Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations

[hatoncat]

My interest in this topic, as in others I have explored, is mainly methodological. But of course, that interest can be best explored in a substantive way. Having learned some things already from your contributions, I believe that you have found a lot already toward a viable solution. From past and other research experiences, I have found that there is at times a tendency in researchers to try to prove their own finding(s) and (for that reason) dismissing others, at times reasonably done, and at other times perhaps not as reasonably.

Sometimes rivalries become themselves a cause for not realizing that each is seeing a part of the elephant, so to speak. Also, given the reputation or intimidation of a long-lasting puzzle to solve, we may ignore useful contributions others have made, small or large, to solving the puzzle. This then results sometimes in not seeing the elephant in the room. So, I use (as I have done so in my other research and publications) the metaphor of the elephant in the double senses expressed above (seeing whole/parts, and not noticing some obvious issues or contributions).

I am not a linguist, nor involved in quantitative or statistical research, though I appreciate others’ contributions using those approaches. I think they will also be needed for seeing the whole elephant (in the room). My solution contributions will be informed by my sociological viewpoint, especially in the tradition of the sociological imagination, a term coined by the sociologist C. Wright Mills in 1959, suggesting that social (including personal) life can be best understood by way of exploring how personal troubles and public issues interact. I think that is helpful also in historical and hermeneutic studies.

The Voynich manuscript is an artifact that must have originated in the intimate intersection of biographical and historical contexts in which someone (or persons related) was dealing with personal troubles amid public issues of their times.

(Note to the moderator, Tavie: With greetings, if you think this post still is a talk and not yet a solution, please feel welcome to move it to the Talk section. However, I will be gradually making some solution-oriented posts following this introductory post—not sure exactly how soon but will do my best to do so in a timely way).

I believe you are correct in identifying that a lot of the clues that researchers with different details point to hay in a haystack - in other words, it forms part of a whole, and small details do not necessarily contradict a theory with an overall different purpose for the manuscript.

I think another way of understanding what "elephant" means is two fold. On the one hand, the manuscript itself most likely serves a higher purpose than the original design of it (a book on flowers, medicine, and castles with notes?) 

On the other hand, elephant can be a "mirror," in the same way a Rorschach tests reveals more about the person than the ambiguity of the artist.

This "mirror" (manuscript, elephant) could also symbolize a Tower of Babel, in that multiple languages at the time would not be able to decode an imaginary language, and by exploiting the unintelligibility (at least on first glance) of text, it can serve as a smokescreen for a hidden meaning.

The theories about the cost of vellum implying it was designated for a wealthy purchaser doesn't rule out the possibility that someone wealthy had enough vellum to allow their children (even adult age) to draw on it. However, it's also possible that the drawings, while amateur looking, still served a purpose to conceal a message if they were guided by someone else (e.g parent, uncle).

"The Voynich manuscript is an artifact that must have originated in the intimate intersection of biographical and historical contexts in which someone (or persons related) was dealing with personal troubles amid public issues of their times."

This could be true, more so in a political or religious sense than a personal sense. The "elephant" could have been a commentary about the Catholic Church, the bishop or emperor of a region, or a secret religion that was heretical, so if a person trying to decode the manuscript has no interest in any of those personally, they might not be impartial enough to notice certain symbols (if they do in fact reference a region or town). Coincidences do happen of course, and it's likely that one illustration doesn't represent both a Byzantine city and a Central European one, but how likely could it be that the illustrator merged the cities's features into appearing as the same? Quite unlikely. Even if it were a composite, someone would have been able to determine that by now. The last person to know for sure whether it was an imaginary city or a real one was the author.