It is clear that one of the problems with the Voynich when trying to place it in history in the context of other manuscripts and documents is of course that it has no obvious parallels. Certainly we can find similarities elsewhere in manuscripts, so it isn't as though it emerged from the ether with no relation to anything else.
But we all, naturally, try to find what seems to be the best place to situate it relative to other manuscripts or texts, despite its incongruity.
So how do we reconcile its uniqueness with it having a place amongst other documents in history?
(One thing, I think we can say is that even once it has been read or demonstrated as meaningless it will still have a significance in history, because of its uniqueness, though once this happens it will I daresay slide from public interest to some extent.)
Well, it's not entirely unique. Aspects of it are unique, and others are unusual. Perhaps we can say that it is unique for these elements to be arranged in such a fashion.
If it weren't for the text, the book would be entirely unremarkable.
The imagery isn't unique.
The foldouts have parallels.
The nymphs aren't really unique, although the scribe certainly allowed his imagination to run wide with the semiotics there.
The zodiac is fairly normal.
It's mainly that the book doesn't follow any prescribed manuscript tradition; the obvious feature of the text; and the fact that it contains many influences drawn from the culture around the scribe, rather than illustrated manuscript tradition.
The Voynich manuscript is unique and not unique. Looking at the illustrations of the individual sections, neither the majority of the supposed content nor the structure is anything special. Also for the balneological area there are conclusive comparisons. What makes VMS so special is the simple fact that you can not read it. At first glance, it is believed that it can not be hard to decode the text. The more stubborn you try, the further away you are from the solution. Anyway, that happened to me till now.
The comparison with the Codex Seraphinianus comes to mind. Luigi Serafini stated that his experience in writing it was similar to automatic writing; and that what he wanted his alphabet to convey was the sensation children feel with books they cannot yet understand, although they see that the writing makes sense for adults. If the author of the VMS wanted to create this kind of astonishment, then he somehow succeeded
Also the Rohonc codex is a very long text in a writing system that is not found anywhere else and cannot be read.
It has also attracted lots of quite unlikely theories.
Yes, I obviously know about the Codex Seraphinianus and [font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]Rohonc codex being an aficionado of Nick Pelling's blog.(I may have come across them somewhere else before that, I can't remember.)[/font]
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]Though it is true that they are unique documents. I heard that the Voynich was the inspiration for the [font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]Codex Seraphinianus?? Nevertheless whatever the explanation for the [font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]Rohonc codex it seems not unreasonable to say that it is quite unique in it's own way.[/font][/font][/font]
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]Anyway, what I was trying to point to is that as far as I am aware all the explanations for the Voynich's existence and specifically its text have no clear and obviously contemporary precedent or parallel. So from what I understand for that period there is no real parallel for a hoax manuscript, a complex cipher manuscript, a constructed language etc. Now if it is a natural language in a rare unknown script then there are precedents for that, but there are other reasons why that explanation is problematic.[/font][/font][/font]
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]It makes me wonder if a unique document would be a product of a very unusual individual or very unusual circumstances or both. (I mean very unusual in the broadest sense whether it be unusually intelligent or unusually crazy or unusually persecuted or unusually isolated.)[/font][/font][/font]
(22-09-2019, 05:35 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Also the Rohonc codex is a very long text in a writing system that is not found anywhere else and cannot be read.
Rene, I had the impression that the Rohonc codex was generally considered to be a 19th century hoax and wasn't any older than that. Is that correct?
In any case, it is a good piece of work, but quite distinct from the Voynich. IIRC, it has a high vocabulary but low text density, and lots of full scale images.
The imagery is connected to a number of medieval sources and traditions. But it does put a spin on them that is unique to our current knowledge. Dismissing the imagery as unremarkable is something I cannot understand. Illuminations in other manuscripts would be called unique or special for much less.
(22-09-2019, 06:29 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The imagery is connected to a number of medieval sources and traditions. But it does put a spin on them that is unique to our current knowledge. Dismissing the imagery as unremarkable is something I cannot understand. Illuminations in other manuscripts would be called unique or special for much less.
I don't have the chops in history or paleography to debate the VMS's uniqueness, but...
I think you've just identified why debates about the VMS's uniqueness — at least most of the ones I've read — tend to break down, go in circles, and produce more smoke than fire. The VMS is, as far as we know, unique. But is it
meta-unique? Is it unique in its uniqueness? The latter is a much different and more extraordinary claim. When talking about the VMS, I recommend that the words "unique" and "unprecedented" be qualified ("unique in layout", "unprecedented in length") and used to describe specific features of the manuscript ("unique character set"). Using these words in a broad-sweeping way to describe the VMS as a whole is not precise use of language, and precision of language helps a lot for creating fruitful debate. When people use the word "unique" to mean different things in the same discussio, they often talk past each other and get frustrated.
Not that you need to be told this Koen, but I feels it bears mentioning that it's not even certain that the VMS is unique in the most parsimonious sense of the word. That is to say, it could quite easily be a verbatim copy of an earlier work.
(22-09-2019, 08:21 PM)RenegadeHealer Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (22-09-2019, 06:29 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The imagery is connected to a number of medieval sources and traditions. But it does put a spin on them that is unique to our current knowledge. Dismissing the imagery as unremarkable is something I cannot understand. Illuminations in other manuscripts would be called unique or special for much less.
I don't have the chops in history or paleography to debate the VMS's uniqueness, but...
I think you've just identified why debates about the VMS's uniqueness — at least most of the ones I've read — tend to break down, go in circles, and produce more smoke than fire. The VMS is, as far as we know, unique. But is it meta-unique? Is it unique in its uniqueness? The latter is a much different and more extraordinary claim. When talking about the VMS, I recommend that the words "unique" and "unprecedented" be qualified ("unique in layout", "unprecedented in length") and used to describe specific features of the manuscript ("unique character set"). Using these words in a broad-sweeping way to describe the VMS as a whole is not precise use of language, and precision of language helps a lot for creating fruitful debate. When people use the word "unique" to mean different things in the same discussio, they often talk past each other and get frustrated.
Not that you need to be told this Koen, but I feels it bears mentioning that it's not even certain that the VMS is unique in the most parsimonious sense of the word. That is to say, it could quite easily be a verbatim copy of an earlier work.
I think what I am pointing to, is the question of how we understand objects or events that seem out of place with their historical context. Take for example the antikythera mechanism, this really didn't fit into our conception of history. It is really a methodological question I am asking. Getting very specific is something I am trying to avoid doing. Obviously in one sense everything is unique.
(22-09-2019, 08:42 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I think what I am pointing to, is the question of how we understand objects or events that seem out of place with their historical context. Take for example the antikythera mechanism, this really didn't fit into our conception of history. It is really a methodological question I am asking. Getting very specific is something I am trying to avoid doing. Obviously in one sense everything is unique.
I see what you're saying, Mark. Thanks for clarifying. If I understand you correctly, when studying and comparing ideas about the VMS, it's helpful to regard the making of the VMS as a unique project, both in its own time and thereafter.
I think a similar methodological assumption helps in approaching the mystery of how the Great Pyramid of Giza was built. Aspects of the creating process are precedented and have been done again since, but the project as a whole has been done only once.
Correct me if I'm not understanding you well.