Over the time this blog has been running, I have responded to ten or twelve readers asking where they might find my argument, or where I outline my ‘theory’.

Until now, I’ve replied separately to each, but to save others the trouble here is a reply for all.

________

Dear [ insert name]

Thank you for your interest, and for having followed my posts for as long as […….], which takes some persistence, I should think.

I’m sorry that you cannot find any sign of my hypothesis and/or  ‘argument’, but this blog is a little different from most other Voynich blogs in that respect.

I did not begin from any hypothesis, and have no intention of creating one for which I then try to find support, in order to produce a plausible, or a convincing argument.

What I am doing here is explaining the imagery on each folio, and each section, in the hope that there may be some direct link between the pictorial and the written text, and in that way my explanation of the imagery may assist those working on the text’s written part.

At the time of writing (July 2015), I have reached certain conclusions about the evidence, and find the evidence itself denies some of the more prevalent and seemingly plausible theories, but if someone told me tomorrow that our present manuscript was owned by a Spanish Franciscan, or a Jewish cloth-merchant, or even at a pinch an earlier medieval pharmacist I should be as willing to believe these as a number of other appropriate suggestions.

I cannot believe that the work is by a seventeenth-century occultist, or that it is a twentieth century fraud, or that it is the composition of a single European author.  The primary source forbids.

Anyway, thank you again for writing. If I do develop a theory which I think will account for every detail that I’ve treated in this manuscript, I’ll certainly post it, and then call upon the past seven years’ work if I need examples and evidence to cite in support.

At the moment, I am fairly much inclined to the view that most of what is in the manuscript, as a fifteenth century copy and collation, may have been gained from works  that had belonged to oriental Jews, which group includes the Sephardic /Mizrahi.

Jews from inner Asia and India appear to have migrated to southern Europe and North Africa as early as the ninth and tenth centuries.

By the mid-fourteenth, makers of the new rhumb-gridded charts evidently had links to at least one of the fold-out sections, viz. folio 86v.

I’d suggest that the best way to make use of this blog is to search for the folio you want to study, and then read my analysis and explanation of its imagery.  I haven’t treated every folio, so if nothing comes up for the folio (use the Beinecke foliation), you might like to search by subject.

Hope it helps.

D.N. O’Donovan

Comments

  1. Good morning.
    I’m an Archaeology student of Catania university and I’m writing a thesis about Edku lake, in Egypt. I saw an interesting map on voynichimagery.wordpress and I wanted to ask to you If i can use it, but in this case I need to know the source, the author And the year. The image is https://voynichimagery.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/map-egypt-delta-southfaicing-schematic-good.jpg. Could you help me?
    Thank you and best regards.
    Martina Maenza.

    Like

      • Thank you for your answer, but actually I’m not sure to use that image, I just asked the source because it was interesting the reconstruction of the pre-roman Edku. It’s very interesting your ipothesis about Voynich f86 (the piece about the marsh near Rosetta arm), but my professors could not like the quote in a thesis of Archaeology of this misterious manuscript.Thank you againMartina Maenza

        Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 12:47:44 +0000 To: martinamaenza@hotmail.com

        Like

      • Martina,
        I should make the point that this is not an hypothesis, but the conclusion reached after extensive research – most of which is not published here. Most of what is here is only the final summary of my research into each detail, and each folio because the people working on the text are mostly not interested in the manuscript itself, or its age, or imagery – only in how to read the written part.

        The difference between an hypothesis, and a conclusion is that whereas an hypothesis is yet to be proven, and may be taken up and ‘proven’ by someone else, an expert’s informed conclusion does not require anyone to finish the task. Later writers may agree, or disagree with my conclusions, but they cannot take the results of my work, and re-work them, as if plagiarism were improvement.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s