I have seen people write that the Voynich in terms of its contents is unremarkable for it's time.
Apart from the obvious way in which it is unusual I would question the idea that the manuscript is conventional.
Now admittedly I have not studied all aspects of the manuscript and exhaustively compared the Voynich with contemporaneous texts, however from what I am familiar with it does seem to be quite distinct.
First of all I think it worth stating the obvious point that there seems little reason in enciphering something that can readily be found elsewhere. It makes more sense if there is some original content contained throughout the manuscript.
Looking at the plant illustrations it seems that other contemporary herbals seem broadly more similar to one another than they do to the Voynich. I wonder if the same can be said of the astrological sections.
Is there a contemporary text with all these different kinds of content that we see with the Voynich contained within it?
One's answer to this probably depends on which part of the manuscript they focus on. For instance, profusely illustrated plant manuscripts are not unusual. Collections of various topics in one manuscript are also not unusual.
However, I think its particular collection of (apparent) subjects does make the VM unusual. And the details of the images are unusual as well. There are many things besides the script that make it unique. D'Imperio wrote of a mind-boggling queerness.
I think that if someone calls the MS "conventional", they are probably doing so as a reaction to someone claiming that it has nothing in common with other 15thc manuscripts. This is obviously not the case. But especially if we are talking about the contents alone, I would say that it is much more unusual than conventional.
(28-10-2021, 11:35 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I think that if someone calls the MS "conventional", they are probably doing so as a reaction to someone claiming that it has nothing in common with other 15thc manuscripts. This is obviously not the case. But especially if we are talking about the contents alone, I would say that it is much more unusual than conventional.
It's reassuring that you feel the same way.
To take an example that has been of particular interest to me, namely the Rosettes folio, I have long thought it to be a map, so much so that I met up on more than 1 occasion with Professor Paul Harvey author of "Medieval Maps". Now it has been said that it doesn't look like any map of the time. It is noteworthy that Professor Harvey did not think it particular unusual. But anyway let's say it is unusual, well it seems to me that if the Voynich is unusual then it should not be so surprising that it contains an unusual map. (During the period to which the Voynich is dated it was not strange for people to create distinctive maps in Northern Italy.)
Also the more inventive the Voynich the harder it will be to find one of Nick Pelling's block-paradigms, which is I think in general a very sensible thing to search for.
Another example is the small plants section. A handful of manuscripts do something vaguely similar for a page or two, but all in all it remains unique, especially if its extent is taken into account.
The same goes for the Zodiac section. We may get a few flashes of recognition in other manuscripts, but it remains unique.
I'll go out on a limb and hypothesise that even its impossible to understand marginalia are unusual. More often than not, marginalia can be understood much more readily than those of the VM.
It makes sense to me that there is some original content.
My own perception is that it is like someone's book of their own scientific research and theories, which goes a long way to explaining the presence of original content. In a modern context it doesn't look or seem that scientific, but it feels like the mindset is similar. If, in modern times, you are doing your own scientific research, of course, it will borrow and be influenced by the work of others, but there will also be original content of your own.
I suppose I see the cipher, as I believe it to be, to be a part of the original scientific work the author(s) is trying to write. There isn't it seems a cryptography section of the manuscript, but the cryptography section runs throughout the whole manuscript. I think this is like Giovanni Fontana's work in that sense as though the cipher is there not to keep the contents secret, but rather to demonstrate the power of cryptography.
The more original the content of the manuscript the harder it will be to understand and decipher, however the greater historical value it will have.
I do sympathise with people who don't want us to overstate its originality. When there are people who claim the Voynich is so original that it must have been written by aliens or conjured up by spirits, then we have to say that it is not as original as you think. Ultimately everything lies on a spectrum from completely unique and original to completely derivative and conventional. Personally, I just don't think people should view the Voynich as a simple copy and paste exercise from other manuscripts.