23-04-2026, 03:57 PM
It would be ridiculous for me to give a laudatory account of Panofsky here, one of the greatest scholars of art and iconology. What I can say without exaggeration is that, as far as the Voynich imagery is concerned, he is the most qualified person who has consulted it in the entire history of research on the codex. This does not, of course, preclude Panofsky from having doubts, correcting himself, and even making mistakes in some aspects. It seems logical if we consider that we are dealing with a book that is a huge mystery.
What's astonishing is how little support some of his ideas have received. In this forum, the most important one for Voynich research, there isn't a single thread dedicated to discussing his ideas. I haven't needed to start one because I've cited him hundreds of times. If Panofsky has a defender, it's undoubtedly me.
What anyone visiting this forum for the first time should know is that we are dealing with an authoritative voice who held the codex in his hands and saw nothing biological or related to bathing. Neither female organs nor women bathing. Was he blind, or did he know how to interpret what he saw?
What's astonishing is how little support some of his ideas have received. In this forum, the most important one for Voynich research, there isn't a single thread dedicated to discussing his ideas. I haven't needed to start one because I've cited him hundreds of times. If Panofsky has a defender, it's undoubtedly me.
What anyone visiting this forum for the first time should know is that we are dealing with an authoritative voice who held the codex in his hands and saw nothing biological or related to bathing. Neither female organs nor women bathing. Was he blind, or did he know how to interpret what he saw?