09-08-2025, 08:39 PM
In Voynich research, theories and approaches to the script predominate. This has always been the case, and it seems contradictory because common sense tells us that we can understand a good number of images (not all) and build hypotheses about them rather than attempting to address a cryptic and intractable script. A study of Voynich iconography as intense as that of the script would certainly be productive. But unfortunately, in this century, the humanities are not in fashion.
For me, the script is a byproduct, something secondary. What I mean is, the Voynich authors created an astrological book full of images to convey a message quite common in their time: the power of the stars. They could have left the illustrations alone, without the script, and the message would have been clear to the educated people of their time.
One of them came up with the idea that the images could be accompanied by a kind of explanatory text, but what text can there be for something that the illustrations themselves already explain? That's how I think the script was born, an iconic code of symbols and astronomical positions that was included in the book as text. A kind of game.
For me, the script is a byproduct, something secondary. What I mean is, the Voynich authors created an astrological book full of images to convey a message quite common in their time: the power of the stars. They could have left the illustrations alone, without the script, and the message would have been clear to the educated people of their time.
One of them came up with the idea that the images could be accompanied by a kind of explanatory text, but what text can there be for something that the illustrations themselves already explain? That's how I think the script was born, an iconic code of symbols and astronomical positions that was included in the book as text. A kind of game.
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)