I finally decided to get a blog for my thesis based on the Voynich Manuscript. The papers, files, everything I was printing out on this thing just became too much of a mess. Thus, this blog was born! (Imaginary celebration happening inside computer) This site is meant not only to record my sources, but also to share my thoughts, ideas, and ultimately, my final theory which will serve as my thesis. Once I begin posting my thoughts, I encourage anyone who sees a flaw, oddity, etc, to bring it to my attention and discuss it. I very much wish to develop the strongest plausible theory about the Manuscript that I can. (By “I” I mean “we”. I will be placing emphasis on building a group of individuals that may be able to crack the Manuscript once and for all.) Many of the online forums relevant to the Voynich Manuscript are either dead, or so few people post anymore that it is no longer an “active” source.

My plan is not to DECIPHER this thing. I just wish to develop some sort of theory that can logically point to a who, what, where, when, and why, without having any irrational flaws. Finding these five key points may very well open the doors needed to solve the mystery surrounding the Voynich Manuscript.

The five keys in more detail are:

Who: Who was/were the author/authors for this manuscript? The odds of the Manuscript having more than one author are great, but what was their least common denominator? What did they have in common? Who were the owners throughout history?

What : This should go without saying. What the HELL is this thing? What do the drawings mean? IS there any meaning? What are the plants? The “tubing”? Etc.

Where: Where was this thing made? We know that Rudolph II had something to do with it, so Prague is a possibility. The Czech Republic and Bohemia are also possibilities. This is the one area that I know the least about.

When: When it was made. Again, pinpointing an EXACT date is not easy. But by no means is it impossible.

Why: Ah, the fun one. (And by “fun” I mean “wow this is going to be bloody impossible to figure out. This kid is obviously a lunatic”.) Yes. Yes I am. But that shouldn’t stop us from finding an arguable solution. The botanical diagrams, the star charts, the “utopia” found on the Rosettes Pages, the side illustration with a naked female with a shower/tennis racket in her mouth…What are they for? Is it a manual for alchemy? An astrological guidebook for the occult sciences? Instructions on how to build THE better mousetrap? The possibilities are endless. Let’s try and pin one down.

If anyone has any information or websites that would be helpful to the search, please send them to me, so that I may post them onto the link page. (Do I have a link page on this thing?) Also, if you would like to contribute any of your own ideas theories, etc, please comment this (or any other upcoming post) so that they can be viewed!



Published in: on 25/05/2009 at 01:01  Comments (4)  

4 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. Hey Ace: Best of luck with the new blog!

    A couple of points:

    It is not set in stone that Rudolf II ever owned the Voynich. This assumption is mostly from the Marci letter, where Marci states that he was told by a tutor to Ferdinand III (after Rudolf) that it was believed to have been owned by Rudolf. So that part is hearsay, a rumor. Then, it was written by Marci, in the letter, something like 20 years after he was told (Dr. Raphael, tutor in the Bohemian language to Ferdinand III, then King of Bohemia, told me the said book had belonged to the Emperor Rudolph and that he presented the bearer who brought him the book 600 ducats. He believed the author was Roger Bacon, the Englishman.).

    Also, the book does not appear in any of the Kunstkammer lists of Rudolf, but I have been informed that this is not necessarily proof he did not own it. It may not have made the list. But the point is, there is no direct evidence he owned it.

    As for “end date”, as you may realize, we will have a date sometime in 2010 (finally). The vellum has been dated, and the ink and paint analyzed, but a private group for an upcoming documentary. They of course do not want to release it, because the results will be a major draw for their work. Rich.

  2. You’re absolutely correct. I’m amazed that I overlooked that when writing the post! It should be fixed now.
    However, I am fairly certain to say that Rudolph II was involved somehow with the MS. His interests, hobbies, and members of his court just add up too well for him to not be a prime candidate. His passion for botany, occultist sciences, alchemy, unique artifacts,and his spendthrift means of acquiring them just make him seem very plausible as an owner. It’s actually quite possible that the MS was just a clever way by John Dee and Edward Kelly to con him out of the 600 Ducats. We can’t rule out Hajek, Kepler, and Brahe, either.

    Your entire third paragraph threw me off, I’m afraid. I know that vellum was what the MS was written on, but what’s this about an “end date”?


  3. I meant “earliest date”, so the term “end date” was a bad choice. For end date, or end cap, we have 1912 when Voynich bought it, or 1639 if we trust the Marci references, or 1620/22 if we accept the De Tepencz name written in means he owned it while alive.

    But for earliest date, the testing of the Vellum will tell us that… because you cannot have made a 1400 book out of 1500 vellum, for one example, if the date is circa 1500. Of course you can make a newer document out of older vellum… it was often done, and still could be. A couple of years ago I would have still been able to buy unused 16th century vellum pages for $35 a sheet. And the Church routinely used old vellum in medieval and renaissance times. It was scraped clean, for their works… on sometimes very old vellum (palimpsests). The original writing… often Greek classics… was sometimes still discernible, and so the Church inadvertently, through economy, preserved the very documents they would happily have destroyed.

    But I imagine what will happen if it is dated, say, in the early 17th century: Some will claim the tests were corrupted by later samples, or otherwise inaccurate… in fact, it has already been suggested. Others will say that it is an earlier manuscript, but copied on newer vellum at a later date, and the original “Voynich” was lost. But perhaps I am incorrect, and if a later dating, the figure will be accepted… But I will not be surprised at any result, really, between 1300 and 1650. Early 20th will be a bit of a shocker, though. And it would shake up the world of rare books and manuscripts, as collectors and museums pore through their collections for anything Voynich owned.

    But I’m jumping ahead on all that… it’s just musing. Rich.

    • Hey Rich, sorry about the delay in reply. Do you know what group is doing the tests on the vellum? I know that you said they were “private”, but is it a university, etc?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: