Qasr mosaic leopard and VMS Leo/August image

[Sam G]

Putting it all together.... there are lots of good reasons why the Voynich MS, though a bit unusual, is a European MS from the early 15th C or the middle of the 15th C. The castle with the pronounced crenellations, the oak-and-ivy illustration, and others are clearly contemporary elements.

A direct descendance from a source of more than 1000 years before is a very challenging suggestion, and seems at odds with basically all expert opinions. Arguing for it will require very solid points.

Well, then to look at this from a slightly different angle: what about the text?

Now, the issue of the nature of the VMS text has come up on this forum before, and I always prefer to debate the actual evidence rather than rely on expert opinions, and anyone can check this by reviewing those old threads.  So my view is consistent: neither the text nor the illustrations are so vexing that they cannot be meaningfully studied by amateurs.  Also, while I don't feel that expertise should just be casually disregarded, I also don't see that it should be slavishly adhered to where logic or evidence indicates that it is wrong.  I think it is an empirically demonstrated fact that experts are often wrong, and amateurs are sometimes correct.  So what follows here is not how I usually argue, and is written in response to what I regard as your overemphasis and selective use of "expert opinion" in this thread.

Anyway, as I'm sure you are aware, the expert opinions are very strongly against the view that the VMS text is a ciphertext of any kind.  Most notably here you have William Friedman, John Tiltman, and Jim Gillogly, all three of whom studied the VMS for decades and concluded that it was not written in cipher.  Maybe you can find a cryptographer somewhere who thinks that the VMS is a ciphertext, but you won't find many, and certainly you won't find one with the reputation or demonstrated codebreaking ability of any of these three.

As far as professional linguists go, you have Jacques Guy, James Child, and more recently Stephen Bax who, although differing in the particulars, have clearly stated that the VMS is written in some unusual natural language, and is not encrypted.  I believe there are some other linguists who have expressed this view in the list archives, and I am aware of no linguist who has ever expressed any other view.  So we have unanimity here among several experts.

So I think it's clear that if we are going to decide, based on the translation/summary of some casual remarks from an art historian posted on the web possibly even without her knowledge, that depicting Aries as a goat is nothing out of the ordinary, then surely the nearly unanimous opinion of many expert cryptographers and linguists who have put an enormous effort into researching the VMS text must carry an even far greater weight.  The VMS is not encrypted, and it is written in an unusual, otherwise unknown natural language.

Now, I know I have seen you express the view that the VMS in fact is a ciphertext, although interestingly you do not state this on your own website.  I'm sure I could dig up the references if you want.  That means that you hold a view that is completely in contradiction to expert opinion, despite your stated view that expert opinion should be respected.

So, from the standpoint of your view that the VMS text is a ciphertext, perhaps the idea that there is nothing unusual about the illustrations and no need to posit any foreign/ancient influence in the VMS might make some sense.

But how do we possibly reconcile a 100% medieval Western European origin for the VMS with the fact that it is written in an otherwise unknown language?

Should the fact that the VMS is written in an otherwise unknown language at all influence our ideas about what is and what is not possible regarding the origins and meaning of the illustrations, and of the content more generally?