This is only speculation, but it suggests a practical direction for archival research.

If a genuine Voynich folio were ever rediscovered, I suspect it would be relatively easy to recognize. The combination of its parchment, script, illustrations, and overall appearance is unlike any other medieval manuscript that I know of.

At the moment this is simply a hypothesis based on a series of observations rather than direct evidence. Still, medieval manuscript fragments continue to be identified in archives and old bindings even today, so the possibility does not seem entirely unrealistic.

I would be interested to hear whether anyone knows of published research discussing the possible fate of the missing Voynich folios, or whether searches for unidentified manuscript fragments in Swedish or Austrian collections have ever included the Voynich manuscript as a possibility.]]>
It is generally accepted that several folios are no longer part of the manuscript, although exactly when they disappeared remains unknown. If the missing leaves once contained text and illustrations similar to the surviving sections, they could potentially provide valuable clues about the manuscript as a whole.

One observation often mentioned in discussions of the manuscript is that the missing leaves appear to fall near major transitions between different sections of the book. Whether this is significant or merely coincidental is impossible to say, but it raises an interesting question: were these particular folios somehow considered more useful or more interesting than others?

Another point that has been noted by researchers is the foliation. As far as I understand it, the missing leaves were already absent by the time the manuscript received its present folio numbering, which suggests that their removal may have taken place before that stage of the manuscript’s history. If that interpretation is correct, then the loss probably predates the seventeenth-century foliation.

Assuming this is the case, one possible period worth considering is the late sixteenth or early seventeenth century, when the manuscript is generally believed to have been associated with the court of Emperor Rudolf II in Prague.

This leads to an interesting possibility rather than a conclusion.

Rudolf II’s court was famous for its interest in alchemy, natural philosophy, rare manuscripts, and unusual books. If the Voynich manuscript was indeed present there, it is not difficult to imagine that individual leaves might have been removed for closer examination, copying, comparison with other manuscripts, or some other purpose. At present, however, I am not aware of any direct evidence demonstrating that this actually happened.

Another possibility is that the folios became separated later, during the dispersal of Rudolf II’s collections. The political upheavals of the seventeenth century, particularly the events surrounding Prague, created many opportunities for manuscripts and loose leaves to become scattered.

There is also the well-known historical practice of reusing medieval parchment in later bookbindings and archival material. Thousands of manuscript fragments have survived only because they were recycled in this way. If the missing Voynich folios were ever detached from the manuscript, it seems at least conceivable that they could have followed a similar path.

If that happened, where might they be today?

One obvious place to consider would be collections that received material originating from Prague after the Thirty Years’ War. Swedish collections naturally come to mind because of the transfer of many manuscripts from Prague in 1648. Austrian collections might also be relevant if material from the Habsburg libraries remained there. This is only speculation, but it suggests a practical direction for archival research.

If a genuine Voynich folio were ever rediscovered, I suspect it would be relatively easy to recognize. The combination of its parchment, script, illustrations, and overall appearance is unlike any other medieval manuscript that I know of.

At the moment this is simply a hypothesis based on a series of observations rather than direct evidence. Still, medieval manuscript fragments continue to be identified in archives and old bindings even today, so the possibility does not seem entirely unrealistic.

I would be interested to hear whether anyone knows of published research discussing the possible fate of the missing Voynich folios, or whether searches for unidentified manuscript fragments in Swedish or Austrian collections have ever included the Voynich manuscript as a possibility.]]> <![CDATA[Voynich Manuscript and Milan Connection?]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5917.html Sun, 12 Jul 2026 20:41:54 +0000 GracefulShinjo]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5917.html
One of the pieces of evidence I have hinged this theory on is the presence of dovetail walls on the structure in the Voynich Manuscript. Now as Voynich Talk has pointed out that doesn’t exactly narrow down the zone where the manuscript was crafted as it was a common architectural motif in parts of Europe at the time but then there is the presence of German words in the margins. For those unfamiliar with the House of Visconti they arranged many marriages between daughters of their house with the male members of German ruling houses including the House of Wittelsbach, House of Württemberg and the House of Habsburg. Not only that but at one point in time the Duchy of Milan did control the Canton of Ticino which is the only Italian-speaking Canton in Switzerland. Meanwhile for the French connection there was a marriage between a scion of the House of Visconti, a daughter of the House of Wittelsbach but also a marriage between a member of the House of Valois-Órleans and a daughter of the House of Visconti as well as a marriage between a Princess of the House of Valois and a Lord of the House of Visconti hence why the art used in the manuscript is reminiscent of the International Gothic movement. For those bringing up a connection to the Most Serene Republic of Venice parts of what now forms the Veneto were controlled by the Duchy of Milan before coming under the control of the Most Serene Republic of Venice including Vicenza and Verona.

Now that it has been determined that at least one writer was likely of German descent this would strengthen the potential connection for the Voynich Manuscript with the Duchy of Milan. The creator could have been one of the citizens of the Duchy of Milan that had Germanic roots, possibly between Württemberg or Bavaria or else the Canton of Ticino, who trained in one of the Central German/Southern German-based states that had a long-standing relationship with the Duchy of Milan before, perhaps, receiving appointment for a position in the Ducal Court itself.

Sources used for support

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., 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., 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., 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.]]>
One of the pieces of evidence I have hinged this theory on is the presence of dovetail walls on the structure in the Voynich Manuscript. Now as Voynich Talk has pointed out that doesn’t exactly narrow down the zone where the manuscript was crafted as it was a common architectural motif in parts of Europe at the time but then there is the presence of German words in the margins. For those unfamiliar with the House of Visconti they arranged many marriages between daughters of their house with the male members of German ruling houses including the House of Wittelsbach, House of Württemberg and the House of Habsburg. Not only that but at one point in time the Duchy of Milan did control the Canton of Ticino which is the only Italian-speaking Canton in Switzerland. Meanwhile for the French connection there was a marriage between a scion of the House of Visconti, a daughter of the House of Wittelsbach but also a marriage between a member of the House of Valois-Órleans and a daughter of the House of Visconti as well as a marriage between a Princess of the House of Valois and a Lord of the House of Visconti hence why the art used in the manuscript is reminiscent of the International Gothic movement. For those bringing up a connection to the Most Serene Republic of Venice parts of what now forms the Veneto were controlled by the Duchy of Milan before coming under the control of the Most Serene Republic of Venice including Vicenza and Verona.

Now that it has been determined that at least one writer was likely of German descent this would strengthen the potential connection for the Voynich Manuscript with the Duchy of Milan. The creator could have been one of the citizens of the Duchy of Milan that had Germanic roots, possibly between Württemberg or Bavaria or else the Canton of Ticino, who trained in one of the Central German/Southern German-based states that had a long-standing relationship with the Duchy of Milan before, perhaps, receiving appointment for a position in the Ducal Court itself.

Sources used for support

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., 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., 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., 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.]]> <![CDATA[Author Leo Mec of MS-408]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5639.html Sun, 19 Apr 2026 03:21:20 +0000 oeesordy]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5639.html Register or Login to view., Mec was found there. His name is You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.! ckhar shal ckhar shal Mec is abbreviated I surmise. Mec comes from Mecco or Meco.

You can check with my cipher:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Quote:Mecacci, Mecarelli, Mecarini, Mecarozzi, Mecca, Mecchi, Mecci, Mecco, Meccoli, Mechelli, Mecherini, Mechi, Mechini, Meco, Mecocci, Meconcelli, Meconi, Mecozzi, Mecucci, Mecuzzi

From Meco, a common derivative of the first name Domenico, meaning: sacred to God
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

This is symbolic and a metaphor and I don't think he is implying a sabor tooth tiger. It's Leo Mec saying he is speaking in tongues and it's depicting a cat symbolic of Leo with it's tongue sticking out in August.

So circa 1005-6 and Leo Mec of Northern Italy author of MS-408.

.jpg

tongues for leo.JPG (Size: 93.91 KB / Downloads: 248)

I found more details:

Quote:
Meco History, Family Crest & Coats of Arms

Origins Available:

Italy

Early Origins of the Meco family
The surname Meco was first found in at the foundations of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (Italian: Venezia), with the Minotto family.
Early History of the Meco family

This web page shows only a small excerpt of our Meco research. The years 1203, 1265, 1300, 1450, 1550, 1575, 1655, 1722, 1765, 1769, 1808, 1848, 1863, 1864, 1873, 1876, 1881 and 1886 are included under the topic Early Meco History in all our You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and printed products wherever possible.
Meco Spelling Variations
Enormous variation in spelling and form characterizes those Italian names that originated in the medieval era. This is caused by two main factors: regional tradition, and inaccuracies in the recording process. Before the last few You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. years, scribes spelled names according to their sounds. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. were the unsurprising result. The variations of Meco include Menico, Menichi, Menech, Minico, Minichi, Menego, Meneghi, Menega, Menoga, Menoghi, Minigo, Menco, Menchi, Menci, Minco, Mengo, Menghi, Menga, Mingo, Minghi, Meni, Misotti, Minuziano, Mingoti, Menochio, Minelli, Minnelli, Menis, De Minico, Menichelli, Minichelli, Minichiello, Meneghelli, Meneghello, Meneghel, Menichini, Minichini, Minichino, Meneghini, Meniconi, Meneghino, Meneghin, Menicucci, Minicucci, Meneguzzi, Menoncini and many more.
Early Notables of the Meco family
Rosso Misotti, leader of the Ghibeline faction in Ferrara in 1203. Members of the Venetian Minotto family were brave soldiers: in 1265 Tommaso Minotto led the army against the Genoese forces; and in 1300 Marco Minotto was General of 37 ships which fought against the Greeks; Alessandro Minuziano was an editor and printer in Puglia in 1450 who printed the first edition of the collected works of Cicero; Giacomo Menochio was a prominent jurist in Pavia in 1550; Giovanni-Paolo Meniconi was...
Another 81 words (6 lines of text) are included under the topic Early Meco Notables in all our You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and printed products wherever possible.
Migration of the Meco family
Immigrants bearing the name Meco or a variant listed above include: Augusta Minghelli, who arrived in America on July 2, 1884, aboard the "St. Germain;" Alessandro Minghetti, who arrived in America on Nov. 8, 1883, aboard the ".
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

]]> Register or Login to view., Mec was found there. His name is You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.! ckhar shal ckhar shal Mec is abbreviated I surmise. Mec comes from Mecco or Meco.

You can check with my cipher:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Quote:Mecacci, Mecarelli, Mecarini, Mecarozzi, Mecca, Mecchi, Mecci, Mecco, Meccoli, Mechelli, Mecherini, Mechi, Mechini, Meco, Mecocci, Meconcelli, Meconi, Mecozzi, Mecucci, Mecuzzi

From Meco, a common derivative of the first name Domenico, meaning: sacred to God
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

tongues for leo.JPG (Size: 93.91 KB / Downloads: 248)

I found more details:

Quote:
Meco History, Family Crest & Coats of Arms

Origins Available:

Italy

Early Origins of the Meco family
The surname Meco was first found in at the foundations of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (Italian: Venezia), with the Minotto family.
Early History of the Meco family

This web page shows only a small excerpt of our Meco research. The years 1203, 1265, 1300, 1450, 1550, 1575, 1655, 1722, 1765, 1769, 1808, 1848, 1863, 1864, 1873, 1876, 1881 and 1886 are included under the topic Early Meco History in all our You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and printed products wherever possible.
Meco Spelling Variations
Enormous variation in spelling and form characterizes those Italian names that originated in the medieval era. This is caused by two main factors: regional tradition, and inaccuracies in the recording process. Before the last few You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. years, scribes spelled names according to their sounds. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. were the unsurprising result. The variations of Meco include Menico, Menichi, Menech, Minico, Minichi, Menego, Meneghi, Menega, Menoga, Menoghi, Minigo, Menco, Menchi, Menci, Minco, Mengo, Menghi, Menga, Mingo, Minghi, Meni, Misotti, Minuziano, Mingoti, Menochio, Minelli, Minnelli, Menis, De Minico, Menichelli, Minichelli, Minichiello, Meneghelli, Meneghello, Meneghel, Menichini, Minichini, Minichino, Meneghini, Meniconi, Meneghino, Meneghin, Menicucci, Minicucci, Meneguzzi, Menoncini and many more.
Early Notables of the Meco family
Rosso Misotti, leader of the Ghibeline faction in Ferrara in 1203. Members of the Venetian Minotto family were brave soldiers: in 1265 Tommaso Minotto led the army against the Genoese forces; and in 1300 Marco Minotto was General of 37 ships which fought against the Greeks; Alessandro Minuziano was an editor and printer in Puglia in 1450 who printed the first edition of the collected works of Cicero; Giacomo Menochio was a prominent jurist in Pavia in 1550; Giovanni-Paolo Meniconi was...
Another 81 words (6 lines of text) are included under the topic Early Meco Notables in all our You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and printed products wherever possible.
Migration of the Meco family
Immigrants bearing the name Meco or a variant listed above include: Augusta Minghelli, who arrived in America on July 2, 1884, aboard the "St. Germain;" Alessandro Minghetti, who arrived in America on Nov. 8, 1883, aboard the ".
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

]]> <![CDATA[Reconciling Millicent Sowerby's Chronology]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5490.html Mon, 30 Mar 2026 23:22:43 +0000 asteckley]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5490.html
A more definitive source of information is Millicent E. Sowerby who provides a recounting of her meeting and working for Wilfrid Voynich, in her autobiographical book (Rare People and Rare Books). Unfortunately her book contains some certain mistakes of memory on her part.

She states that she was interviewed by Wilfrid Voynich on a Monday and then began working for him one week later on Monday, December 18, 1912. This, however, is certainly incorrect since that particular calendar date was a Wednesday. Given that her (faulty) recollection was for Monday (first day of a work week) and that she is describing both an interview and the starting of a job, and also that it was one week before Christmas which would also be on a Monday -- all this would suggest that her memory was correct on the day of the week, but that it failed her on the year. December 18, 1911, however, was a Monday, and so that is when she very likely when she actually began working at Voynich's London book shop.

She also describes that her very first sight of Voynich (just before he sat her down to interview for the job) :
"He was standing at the far side of a long table covered with a red baize cloth, and was showing to a customer one of the magnificent illuminated manuscripts he had so recently acquired in Europe. "

Later she states:
"As I have said, he had returned from one of these European hunting trips shortly before I joined the staff, and news of the treasures he had found must have been getting about, for we had numbers of visitors, all in a state of eager anticipation... Another treasure that he had found in some ancient castle in Southern Europe was also the cause of great excitement and a large number of scholarly visitors—botanists and astronomers as well as medieval experts. This was the famous Roger Bacon cypher..."
(In the removed text of the first ellipses she describes a book in Cryillic print that he had also brought back from his trip.)

Correcting Sowerby's reference to be 1911, would mean that Voynich acquired the manuscript in mid-to-late 1911 (shortly before Sowerby joined the staff). This would be consistent with Wilfrid's own statement that he made in a letter early in the year 1917, wherein he said he had acquired a large collection of manuscripts, including the Voynich Manuscript, "six years ago." So this would be further evidence that Sowerby got her year wrong and not her day of the week.

On the other hand, Wilfrid stated explicitly in his 1921 lecture that he acquired the collection with the manuscript in 1912. And there seems to be several other sources indicating 1912. (Again I am not sure how definitive those other sources are that it was 1912 and that it was the VMS being referred to.)

Has anyone found a way to reconcile these conflicting statements?]]>
A more definitive source of information is Millicent E. Sowerby who provides a recounting of her meeting and working for Wilfrid Voynich, in her autobiographical book (Rare People and Rare Books). Unfortunately her book contains some certain mistakes of memory on her part.

She states that she was interviewed by Wilfrid Voynich on a Monday and then began working for him one week later on Monday, December 18, 1912. This, however, is certainly incorrect since that particular calendar date was a Wednesday. Given that her (faulty) recollection was for Monday (first day of a work week) and that she is describing both an interview and the starting of a job, and also that it was one week before Christmas which would also be on a Monday -- all this would suggest that her memory was correct on the day of the week, but that it failed her on the year. December 18, 1911, however, was a Monday, and so that is when she very likely when she actually began working at Voynich's London book shop.

She also describes that her very first sight of Voynich (just before he sat her down to interview for the job) :
"He was standing at the far side of a long table covered with a red baize cloth, and was showing to a customer one of the magnificent illuminated manuscripts he had so recently acquired in Europe. "

Later she states:
"As I have said, he had returned from one of these European hunting trips shortly before I joined the staff, and news of the treasures he had found must have been getting about, for we had numbers of visitors, all in a state of eager anticipation... Another treasure that he had found in some ancient castle in Southern Europe was also the cause of great excitement and a large number of scholarly visitors—botanists and astronomers as well as medieval experts. This was the famous Roger Bacon cypher..."
(In the removed text of the first ellipses she describes a book in Cryillic print that he had also brought back from his trip.)

Correcting Sowerby's reference to be 1911, would mean that Voynich acquired the manuscript in mid-to-late 1911 (shortly before Sowerby joined the staff). This would be consistent with Wilfrid's own statement that he made in a letter early in the year 1917, wherein he said he had acquired a large collection of manuscripts, including the Voynich Manuscript, "six years ago." So this would be further evidence that Sowerby got her year wrong and not her day of the week.

On the other hand, Wilfrid stated explicitly in his 1921 lecture that he acquired the collection with the manuscript in 1912. And there seems to be several other sources indicating 1912. (Again I am not sure how definitive those other sources are that it was 1912 and that it was the VMS being referred to.)

Has anyone found a way to reconcile these conflicting statements?]]> <![CDATA[Rauwolf & Clusius & Gessner]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5453.html Mon, 16 Mar 2026 01:28:16 +0000 stopsquark]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5453.html Register or Login to view. relevant because Rauwolf is one of the names often discussed in reconstruction of the VMS provenance. Quoting some relevant passages:

"The plants he [Rauwolf] collected formed the first two books of his plant collection. Rauwolf graduated in 1562 from the University of Valence, Dauphiné (Dannenfeldt 1968). In 1563, he carried out his "peregrinatio academica" traveling through the Alps to N. Italy. On the way, he collected the plants that formed the third book herbarium. Rauwolf visited Padua, Verona, Mantua, Ferrara, Bologna, Florence, Modena, Piacenza, Parma, Milan, and Como, heading forward through Switzerland to Germany. During this homeward journey, Rauwolf visited Conrad Gessner (1516–1565) in Zurich, accompanied by his friend and classmate from Montpellier, Johann Bauhin (1541–1613) (Durling 1965).

According to Legré (1900), that same year, Rauwolf met in Augsburg with Carolus Clusius (1526–1609), to which he presented the plants he had collected in France and Italy, and presumably accepted Clusius’ annotations and corrections of several plant names. Doubting Legré’s argument, Ganzinger (1963) attributed the numerous annotations and corrections found in Rauwolf’s herbaria to Leonhart Fuchs (1501–1566), suggesting that Rauwolf, on his way back to Augsburg in 1563, also visited Fuchs, his former teacher in Tübingen.

In 1571, Rauwolf was appointed city physician of Augsburg, a position that he, as a devoted Protestant, lost 17 years later due to religious conflicts.Thereby getting into financial difficulties, he decided to sell his herbaria, which he achieved for a remarkable price, 310 Reichstaler, which had to be paid to Rauwolf by the imperial chamber.The four book herbaria were bought in 1593 by a commissioner of the Habsburg Emperor Rudolf II..."

I know that Rauwolf -> Widemann-> Rudolf is a likely chain that people often suggest. When reading this paper, though, I was also quite struck by the fact that Rauwolf's "pergrinatio academica" took him directly through the regions where we expect the VMS likely originated- it seems relatively plausible that Rauwolf could have obtained the VMS at some point in 1562 or 1563. I'm curious about whether his colleagues in that region (Clusius and Gessner), both of whom were avid curiosity collectors and who have extant correspondence in libraries, have been investigated as possible Voynich-owners or annotators. The only You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. doesn't seem to mention an exchange of books aside from the one Rauwolf wrote, but I haven't found an online archive of Gessner's letters yet. Fuchs may also be worth looking into!]]> Register or Login to view. relevant because Rauwolf is one of the names often discussed in reconstruction of the VMS provenance. Quoting some relevant passages:

"The plants he [Rauwolf] collected formed the first two books of his plant collection. Rauwolf graduated in 1562 from the University of Valence, Dauphiné (Dannenfeldt 1968). In 1563, he carried out his "peregrinatio academica" traveling through the Alps to N. Italy. On the way, he collected the plants that formed the third book herbarium. Rauwolf visited Padua, Verona, Mantua, Ferrara, Bologna, Florence, Modena, Piacenza, Parma, Milan, and Como, heading forward through Switzerland to Germany. During this homeward journey, Rauwolf visited Conrad Gessner (1516–1565) in Zurich, accompanied by his friend and classmate from Montpellier, Johann Bauhin (1541–1613) (Durling 1965).

According to Legré (1900), that same year, Rauwolf met in Augsburg with Carolus Clusius (1526–1609), to which he presented the plants he had collected in France and Italy, and presumably accepted Clusius’ annotations and corrections of several plant names. Doubting Legré’s argument, Ganzinger (1963) attributed the numerous annotations and corrections found in Rauwolf’s herbaria to Leonhart Fuchs (1501–1566), suggesting that Rauwolf, on his way back to Augsburg in 1563, also visited Fuchs, his former teacher in Tübingen.

In 1571, Rauwolf was appointed city physician of Augsburg, a position that he, as a devoted Protestant, lost 17 years later due to religious conflicts.Thereby getting into financial difficulties, he decided to sell his herbaria, which he achieved for a remarkable price, 310 Reichstaler, which had to be paid to Rauwolf by the imperial chamber.The four book herbaria were bought in 1593 by a commissioner of the Habsburg Emperor Rudolf II..."

I know that Rauwolf -> Widemann-> Rudolf is a likely chain that people often suggest. When reading this paper, though, I was also quite struck by the fact that Rauwolf's "pergrinatio academica" took him directly through the regions where we expect the VMS likely originated- it seems relatively plausible that Rauwolf could have obtained the VMS at some point in 1562 or 1563. I'm curious about whether his colleagues in that region (Clusius and Gessner), both of whom were avid curiosity collectors and who have extant correspondence in libraries, have been investigated as possible Voynich-owners or annotators. The only You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. doesn't seem to mention an exchange of books aside from the one Rauwolf wrote, but I haven't found an online archive of Gessner's letters yet. Fuchs may also be worth looking into!]]> <![CDATA[Godefrid Alois Kinner]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5442.html Thu, 12 Mar 2026 10:39:53 +0000 ReneZ]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5442.html
Just by chance, I ran into this reference to his letters: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
and was pleased to find old Voynich researcher Philip Neal involved, together with Thomas Conlon, both of whom together also translated the Kircher letter in response to Moretus and Barschius, which is discussed in detail here:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

I have not (yet) followed any of the links in the page, but greatly appreciate the various collaborative activities of historical research it refers to.

Kinner was also mentioned in the discussion of Fabrizio Salani's document, but as this page indicates, he only became involved with the Bohemian court after 1649, well after Barschius' first letter to Kircher (1637).]]>
Just by chance, I ran into this reference to his letters: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
and was pleased to find old Voynich researcher Philip Neal involved, together with Thomas Conlon, both of whom together also translated the Kircher letter in response to Moretus and Barschius, which is discussed in detail here:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

I have not (yet) followed any of the links in the page, but greatly appreciate the various collaborative activities of historical research it refers to.

Kinner was also mentioned in the discussion of Fabrizio Salani's document, but as this page indicates, he only became involved with the Bohemian court after 1649, well after Barschius' first letter to Kircher (1637).]]> <![CDATA[Would a NEW Voynich Manuscript be valuable?]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5238.html Wed, 14 Jan 2026 18:30:17 +0000 Rafal]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5238.html
We are used to think about Voynich Manuscript as something valuable, even very valuable.

Emperor Rudolph presumably paid a nice sum for it, possibly beliving it was a lost work of Roger Bacon.
Later Wilfrid Voynich himself believed he will be able to sell it for big money.

But let's take the mainstream view that VM was made in the 1400s. Now imagine some people in the 1400s can see the shiny and new Voynich Manuscript.

Would they consider it valuable? What would the think?

It wouldn't be for them any ancient artifact, antiquity or relic. They would probably realize that it is new.
And they would see bad pictures and the writing impossible to understand.

The cleverest of them would probably know that there are many writing systems in the world. Arabs have their writing, Greeks have another one, Jews yet another one and so on. And somewhere far, far away live people who have black skin, a language impossible to pronounce and possibly yet another writing.

I would say they wouldn't really so excited by unknown writing because it would be quite natural for them that there are strange things that they don't understand.
And if it seemed a work of pagan or a sorcerer, some people possibly would feel a strong desire to burn it Wink

So would anyone be willing to pay a big money for the new VM in the 1400s?
Were there even collectors, as we understand it today, in the 1400s?

I am considering an option of VM being a fake made for selling it to a rich collector but don't I know the reality of 1400s enough to say if it is possible.

How do you think?]]> <![CDATA[Possible Identification of a Handwriting Match for the Voynich Manuscript Author]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5207.html Sun, 04 Jan 2026 16:00:05 +0000 basriemin]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5207.html
How can I compare this handwriting with the Voynich text in a scientific and reliable way? Could you recommend a specialist or expert in this field?]]>
How can I compare this handwriting with the Voynich text in a scientific and reliable way? Could you recommend a specialist or expert in this field?]]> <![CDATA[How quickly did the VMS leave the possession of those who understood it?]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5083.html Fri, 28 Nov 2025 04:07:22 +0000 Skoove]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5083.html
I think that there is other physical evidence in the manuscript that prior to this, it was already in the hands of someone who didn't understand it. Namely because of the incorrect binding, incorrect painting, POSSIBLE retracing by someone who didn't get what the original glyphs were and also the marginalia?

Since the incorrect binding happened not too long after the creation of the manuscript, I personally think that within a generation or two the manuscript somehow left those who had originally devised it then began being passed around as a curiosity by others who had no understanding of it.

I'm not sure if this conjecture would really help in solving any part of the script, but if it became 'displaced' so quickly after its creation it might suggest that it was not a wide spread task or it was only intended for usage by a single individual.]]>
I think that there is other physical evidence in the manuscript that prior to this, it was already in the hands of someone who didn't understand it. Namely because of the incorrect binding, incorrect painting, POSSIBLE retracing by someone who didn't get what the original glyphs were and also the marginalia?

Since the incorrect binding happened not too long after the creation of the manuscript, I personally think that within a generation or two the manuscript somehow left those who had originally devised it then began being passed around as a curiosity by others who had no understanding of it.

I'm not sure if this conjecture would really help in solving any part of the script, but if it became 'displaced' so quickly after its creation it might suggest that it was not a wide spread task or it was only intended for usage by a single individual.]]> <![CDATA[On the character of Wilfrid Voynich]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5041.html Wed, 12 Nov 2025 03:23:31 +0000 ReneZ]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5041.html
Now here, I don't want to go into the aspects of how his character affects these two theories. There are already threads about that, and such aspects can be continued there. If this diverges into these directions, it can be closed. What I want to do here is look both at the evidence we have for Voynich's character, and the high level of subjectivity in this entire topic.

This quote is a good starting point:

(11-11-2025, 06:17 PM)proto57 wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[...] the description of Voynich, by G. Orioli, to Antonio. [...] Of course Orioli got Voynich's religion incorrect, and also, it sounds somewhat bigoted on his part... but here it is:

"As to Voynich--he was a Polish Jew, a bent kind of creature and getting
on for sixty. I liked his shop in Shaftesbury Avenue; it was full of books
and well kept, and Voynich himself was most obliging to me. He gave me one
of his excellent catalogues to study, begging me to note the prices: 'Always
keep the price as high as possible, if you ever have a book to sell,' he
added. Then in a squeaky voice and in an accent which I even then recognized
as not being English he told me that he had bought a bookshop in Florence
called the 'Libreria Franceschini.'"

"'I know that shop,' I said."

"'Well, it is full of incunabula. Absolutely crammed with incunabula.'"

"'Surely a bookshop ought to be full of books?'"

"He laughed heartily at my ignorance, explained what incunabula were, and
went on in his enthusiastic fashion:"

"'Millions of books, shelves and shelves of the greatest rarities in the
world. What I have discovered in Italy is altogether unbelievable! Just
listen to this. I once went to a convent and the monks showed me their
library. It was a mine of early printed books and codexes and illuminated
manuscripts. I nearly fainted--I assure you I nearly fainted on the spot.
But I managed to keep my head all the same, and told the monks they could
have a most interesting and valuable collection of modern theological works
to replace that dusty rubbish. I succeeded in persuading the Father
Superior, and in a month that whole library was in my hands, and I sent them
a cartload of modern trash in exchange. Now take my advice: drop your
present job and become a bookseller.'"

Now there is a bit of "all booksellers are liars, said a bookseller" in this.

This is not trying to be smart, but shows how easy it is, on such a subjective topic, to trust the things one wants to believe, and to distrust what one does not want to believe.
This is so easy, that it may not even be done consciously.

To be very specific:
should we doubt that Voynich discovered a faded signature on the first folio of the MS?
yet at the same time:
take literally that he exchanged valuable old books for a cartload of modern trash?
(Sounds like bragging to me).

Should we trust Orioli?
Voynich was not Jewish, not near his sixties (he was 47 in 1912) and he was described by others quite differently from a bent creature.

Here is my attempt at a biography of Voynich: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
which suffers in some areas from the same unreliability of evidence.
The best description of Voynich's person is the quoted chapter by E.Millicent Sowerby, which I can thoroughly recommend. It brings him to life.

One has to recognise when she repeats exaggerated stories by Voynich of his earlier life though.
She takes very strong issue with Orioli's description of Voynich, and quotes how Voynich's wife descibed him as having the head and shoulders of a 'Norwegian god'.

I also quote a statement from one of Voynich's Polish friends, found by Rafal Prinke:

"He [Wojnicz] had exuberant phantasy and took its results for reality, in which he solemnly believed. Later he became [...] a very practical antiquarian books dealer and made a considerable fortune, which he was always happy to share with anyone. And so in that man lived in agreement incredible phantasy (others call it lies), truly American pragmatism and good heart"

There is also a published obituary by James Westfall Thompson, which is entirely laudatory and we should not consider useful.

PS: minor details in the biography are not up to date anymore, e.g. I also have a copy of Orioli now.
I would appreciate hearing about additional references if known.]]> <![CDATA[Cipher or unknown language - historical perspective]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-4874.html Sun, 17 Aug 2025 00:51:08 +0000 ReneZ]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-4874.html
When Voynich first presented the MS to the world, he had made up his mind: this has to be a cipher, and ever since, the MS has been called a cipher manuscript.

Nowadays, we can be certain beyond reasonable doubt, that the Voynich MS is not an example of some old writing system. No other examples have ever been found, and we know that because, in the modern world, research is accessible globally.
Did Voynich have a similar consideration, or was it commercial decision? A Roger Bacon cipher should sell for more than some unknown language.
We don't know what his reasoning was, and it does not really matter.

But what would people well before the 20th century have thought?
What was the question from Prague to Kircher?
A) please translate this language
B) please solve this cipher

This question has been asked before, and Marci's letter is neutral about this.

Barschius also does not express this very clearly in his surviving letter, which is the second about this topic.
Still, there are two hints.
First, he repeats in his letter that the reason he approached Kircher was his (supposed) success in deciphering egyptian.
Second, from Kircher's answer we know that he (or Moretus) sent Kircher a sample of a printed text in Glagolitic.

Both suggest that he was approaching Kircher for a translation of an unknown language.

Barschius certainly could not have our overview of foreign writing systems, so this is not a strange viewpoint at all.

Is this then also how people in even earlier times would have seen the MS? I do think so.]]>
When Voynich first presented the MS to the world, he had made up his mind: this has to be a cipher, and ever since, the MS has been called a cipher manuscript.

Nowadays, we can be certain beyond reasonable doubt, that the Voynich MS is not an example of some old writing system. No other examples have ever been found, and we know that because, in the modern world, research is accessible globally.
Did Voynich have a similar consideration, or was it commercial decision? A Roger Bacon cipher should sell for more than some unknown language.
We don't know what his reasoning was, and it does not really matter.

But what would people well before the 20th century have thought?
What was the question from Prague to Kircher?
A) please translate this language
B) please solve this cipher

This question has been asked before, and Marci's letter is neutral about this.

Barschius also does not express this very clearly in his surviving letter, which is the second about this topic.
Still, there are two hints.
First, he repeats in his letter that the reason he approached Kircher was his (supposed) success in deciphering egyptian.
Second, from Kircher's answer we know that he (or Moretus) sent Kircher a sample of a printed text in Glagolitic.

Both suggest that he was approaching Kircher for a translation of an unknown language.

Barschius certainly could not have our overview of foreign writing systems, so this is not a strange viewpoint at all.

Is this then also how people in even earlier times would have seen the MS? I do think so.]]> <![CDATA[Why I think that the copyist(s)/scribe(s) did not fully understand the material]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-4853.html Tue, 05 Aug 2025 07:40:27 +0000 ReneZ]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-4853.html
For this, let's look at the pharmaceutical section.
This consists of three sheets (bifolia), each with a single page to the left and a foldout page to the right:

f88+f89
f99+f102
f100+f101

Of these, the third: f100 + f101 appears incomplete, probably unfinished: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. has no labels at all, and on f101v, the labels of the bottom row are missing.
On f100, the containers appear to have no labels.

The other two bifolios consistenly have one label for each container and one label for each plant fragment.
The container label may be written below it, on it (under the paint) or next to it.
But let's look at the top of f88r:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

This has five plant parts, and six words surrounding them.
However, the leftmost word is the container label and should have been written near the container.

I can only conclude that the scribe was not aware of this.]]>
For this, let's look at the pharmaceutical section.
This consists of three sheets (bifolia), each with a single page to the left and a foldout page to the right:

f88+f89
f99+f102
f100+f101

Of these, the third: f100 + f101 appears incomplete, probably unfinished: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. has no labels at all, and on f101v, the labels of the bottom row are missing.
On f100, the containers appear to have no labels.

The other two bifolios consistenly have one label for each container and one label for each plant fragment.
The container label may be written below it, on it (under the paint) or next to it.
But let's look at the top of f88r:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

This has five plant parts, and six words surrounding them.
However, the leftmost word is the container label and should have been written near the container.

I can only conclude that the scribe was not aware of this.]]> <![CDATA[L. Rauwolf]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-4849.html Sun, 03 Aug 2025 16:48:26 +0000 N._N.]]> https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-4849.html
Unfortunately, this opinion is not based on any archival material or other new findings. I hope to have managed to get my hands on most relevant publications including S. Guzy's elusive German-language article, although I could only read it at a library in a break while working on my actual project, so my apologies if there is something I misrepresent. Beyond that, my thoughts here are informed by my own studies on early modern provenance, book acquisitions, history of knowledge etc. which was a core element of my PhD thesis, in which somehow Rauwolf is mentioned exactly once.

The core question I started asking myself regarding the manuscript's history from Widemann to Kircher (which I will treat as a given here, since there is little point in discussing several aspects at once): When and why did knowledge about the previous owner(s) end? Obviously, Widemann himself must have known how he acquired the book. Mnišovský, Barschius and Marci must have had additional knowledge beyond the little that is mentioned in the letters to Kircher. The latter two may have only sent information that they thought would encourage Kircher to take an interest in the matter, but unless they knew the manuscript was a hoax, they probably did not misrepresent their information on purpose. So, why did they convey this exact information to Kircher? Let me structure my assumptions on the matter a bit:

1. It makes sense to not mention all the less relevant people such as Widemann, Geizkofler, Tepenec and whoever might have owned it after them. Kircher would not have known them and they provide little additional value for the understanding of the manuscript. Therefore, there is no insight to be gained from this omission.

2. 'Name-dropping' the emperors, including the price of sale, and Bacon is reasonable to draw Kircher's interest. Mentioning Mnišovský, who, by the way he is described, Marci did Kircher not expect to be familiar with, seems like an attempt of Marci to describe the Bacon-theory without fully owning it. This all is logical as well in my opinion.

3. Regarding Rauwolf the question is: If the Barschius-Marci generation of Voynich scholars was aware of his involvement, would they have mentioned him? I think the answer is almost certainly yes. After Kircher's "success" with hieroglyphs, which Barschius even mentions, it would be strange to omit such a direct connection to an "oriental" origin and rather mention it indirectly like Barschius did. Instead, Marci offers a geographically opposing explanation in the follow-up letter, which I would consider unlikely if they had any solid information on Rauwolf or even just a vague record of the manuscript's "oriental" origin. From my research, Rauwolf was also relatively well known in the 17th and 18th century and respected as a overseas traveller with a scholarly background, which would have been another reason to convey this information to Kircher.

4. It also seems unlikely to me that such potentially relevant information as a previous ownership by Rauwolf was lost in the less than 40 years since the sale to Rudolf, while the exact price was still discussed. Perhaps Rudolf could have only mentioned the value to highlight the generosity of his gift to Tepenec, if that was how the book was transferred between them - there are possible explanations for why Rauwolf was forgotten in that time frame. However, because there seems to have been a significant level of discussion about the cipher manuscript in Prague in the 1600s and several people involved in the transactions, it is hard to imagine a particular point at which the information was lost, be it through death or the deliberate decision to not provide it to others.

5. The most likely candidate to have obscured the manuscript's provenance before Widemann is actually Widemann himself. First, he had the opportunity, in contrast to the later scenarios where a larger number of people had knowledge of relevant events. Second, he had a financial motive: The value of a manuscript depended significantly on its previous owners or author(s), meaning Widemann had an incentive to tell the most enticing story to his potential customer. I think Rauwolf might have been a reasonably convincing (=valuabe) background story, so there would probably be no need to make up another explanation, such as possibly one involving Kelly and England that might have led Mnišovský to his theory. The only somewhat realistic scenario I can come up with where Widemann omits the connection to Rauwolf is one where he obtained the manuscript in a not exactly clean way, i. e. he simply kept it after the Rauwolfs' death and sold it as soon as no heirs claimed it, this would fit the timeline reasonably well. But this is pure conjecture and certainly less plausible than a number of theories of pre-Widemann ownership that do not involve Rauwolf at all.

In summary, while what I write here is just a mix of assumptions, probabilities and context clues, in my opinion, nothing really more convincing is available in favor of Rauwolf's ownership. Therefore, it seems more likely that Wiedemann had acquired the manuscript from someone else than that Rauwolf's involvement and the implications in terms of its origin were forgotten by the time Barschius and Marci wrote their letters.

That's it, I hope posts like this one are at least as welcome here as another brilliant theory on which language the cipher is derived from... I would of course gladly discuss this further and plan to be around here a bit in the future, focusing primarily on provenance and history.]]>
Unfortunately, this opinion is not based on any archival material or other new findings. I hope to have managed to get my hands on most relevant publications including S. Guzy's elusive German-language article, although I could only read it at a library in a break while working on my actual project, so my apologies if there is something I misrepresent. Beyond that, my thoughts here are informed by my own studies on early modern provenance, book acquisitions, history of knowledge etc. which was a core element of my PhD thesis, in which somehow Rauwolf is mentioned exactly once.

The core question I started asking myself regarding the manuscript's history from Widemann to Kircher (which I will treat as a given here, since there is little point in discussing several aspects at once): When and why did knowledge about the previous owner(s) end? Obviously, Widemann himself must have known how he acquired the book. Mnišovský, Barschius and Marci must have had additional knowledge beyond the little that is mentioned in the letters to Kircher. The latter two may have only sent information that they thought would encourage Kircher to take an interest in the matter, but unless they knew the manuscript was a hoax, they probably did not misrepresent their information on purpose. So, why did they convey this exact information to Kircher? Let me structure my assumptions on the matter a bit:

1. It makes sense to not mention all the less relevant people such as Widemann, Geizkofler, Tepenec and whoever might have owned it after them. Kircher would not have known them and they provide little additional value for the understanding of the manuscript. Therefore, there is no insight to be gained from this omission.

2. 'Name-dropping' the emperors, including the price of sale, and Bacon is reasonable to draw Kircher's interest. Mentioning Mnišovský, who, by the way he is described, Marci did Kircher not expect to be familiar with, seems like an attempt of Marci to describe the Bacon-theory without fully owning it. This all is logical as well in my opinion.

3. Regarding Rauwolf the question is: If the Barschius-Marci generation of Voynich scholars was aware of his involvement, would they have mentioned him? I think the answer is almost certainly yes. After Kircher's "success" with hieroglyphs, which Barschius even mentions, it would be strange to omit such a direct connection to an "oriental" origin and rather mention it indirectly like Barschius did. Instead, Marci offers a geographically opposing explanation in the follow-up letter, which I would consider unlikely if they had any solid information on Rauwolf or even just a vague record of the manuscript's "oriental" origin. From my research, Rauwolf was also relatively well known in the 17th and 18th century and respected as a overseas traveller with a scholarly background, which would have been another reason to convey this information to Kircher.

4. It also seems unlikely to me that such potentially relevant information as a previous ownership by Rauwolf was lost in the less than 40 years since the sale to Rudolf, while the exact price was still discussed. Perhaps Rudolf could have only mentioned the value to highlight the generosity of his gift to Tepenec, if that was how the book was transferred between them - there are possible explanations for why Rauwolf was forgotten in that time frame. However, because there seems to have been a significant level of discussion about the cipher manuscript in Prague in the 1600s and several people involved in the transactions, it is hard to imagine a particular point at which the information was lost, be it through death or the deliberate decision to not provide it to others.

5. The most likely candidate to have obscured the manuscript's provenance before Widemann is actually Widemann himself. First, he had the opportunity, in contrast to the later scenarios where a larger number of people had knowledge of relevant events. Second, he had a financial motive: The value of a manuscript depended significantly on its previous owners or author(s), meaning Widemann had an incentive to tell the most enticing story to his potential customer. I think Rauwolf might have been a reasonably convincing (=valuabe) background story, so there would probably be no need to make up another explanation, such as possibly one involving Kelly and England that might have led Mnišovský to his theory. The only somewhat realistic scenario I can come up with where Widemann omits the connection to Rauwolf is one where he obtained the manuscript in a not exactly clean way, i. e. he simply kept it after the Rauwolfs' death and sold it as soon as no heirs claimed it, this would fit the timeline reasonably well. But this is pure conjecture and certainly less plausible than a number of theories of pre-Widemann ownership that do not involve Rauwolf at all.

In summary, while what I write here is just a mix of assumptions, probabilities and context clues, in my opinion, nothing really more convincing is available in favor of Rauwolf's ownership. Therefore, it seems more likely that Wiedemann had acquired the manuscript from someone else than that Rauwolf's involvement and the implications in terms of its origin were forgotten by the time Barschius and Marci wrote their letters.

That's it, I hope posts like this one are at least as welcome here as another brilliant theory on which language the cipher is derived from... I would of course gladly discuss this further and plan to be around here a bit in the future, focusing primarily on provenance and history.]]>