Rene
I agree that non-European is a problematical term. Let me phrase it more unambiguously.
This is a statement I would agree with, while many people won't: "The manuscript's contents is not the product of Latin-European culture, apart from a thin layer of medieval veneer in some places, like in the nymph sections. Instead, it is the result of a series of copies from assembled ancient sources, added in various places and times, only reaching mainland Europe close to the manuscripts' being manufactured.".
Am I wrong in assuming that such statements are met with a large amount of skepticism? Am I really assuming too much?
Want to see this in action? I'll just reproduce two images from my last post here, in which I tried to summarize some possibly Alexandrian imagery on one and the same page: a vessel top adorned with the shape of the Lighthouse (Pharos), and a cobra wearing a symbol of the pharaoh (which was still in use in Greco-Roman Egypt).
The reactions will be one of the following:
- *awkward ignoring*
- "You are crazy as a person!"
- "Yes, but it's a German snake!"
- "The artist drew this cobra, symbol of Egypt, wearing another symbol of Egypt on its head, by accident!"
Let's see which one it is this time
These are found on the same sheet:
![[Image: crownofegypt.jpg?w=720]](https://herculeaf.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/crownofegypt.jpg?w=720)
![[Image: snake-and-vulture.jpg?w=396&h=218]](https://herculeaf.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/snake-and-vulture.jpg?w=396&h=218)
![[Image: attachment.php?aid=265]](http://www.voynich.ninja/attachment.php?aid=265)
Anyway. Instead of discussing semantics, I would like to know what concrete evidence there is to see the entire manuscript as mainly a Latin-European creation, "the work of one 'brain'" to quote your site, and to dismiss hypotheses that earlier strata still lay at the basis of the manuscript's imagery, indeed still representing the bulk of its contents.
I agree that non-European is a problematical term. Let me phrase it more unambiguously.
This is a statement I would agree with, while many people won't: "The manuscript's contents is not the product of Latin-European culture, apart from a thin layer of medieval veneer in some places, like in the nymph sections. Instead, it is the result of a series of copies from assembled ancient sources, added in various places and times, only reaching mainland Europe close to the manuscripts' being manufactured.".
Am I wrong in assuming that such statements are met with a large amount of skepticism? Am I really assuming too much?
Want to see this in action? I'll just reproduce two images from my last post here, in which I tried to summarize some possibly Alexandrian imagery on one and the same page: a vessel top adorned with the shape of the Lighthouse (Pharos), and a cobra wearing a symbol of the pharaoh (which was still in use in Greco-Roman Egypt).
The reactions will be one of the following:
- *awkward ignoring*
- "You are crazy as a person!"
- "Yes, but it's a German snake!"
- "The artist drew this cobra, symbol of Egypt, wearing another symbol of Egypt on its head, by accident!"
Let's see which one it is this time
These are found on the same sheet:
Anyway. Instead of discussing semantics, I would like to know what concrete evidence there is to see the entire manuscript as mainly a Latin-European creation, "the work of one 'brain'" to quote your site, and to dismiss hypotheses that earlier strata still lay at the basis of the manuscript's imagery, indeed still representing the bulk of its contents.