The aim of this blog is to inspect the premises, assumptions and evidence (if any) which led to the formation of ideas that are now repeated everywhere.
After a century in which the ‘usual story’ has got us no-where in efforts to read the pictorial or the written text, it’s time to see just where the study went wrong – what is believed that deserves no credence? What began as a vague idea and was hardened into dogma by no more than repetition? How much represents conclusions reached from solid evidence?
How much of what is said by modern ‘Voyncheros’ is a product of their own effort and which is just repeating ideas untested for a hundred years.
How much of what everyone (including the holding library) describes as “what we know” isn’t “what we know” but a long-ago speculation?
Posts to the blog look at those ‘Voynich doctrines’ in turn, tracing each it to its roots, how it came to be disseminated and includes a list of initial readings for anyone wanting to look at the topic afresh.
The ‘skies above’ series of posts is one exception. There, I didn’t feel it would be honest not to include something of my own work but as a rule (as with the last of the ‘Green stars’ series, any discussion of my own work is brief.
This isn’t about persuading readers of my own views, but about opening up the study to new approaches, without the need to believe older, unproven notions about the manuscript, still maintained by the traditionalist* theory.
*The traditionalist theory might be defined as ‘its-a-zodiac-and-zodiac-means-astrology’.