I’m constantly astonished by the inventiveness of Voynich theorists, as if the mundane facts surrounding the manuscript amounted to no more than an unfolded piece of Washi given to a roomful of psilocybin-addled origami experts.
Given that creating a Voynich theory obviously can’t be that hard to do, why not devise your own? You can sell eBooks or T-shirts, maybe even get interviewed by local newspapers – and the best thing about it all is that for now, and probably for a fair while yet, nobody can prove you wrong.
OK, there are already plenty of Voynich theories out there, but a little bit of competition is healthy for the soul, don’t you think? And so here are some practical DIY tips to help you construct your very own Voynich Theory…
(1) Don’t Sweat The Itty-Bitty Stuff (such as facts)
History, schmistory – the Voynich Manuscript’s mystery is so vast that it transcends petty detail-mongering, right? So don’t even bother to try to understand why historical methodologies might help you construct better arguments – you have much bigger groupers to griddle here, for Pete’s sake.
(2) For Clues, Interpret The Pictures However You Like
Your first challenge is to assemble a nice-looking set of visual clues, preferably ones that you can cut-and-paste into a web-page or a T-shirt. Though… I should probably point out that if fifteen minutes browsing Google Images or Flickr for intriguing Voynich images isn’t enough to land you your clue #1, you might find yourself struggling a bit – awesomely great Voynich theorists need only glance at any picture in the manuscript (or anywhere else, for that matter) to be able to instantly concoct a plausible story around it.
(3) The History Of The World Is Your Oyster
Let’s face it, who’s going to give a monkey’s stool about any Voynich Manuscript theory that isn’t also a secret history? I’m sure you know the kind of thing, a story that just happens to link one or more famous historical people into a secret socio-techno-political-religious-occult conspiracy that just happens to explain all kinds of other mysterious things you may possibly have heard of. And so one thing you really need to come up with fairly early on is an unexpected set of one or more edgy, liminal historical figures (think of the Priory of Sion, but toned down somewhat), one of whom might just possibly (if you squint a lot) have had half a hand in the Voynich Manuscript. Unfortunately, most of the particularly good ones (Leonardo da Vinci, Nostradamus) have been nabbed already, but Google will probably come to your rescue here. As a rough guide, anyone born between 1200AD and 1600AD is basically fair game, so you’re not short of options.
(4) Look Deep Into Your Own Heart
The litmus test of a “proper” Voynich Theory is that it acts as a mirror to your own secret desires and wishes, insofar as it functions as a wish-fulfilment object within your personal psychodrama. Which is a $600 way of saying that every wild / exaggerated claim you make about the unsung / misunderstood historical hero figure behind the Voynich Manuscript should be something you’d like others to say about you. Whether you are a frustrated inventor, traveller, writer, physicist, astronomer, or whatever, your Voynich Theory gives you a chance to right those wrongs and so regain your pride (through a conveniently long-dead proxy).
(5) Ask (And Answer) All The Wrong Questions
Sensible questions (such as “what was the original state of the manuscript?”, “what handwriting was added later?”, “how were individual pages constructed?”) lead only to disproof, not proof: and so you should avoid sensible questions at all cost. Instead, focus on the biggest wrong questions you can think of: such as “what historical secret could possibly be so important that an entire cryptographic conspiracy would be required to encipher it?” And then give your own particular answer (of course).
(6) Remember To Have Fun!
Unfortunately, in practice this is the bit many Voynich theorists tend to forget. They get so caught up in the arcane nonsense nearly all of them are spouting (for let’s face it, it can’t be Hildegard of Bingen, Trithemius, AND Leonardo simultaneously) that they take out their ongoing frustration (at being unable to prove the unprovable) on other competing Voynich theorists. Guys, guys (and gals, gals): relax. Until such time as the hard data train finally arrives, nobody can prove a darn thing about the Voynich Manuscript. So, you can just kick back and enjoy the warm feeling that your theory – no matter how ludicrous – is arguably just as valid as anybody else’s.
There – that’s pretty much everything you need to know. So what are you waiting for? Get theorizing! 🙂
This post is a very good summation of the whole conspiracy theory “industry”– facts don’t matter(nor do sensible questions that might prove you wrong) so much as what you want to be true.
Here’s my theory: the Voynich is a 21st-century hoax by one Nick Pelling, presumably created so he could sell books– and on the Internet, he has spun an elaborate web of plausible-seeming historical details surrounding the manuscript, drawing more and more researchers into his Borgesian fantasy world. *wink*
That, or it enciphers President Obama’s real birth certificate. *wink again*
Lastly, a question with no winking involved, regarding how these theories might involve “anyone born between 1200AD and 1600AD”: has anyone ever suggested that Dante Aligheiri was involved somehow in the creation of the Voynich? Or Shakespeare?
Emily: Tongue-in-cheek mention or not, Shakespeare is a member of the circle of influence I am looking at. Not as a writer of it, of course, but as one who was immersed in the lore of the ancient tome… think of his books of Prospero… mysterious ancient texts, encompassing all the knowledge of the world. And it is believed by some Shakespeare scholars that the Bard himself may have played the part of Prospero at the Tempest performance for Princess Elizabeth and Frederick, in 1613. Ask yourself what the prop book for this would have looked like. But also, his fascination in the New World, and the utopian society. And he was believed close to Francis Bacon, and Ben Jonson, and had a symbiotic relationship with many of the other great thinkers, artists, Rosicrucians and writers of his time and place… many of whom I believe influenced the content of the Voynich. All of these were quite fascinated with mysterious ancient texts, ciphers, “The Arts” and alchemy, and also forgotten cultures, and imaginary ones… IMO, the Voynich reflects quite well Shakespeare’s time, and influences.
http://proto57.wordpress.com/
Hi Emily,
If my cunning plan was to design the VMs as a book-selling prop, I can only say that it was not so much Machiavelli as Baldrick. 🙂
Dante Alighieri, yes: several times, but most notably (and recently) by Erni Lillie.
Shakespeare, yes (Will as well): but almost always in some secondary, hard-to-define way.
Though perhaps the right question to ask is “who hasn’t been linked to the Voynich?” 😉
Cheers, ….Nick Pelling….
Hi Rich,
For what it’s worth, I think the Voynich Manuscript is like a glorious, warped microscope that magnifies (but distorts) the specks of Renaissance cultural interests embedded inside its pages – such as astrology, astronomy, herbalism, architecture, engineering, science, etc. And this is perhaps the way in which the VMs has most similarities with Shakespeare’s work, in that both sets of researchers endlessly criss-cross over progressively finer and finer details, like trying to tease out a long-dead mollusc from an empty shell.
So… will we close in on the author of the Voynich before they close in on the identity of the Bard? 🙂
Cheers, ….Nick Pelling….
Rich: I do like the idea of the Voynich manuscript as a prop book(which could imply that the text is meaningless, something like lorem ipsum in a made-up alphabet). And the idea of Shakespeare himself playing Prospero, which should lend support to the idea that Prospero is his self-insert character(the playwright as magician now bidding farewell to his art), a theory I’ve always liked.
Nick: Can you post a link to Erni Lillie’s theories (Google isn’t very helpful), or recommend any books on this matter? I’d like to know more about the Voynich-Dante connection in general. Also, here are some 16th-century charts of the Inferno which remind me vaguely of the “rosette” diagrams and the Voynich images of people in pools: http://www.worldofdante.org/gallery_vellutello.html
Hi Emily,
I’ll email Erni, he might well contact you directly, as his Dante theory is a work in progress. 🙂
Cheers, ….Nick Pelling….
PS: thanks for the link! 😉
Thanks for the nod, Nick.
Indeed, Emily — In 2004 I put together a paper in which I summed up my ongoing project of interpereting the manuscript imagery based on similar images and diagrams I had found in various of the manuscripts of Dante’s Divine Comedy.
If you’re interested in discussing it — have Nick forward you my e-mail address and contact me directly.
I no longer maintain a copy of this paper online as I have added a lot to since and find it to be in sore need of a rewrite.
Thanks.
Thanks for the offer, but if you feel your paper isn’t really finished, I’ll wait for the revised version.
Hi Emily,
Please email Erni, your helpful and insightful comments will probably be exactly what he needs. He’s put a lot of work in over the last few years, and it takes (I can say from experience) a really sustained act of will to give that kind of research data some final shape. 😮
Cheers, ….Nick Pelling….
I reckon I could construct an imaginary, sellable story around Joachin of Fiore, and argue that the script was formed as a precursor of the same universal script (maybe even language) which Kircher sought. But for Joachin and followers it was a way to teach the ‘fourth stage/Universal’ gospel which was supposed to be announced by the death of Frederick II as antichrist.
All do-able. I could even cite some early, and therefore respected Voynich commentaries on the ‘universal script’ thing.