RE: Was the Voynich manuscript unusual for the time?
Mark Knowles > 29-10-2021, 04:20 PM
It makes sense to me that there is some original content.
My own perception is that it is like someone's book of their own scientific research and theories, which goes a long way to explaining the presence of original content. In a modern context it doesn't look or seem that scientific, but it feels like the mindset is similar. If, in modern times, you are doing your own scientific research, of course, it will borrow and be influenced by the work of others, but there will also be original content of your own.
I suppose I see the cipher, as I believe it to be, to be a part of the original scientific work the author(s) is trying to write. There isn't it seems a cryptography section of the manuscript, but the cryptography section runs throughout the whole manuscript. I think this is like Giovanni Fontana's work in that sense as though the cipher is there not to keep the contents secret, but rather to demonstrate the power of cryptography.
The more original the content of the manuscript the harder it will be to understand and decipher, however the greater historical value it will have.
I do sympathise with people who don't want us to overstate its originality. When there are people who claim the Voynich is so original that it must have been written by aliens or conjured up by spirits, then we have to say that it is not as original as you think. Ultimately everything lies on a spectrum from completely unique and original to completely derivative and conventional. Personally, I just don't think people should view the Voynich as a simple copy and paste exercise from other manuscripts.