It is a very interesting book, useful and intriguing for everybody, not only for the scholars or the voynichologists. However, I think that the author is better when he deals with technical issues, than when he makes historical descriptions and analyses. Of course, his contribution is significant, not only in proposing an answer as to who is the author of the manuscript, but in giving a new scientific and historical perspective as well. Also, the end of the book is very successful, but again the percentage of certainty is small. Is this a guess, or proof?