About My Theories
Below you will find my previous theory about the Voynich: That it is a faux book, created to reflect the fiction of Francis Bacon’s New Atlantis. However, over the past year I have come to believe that this is less likely the best explanation for the existence of the Voynich Manuscript.
After speaking at the 100th Anniversary Conference in Frascati, Italy, in May of 2012, I felt free to explore certain nagging doubts… intuitive beliefs about the Voynich, which I had mused at, then discarded… that Wilfred Voynich himself may have created his own “Roger Bacon Cipher Manuscript”. The ironic thing was, that since I was compelled to distill my faux Utopia artifact ideas down to their basic elements, for the Conference, this actually freed me to open up to the concept that the Voynich may be even newer than I had been willing to accept. Stripping away the similarities to the New Atlantis, it still appears to be a faux document, with elements of many fictions, and sciences, and still, optics in it… all of which can fully well be explained by it being a modern hoax.
Critics helped, tool. My critics told me that blank vellum was unavailable in any quantity in 1610: This caused me to check, only to find out that ancient blank vellum has always been available. My critics told me that some of my microscope comparisons were “too new” for 1610/20: But rather than think they no longer looked like microscopes (simple because they seriously do look like them), and going back to the carbon 14 test dates, it caused me to look forward. So be it, perhaps they are too new.. let’s look at newer. Critics told me that Wilfred could not have seen the “Baresch letter”, putatively describing the Voynich (sort of), but rather, when I looked into this, I found that he could have easily seen it. Critics told me people did not fake things unless they were valuable, that Wilfred was trustworthy, that this would have taken too long, been too expensive, and that Wilfred never tried to sell it. No, no, no… all these complaints, and many more, turned out to be incorrect, and actually modern myths themselves.
All that being said, this is a work in progress. As it stands now, in the summer of 2013, I fully accept that the Voynich may be a 1420 (or so) Alchemical Herbal of an odd nature, or any number of alternate things. Even an artifact of the New Atlantis! But from where I stand now, with what I know now, I strongly believe that the burden of proof is on those who think this is an odd, real, herbal, made anytime before about 1900. Well, they do not feel this way, and may never. But that is the path I am on, to explore this new hypothesis to the very end, whatever that is, correct or not.
And so I changed the title of the blog to “Voynich Optics”. It is a double-entendre, relating both the the roots of these theories, even the present one, in my firm belief that optical devices, real and impressional, are being represented by many of the cylinders in the Voynich; but also, “optics” in the sense that I am still looking into it. All of it, as I am able.
Below is the previous theory, which, although superseded, I still hold possible.
“This theory proposes that the Voynich Manuscript may be a faux book, which was created between 1610 and 1620, and made to look as though it came from Francis Bacon’s fictional island of New Atlantis. And as such, that it was made to look much older than it was, and that it includes a map of the fictional Bensalem, along with both real and fanciful representations of optics and other devices, flora and fauna, the Arts and sciences, astronomy and astrology. And, that much of this was reflected from past, real works, but distorted into an imaginative reflection of how the author thought they would have been perceived and practiced by the advanced, fictional culture of New Atlantis. The theory further supposes that it may have been created under the influence of, and possibly created by someone from, the circle of Francis Bacon’s near contemporaries and their world. These include Cornelis Drebbel, Michael Maier, Solomon De Caus, Johann Valentin Andreae, William Shakespeare, Ben Jonson, Simon Forman, Robert Fludd, among others.” H. Rich SantaColoma