The Voynich a manuscript without precedent

[Mark Knowles]

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.)