A hint of precedents – says a flaming goose.

A pseudonymous writer has raised the interesting idea that somewhere or other there may be cite-able precedents for some of my findings.  I rather like the idea, but the person seemed unable to provide any particular details. I guess it’s just some vague notion which he has acquired.  Nonetheless, there may be something to it, so please do leave a name, and link to their work, if you know anyone else whose analysis of the imagery in MS Beinecke 408 led them to conclude that:

* that the manuscript’s imagery consistently relates, and refers to the eastern world – most specifically in the botanical and ‘pharma’ sections.

* that the manuscript is not an authorial composition, but a compilation from older material. Just by the way: on this point, I recall very distinctly that the ‘goosey’ sort of abuse was hurled freely in my direction by members of the Voynich mailing list when I first explained my conclusion to them.  After the usual generalities and personal abuse, I was informed with some emphasis that the opinion was ridiculous, and that if such was my conclusion I should name the source-works from which it had been compiled.

It is rather nice, then, to find that the anonymous list-member (at least his tone is very list-ish) has now gained an idea that to describe the manuscript as a compilation is not only NOT ridiculous, but near enough to commonplace.   Evidently, in the year I was away, enough people came to like this idea that the opinion of the general has undergone a significant shift.   … But back to the point. If you know of anyone who said that the manuscript was NOT an authorial composition, and said so before 2009, please leave me a note of the person’s name, and where they had published that opinion.

Another point for which (according to this anonymous writer)  I owe acknowledgements is with regard to my conclusions about folio 86v.  These I suppose include:

* that folio 86v is a map whose specific details describe the extent of the user’s world as far (at least) as India.  In addition (a) that the style of drawing can be demonstrated as not compatible with any western Christian origin (b) that the map has clearly discernible chronological layers and that (c) the latest of those layers connects to the west’s “portolan-” maritime charts.

So – if I have failed to credit another person with first having presented these conclusions, with their informing evidence, I would be most grateful for the opportunity to remedy the omission.

I found nothing else of substance in the rest of that person’s post: it’s the usual sort of thing: sexist, abusive… mailing list sort of stuff. But if you enjoy that kind of thing, you can probably find the comment below one of the posts at ciphermysteries.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

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