06-02-2017, 09:55 PM
There are known manuscripts preserved in only one copy. There also have been manuscripts of which no copies remain. More than that, there have been manuscripts prepared in only one copy (i.e. no duplicates) which is now lost. So I do not find this angle of dispute especially valuable.
I would suggest another trail of reasoning here. Suppose the VMS is a copy, a compilation or a compendium of old sources. This would have been perfectly possible, in my opinion, if considered with no regard to other aspects of the Voynich. But there is another aspect. The Voynichese text is highly unlikely to be written in a natural language. (I won't repeat extensive arguments toward that assertion, they are found elsewhere in the forum). So why encipher the contents of a compilation of old sources?
So, defence of the hypothesis of the "old source" would either have to defend the natural language hypothesis in addition, or, as suggested above, to enter into certain complications explaining the necessity to encipher the stuff. The original stuff would then need to be exclusive and restricted-access in itself, so that its copy also is to be made exclusive and restricted-access. But let's recall that this whole discussion starts with the inherent exclusivity of the Voynich - which "is not like any other". So we now arrive to explaining the exclusivity of the Voynich through bringing an exclusive old-source into the bargain, which is just somewhat excessive. Why can't Voynich be exclusive just on its own? Why is it refused originality?
Nonetheless, I would distinguish between this "copy/compilation/compendium" of old sources and an original, though derivative, work based on old sources. The latter, to my opinion, is perfectly possible.
I would suggest another trail of reasoning here. Suppose the VMS is a copy, a compilation or a compendium of old sources. This would have been perfectly possible, in my opinion, if considered with no regard to other aspects of the Voynich. But there is another aspect. The Voynichese text is highly unlikely to be written in a natural language. (I won't repeat extensive arguments toward that assertion, they are found elsewhere in the forum). So why encipher the contents of a compilation of old sources?
So, defence of the hypothesis of the "old source" would either have to defend the natural language hypothesis in addition, or, as suggested above, to enter into certain complications explaining the necessity to encipher the stuff. The original stuff would then need to be exclusive and restricted-access in itself, so that its copy also is to be made exclusive and restricted-access. But let's recall that this whole discussion starts with the inherent exclusivity of the Voynich - which "is not like any other". So we now arrive to explaining the exclusivity of the Voynich through bringing an exclusive old-source into the bargain, which is just somewhat excessive. Why can't Voynich be exclusive just on its own? Why is it refused originality?
Nonetheless, I would distinguish between this "copy/compilation/compendium" of old sources and an original, though derivative, work based on old sources. The latter, to my opinion, is perfectly possible.