I just watched a recent YouTube video by Paul Whitewick. He seems to be saying that according to Lisa Fagin Davis the Voynich manuscript was well-used by the people who created the manuscript. That might well have been the case, but I am curious as to whether we can really say that with confidence. Can we distinguish between wear and tear from around the time that the manuscript was created and wear and tear that has resulted from the many people who have studied the manuscript at later times?
He makes good videos, but clearly wasn't too familiar with Voynich research. I'm not sure to what extent that quote actually reflects Lisa's ideas.
Either way, I don't think we can draw a line where "usage by makers" ends and "usage by others" begins. For all we know, that line is situated as early as ca. 1425 or as late as, say, 1460.
I had the same thought when I read that statement in the Atlantic article, who knows how much Baresch handled the document for example, but I don't know if the wear seems much more extensive or something. Would be interesting to hear Lisa's thoughts, if there are reasons why it seems more "well used" than "well studied".
I must admit the video got my back up and I won't be seeking out his other content. "How to Solve the Voynich Mystery!"..
(31-12-2024, 08:10 PM)Bluetoes101 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I must admit the video got my back up and I won't be seeking out his other content. "How to Solve the Voynich Mystery!"..
Well, I don't generally watch the typical videos on the Voynich manuscript as most of them either tell me things that I already know or things that I doubt are correct. Those videos are aimed at people who know little or nothing about the Voynich. I quite like the old BBC documentary on the Voynich manuscript. I find most of the National Geographic documentary annoying, except the end, as it goes through a series of theories and then presents the carbon dating, effectively saying that all the theories that we told you about are wrong, so we wasted your time telling you about them. I suppose they felt that they had to find a way to fill up the documentary, although they could have discussed things that were not invalidated by the carbon dating.
Like what?
Having a historical perspective of the modern investigations is useful, but not repetitiously. As you say, many theories were wrong.
(31-12-2024, 09:25 PM)R. Sale Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Like what?
Well, there are a lot of things that we discuss that are not invalidated by carbon dating. They could have focused on those things. If that is the question you are asking me.
I didn't really dislike the video itself, just these titles do my head in.
If you bought a book called "How to solve crossword puzzles!" you would be a bit miffed to open it and find some guy talking about an article he read on the origins of crossword puzzles for the entire book.