Editing Voynich manuscript (section)

=== William Romaine Newbold ===
One of the earliest efforts to decode the book's code was made in 1921 by [[William Romaine Newbold]] from the [[University of Pennsylvania]]. His singular hypothesis held that the visible text is meaningless, but that each apparent "letter" is in fact constructed of a series of tiny markings discernible only under [[magnification]]. These markings were supposed to be based on [[ancient Greece|ancient Greek]] [[shorthand]], forming a second level of script that held the real content of the writing. Newbold claimed to have used this knowledge to work out entire paragraphs proving the authorship of Bacon and recording his use of a [[compound microscope]] four hundred years before [[Antonie van Leeuwenhoek|van Leeuwenhoek]]. A circular drawing in the astronomical section depicts an irregularly shaped object with four curved arms, which Newbold interpreted as a picture of a galaxy, which could be obtained only with a [[telescope]].<ref name=Tiltman-1967 />

Newbold's analysis has since been dismissed as overly speculative<ref>{{cite web |title=William Romaine Newbold (1865–1926) |series=Penn Biographies |date=6 September 1926 |publisher=[[University of Pennsylvania]] |url=http://www.archives.upenn.edu/people/1800s/newbold_wm_romaine.html |access-date=8 June 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160419231850/http://www.archives.upenn.edu/people/1800s/newbold_wm_romaine.html |archive-date=19 April 2016}}</ref> after [[John Matthews Manly]] of the [[University of Chicago]] pointed out{{when|date=November 2024}} serious flaws in his theory. For example, each shorthand character was assumed to have multiple interpretations, and as a result there was no reliable way to determine which was intended for any given case. Newbold's method also required rearranging letters at will until intelligible [[Latin language|Latin]] was produced. These factors alone ensure the system enough flexibility that nearly anything at all could be discerned from the [[microscopic]] markings. Although evidence of [[micrography]] using the [[Hebrew language]] can be traced as far back as the ninth century, it is nowhere near as compact or complex as the shapes Newbold made out. Close study of the manuscript revealed the markings to be artefacts caused by the way ink cracks as it dries on rough vellum. Perceiving significance in these artefacts can be attributed to [[pareidolia]]. Thanks to Manly's thorough refutation, the micrography theory is now generally disregarded.<ref>{{Harvnb|Kahn|1967|pp=867–869}}</ref>