Another generalised comment...
I have often seen here in the past that the VMS is attributed to prominent authors of the (late) Middle Ages. Only about 10% of all manuscripts have survived to this day. From this pool, authors are then selected who stand out due to the volume of their work and/or the quality of their form and content. In my view, however, there is no causal connection between prominence and possible authorship of the VMS. On the contrary, the manuscript’s (so far) unique nature suggests it is more likely the work of one of the many, indeed the overwhelming majority, of unknown authors.
This leads me to wonder whether the focus on prominent names stems more from our modern need for identification and historical context than from the actual evidence at hand.
I have often seen here in the past that the VMS is attributed to prominent authors of the (late) Middle Ages. Only about 10% of all manuscripts have survived to this day. From this pool, authors are then selected who stand out due to the volume of their work and/or the quality of their form and content. In my view, however, there is no causal connection between prominence and possible authorship of the VMS. On the contrary, the manuscript’s (so far) unique nature suggests it is more likely the work of one of the many, indeed the overwhelming majority, of unknown authors.
This leads me to wonder whether the focus on prominent names stems more from our modern need for identification and historical context than from the actual evidence at hand.
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)