[split] Relying on external imagery

[Mark Knowles]

When you say:

"They simply did not invent things."

Then I can only conclude that it is amazing that the wheel of history has moved forward at all.

I would say that medieval people like modern people were highly inventive, why make assumptions about what they were capable of or inclined towards that you wouldn't make of modern people.

Yes, sometimes people come up with comparisons that are not particularly strong, or that others might reject entirely, but that's why this place exists so we can all start a thread with our favourite weird fish-people/crossbows/sunflowers drawn from only the most obscure of central European archives for the delight/derision of the rest of the forum.

What I was trying to communicate was that there is tendency to assume that there is not original content in the manuscript.

Koen argues that medieval people did not invent things and this is a modern phenomenon.

In fact the medieval world was responsible for significant inventions such as:

1) Clocks
2) Spectacles (i.e. Glasses)
3) Wind Mills and Tidal Mills
4) Castles
5) the Compass
6) Numerous developments in weaponry.
7) Advances in building techniques such as the flying buttress.
8) Overall many refinements/technical improvements to technology adopted from the classical world or arab world or the east.

There were also creative writers and thinkers during this period who I could list.

It is worth noting that carbon dating dates the Voynich to the early italian renaissance, a time of great creativity and inventiveness; given that there are strong reasons to associate the manuscript with Northern Italy this fits.

Given that in the opinion of some people the Voynich was written in cipher and given that this cipher has not been broken in hundreds of years this is indicative of a potentially highly creative mind that produced the manuscript. If the writing system of the manuscript is original and inventive, why assume the contents are merely reproductions of other sources?

I have a big problem with this way of approaching Voynich research. It seems to be that one sees a detail in the Voynich then frantically searches for a drawing in a manuscript that looks vaguely similar and if one can't find one then it must be as there is no surviving manuscript or we have not found the comparable manuscript yet. Sometimes we have to ask what and why a creative mind might have drawn a specific thing. Yes, manuscript comparisons can without a doubt be very valuable, but I think there is a tendency to lean on them like a crutch.