A university which heralded the work of one of its academics in cracking the code of the famous Voynich manuscript has backtracked after questions were raised about the claims.
The University of Bristol has removed an article from its website about Dr Gerard Cheshire’s work after “concerns have been raised about the validity of this research”.
Earlier this week the university announced that Dr Cheshire, a research associate, had taken just two weeks to crack the code, with his findings published in the journal Romance Studies.
Dr Cheshire described how he successfully deciphered the manuscript’s codex and, at the same time, revealed the only known example of proto-Romance language.
“I experienced a series of ‘eureka’ moments whilst deciphering the code, followed by a sense of disbelief and excitement when I realised the magnitude of the achievement, both in terms of its linguistic importance and the revelations about the origin and content of the manuscript,” he said.
This prompted questions from academics and experts in linguistics.
Among them was Lisa Fagin Davis, a US-based paleographer and codicologist.
“Sorry, folks, ‘proto-Romance language’ is not a thing. This is just more aspirational, circular, self-fulfilling nonsense,” she tweeted.
“I tried several years ago to reproduce Cheshire’s Voynich results, because initially I was intrigued.
“But when you apply his Roman-letter substitutions and then try to translate the result, you have no choice but to be subjective. It’s gibberish. The methodology falls apart.
“Once the foundations crumble, everything built on them – which includes the published paper – falls.
“That’s why when you are examining any theory, especially a Voynich theory, you have to start with the first principles. Go back to the beginning.”
The Voynich manuscript is a medieval, handwritten and illustrated text, which has been carbon-dated to the mid-15th century.
It is named after Wilfrid M Voynich, a Polish book dealer and antiquarian, who purchased the manuscript in 1912.
It is currently housed at Yale University, where it is filed as item MS408 in the Beinecke Library of rare books and manuscripts.
The contents have eluded countless cryptographers, linguistics scholars and computer programs for over 100 years.
Among those who have famously attempted to crack the code are Alan Turing and colleagues at Bletchley Park.
The FBI also had a go during the Cold War, apparently thinking it may have been Communist propaganda.
“The University of Bristol published a story about research on the Voynich manuscript by an honorary research associate,” the university said in a statement.
“This research was entirely the author’s own work and is not affiliated with the University of Bristol, the Faculty of Arts or the Centre for Medieval Studies.
“The paper was published in the journal ‘Romance Studies’ following a double blind peer review process by two external academic referees, a process used to validate the research quality of a study.
“When a member of our academic community has a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal, the university’s media team will determine whether the findings are of public interest.
“If they are, the team will communicate the research to the media and on our university website.
“Following media coverage, concerns have been raised about the validity of this research from academics in the fields of linguistics and medieval studies.
“We take such concerns very seriously and have therefore removed the story regarding this research from our website to seek further validation and allow further discussions both internally and with the journal concerned.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel