← Back to context

Comment by philistine

20 hours ago

With how undecipherable the manuscript is, my personal theory is that it's the work of a naive artist and that there's no language behind it. Just someone aping language without knowing the rules about language: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naïve_art

It's not a mental issue, it's just a rare thing that happens. Voynich fits the whole bill for the work of a naive artist.

And that naïve artist somehow managed to create a work that follows Zipf's law, 4 centuries before it was discovered?

You're not alone. Many have hypothesized this is just made up gibberish given the unusual distribution of glyphs.

Not a recent hoax/scam, but an ancient one.

It's not like there weren't a ton of fake documents in the middle age and renaissance, from the donation of Constantine to Preserve John's letter.

  • The way you describe it is why it’s not readily accepted. It’s misunderstood. You called it a hoax/scam and a fake. It’s not!

    Whoever made the document was sincere in making up something that doesn’t exist. They had no intention to mislead. You wouldn’t call a D&D campaign a hoax because it features nonexistent things?