The Voynich a manuscript without precedent

[Mark Knowles]

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.