27-09-2026, 04:40 PM
I think many people, myself included, have been frustrated by the amount of repetition in the VM. There is historical precedence for repetitive phrases like 'Holy Holy Holy', etc, but I haven't personally seen examples of historical works that utilize repetition to the extent of Voynich.
Even under the self citation theory, you have to ask: why would they choose to copy the same word consecutively multiple times?
It's obvious that the scribes behind the Voynich manuscript valued aesthetics of the text, regardless of the broader questions around its semantic meaning. As I have been analyzing the VM, I am increasingly starting to suspect that scribes are intentionally choosing to render words in repetitive forms, even when other options may exist.
What if the answer is simply that the scribes viewed the repetition as a positive aesthetic quality?
I'm reminded of the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. of the medieval minims phrase that appears to be multiple lines of I characters, but actually spells out a complex phrase.
With Voynich, the repetition doesn't necessarily even need to come from ambiguity of characters possibly taking multiple forms (although that could be the case). Maybe others have already suggested this, but it would explain how both extreme atypical repetition and semantic meaning could coexist.
Even under the self citation theory, you have to ask: why would they choose to copy the same word consecutively multiple times?
It's obvious that the scribes behind the Voynich manuscript valued aesthetics of the text, regardless of the broader questions around its semantic meaning. As I have been analyzing the VM, I am increasingly starting to suspect that scribes are intentionally choosing to render words in repetitive forms, even when other options may exist.
What if the answer is simply that the scribes viewed the repetition as a positive aesthetic quality?
I'm reminded of the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. of the medieval minims phrase that appears to be multiple lines of I characters, but actually spells out a complex phrase.
With Voynich, the repetition doesn't necessarily even need to come from ambiguity of characters possibly taking multiple forms (although that could be the case). Maybe others have already suggested this, but it would explain how both extreme atypical repetition and semantic meaning could coexist.