The history of my connection with the Voynich manuscript is as follows: in 1951 Mr. William F. Friedman introduced me to che manuscript and 1 spent my spare time in studying the combinations of the most com monk occurring symbols 1 wrote a report of my work for Mr. Friedman, I should mention that che only parr of the manuscript which was available to me at the time was the rwenty pages at the end which contain no illustrations. In fan he deli berate! v used me as a control — he told me nothing other than the information about the manuscript contained in the book The Cipher of Roger Bacon by Newbold. On the strength of this study came to the rather definite conclusion that the text could not have been arrived at merely by the substitution of single symbols for lecrers whatever the language involved Subsequently about twelve yean ago I read a paper to the Bain more Bibliophiles covering the historv of the manuscript and some of the attempts to decipher it. This paper, almost unaltered, was printed in an internal office journal. In the fall of 1975 I read a paper on the subject to a group of colleagues. As this occasion was rather widely advertised within the organuation. it attracted quite a large audience and the attention of some of those who attended was draw n to the study of the manuscript From the time when Mr. Friedman s health began to fail 1 have acted as a sort of unofficial coordinator of the work ot some of the people who have been working on the problem, and when Miss Mary Dlmperio told me of her interest. J suggested that she should assume this respomibility. She has written a far more comprehensive and more scholarly survey of the problem rhan mine and ir will. I believe, become the definitive background of future work in this field. To mv knowledge rhere have been three rather extensive analyses of the script of che manuscript, by Mr Friedman, bv me, and by Captain Prescott Currier. Of these, I believe Captain Currier s to be far the most complete. All three have reached similar conclusions at any rate in some aspens, and I find myself quite unable to accept any suggested solution unless it takes account of these analyses. John H. Tiirman 24 November L9 6 The reader may well wonder. "Why still another paper on the Voynich manuscript/" So much has been written ahead v on that most studied, most curious, and most mysterious manuscript upon which so many researchers have exhausted cheir faculties in vain. Perhaps a few words of explanation might be useful in setting the stage for the reader, and in presenting the motivation for this monograph. As a relatively recent newcomer to the ranks of Vovnich manuscript students. 1 have unwittingly retraced the steps of all mv predecessors, rediscovering their sources, repeating their experiments, growing excited over the same promising leads that excited them, and learning onlv later that all these things had already been tried and had failed, often several times. I have no wish to impiv that I regret any of my efforts. In fact, I little suspected, when I was first introduced to the problem of the Voynich manuscript at Brigadier Tilcmans lecture in November 1975, that I would spend ail mv spare time for the next vear on an intellectual and spinrual journey spanning so many centuries and ranging over so many aspects of art. hittorv. philosophy, and philology, I have thoroughly enjoyed every moment of mv investigations, and would not give them up atanv price. The fact remains that, in spite of all the papers that others have written aboui the manuscript, there is.
Republished by Liber Copia LLC for convenient study and reference on any device.
