30-12-2016, 02:41 AM
(This post was last modified: 30-12-2016, 02:42 AM by Diane.
Edit Reason: grammatical
)
Koen,
I think, now, that the single most important questions a person can ask in connection with study of this manuscript are the same as they would be if they decided to voice their own opinion about any other ancient or medieval work:
viz: "What are my skills?" and "What are my limits?"
It is true that the manuscript has attracted a few persons (John Tiltman being one of the earliest) who had decided ability in treating ciphers, a naturally clear and objective vision when commenting on the imagery, and even more importantly the intellectual honesty to admit where he needed to ask for - and listen to - people who knew fair bit about areas where he was ignorant.
Otherwise, the study has continually suffered from a tendency to trivialise it - or at least to reduce the parameters of discussion to whatever a given person just happens to know or to be interested in reading a bit about.
Similarly, it affects what level and type of information a given person is able to absorb and evaluate, let alone the issue of personal inclination to accept.
Not everyone is able to offer valid and useful comment on either the images or the written text, despite a general belief among many that they can be 'expert' on everything - including palaeography, codicology, iconographic analysis, art history, comparative language studies, and ciphers.
I think then that the real problem is not so much whether one should begin from study of the written or the pictorial text, but which areas one should admit being unable - by absence of natural skill, formal training or years of experience in comparative studies - to say anything useful about.
That said, I must admit that I'm about to put up a post relating to the script.
I think, now, that the single most important questions a person can ask in connection with study of this manuscript are the same as they would be if they decided to voice their own opinion about any other ancient or medieval work:
viz: "What are my skills?" and "What are my limits?"
It is true that the manuscript has attracted a few persons (John Tiltman being one of the earliest) who had decided ability in treating ciphers, a naturally clear and objective vision when commenting on the imagery, and even more importantly the intellectual honesty to admit where he needed to ask for - and listen to - people who knew fair bit about areas where he was ignorant.
Otherwise, the study has continually suffered from a tendency to trivialise it - or at least to reduce the parameters of discussion to whatever a given person just happens to know or to be interested in reading a bit about.
Similarly, it affects what level and type of information a given person is able to absorb and evaluate, let alone the issue of personal inclination to accept.
Not everyone is able to offer valid and useful comment on either the images or the written text, despite a general belief among many that they can be 'expert' on everything - including palaeography, codicology, iconographic analysis, art history, comparative language studies, and ciphers.
I think then that the real problem is not so much whether one should begin from study of the written or the pictorial text, but which areas one should admit being unable - by absence of natural skill, formal training or years of experience in comparative studies - to say anything useful about.
That said, I must admit that I'm about to put up a post relating to the script.