Koen,
She's a recent graduate.
I hope her paper will be published.
Since it is fairly obvious that she intends to provenance this imagery only in the sense that it occurs in a manuscript whose substrate is dated to the fifteenth century, I doubt she has yet the range or confidence to offer a discussion of how and why the imagery does not conform to fifteenth-century Latin Christian artefacts'.
In this case - and in fact always, including with one's own efforts - there are three chief points to be kept in mind.
1. What is the range of reading which has informed the proffered opinion? (check the bibliography in a formal paper).
2. What is the persons' range of theoretical, and of applied knowledge? ( Do they show evidence of practical experience).
3. What does the writer omit mentioning - (what can they not explain)
and in addition, I always ask a fourth question: How do they cope with being unable to explain a greater or lesser amount of specific detail?
In relation to Beinecke MS 408, there is a pronounced and widespread (surprisingly widespread) practice of sliding past the bits a given writer cannot explain - sometimes just by making soothing and meaningless noises. Watch for that.
Otherwise, I look unenthusiastically on attempts to just rationalise, or ignore what doesn't fit a desired storyline as 'theory' - in general, two of the things ignored are the sun with an artificial beard from the astronomical-meteorological section, and conjoining of two distinctly different animals under one (absent) head in the botanical section. They are not unparalleled, nor without sensible explanation - but they are not part of the Latin milieu.
Theory-driven assertions have another major weakness in this study - one deeply entrenched in the poorer sort of work. I mean that by which a Voynichero, at a loss to explain some aspect of the manuscript, resorts to inventing an imaginary character, (deemed the 'artist' or 'scribe' or 'author') who is then made to shoulder all responsibility for the inability of the Voynichero to fit this or that within their favourite theory.
Those being all general observations. Before I criticise this graduate's paper, it will have to be offered online. Let's hope that might happen. And that the writer duly acknowledges her debt to Alain Touwaide, an eminent authority.
She's a recent graduate.
I hope her paper will be published.
Since it is fairly obvious that she intends to provenance this imagery only in the sense that it occurs in a manuscript whose substrate is dated to the fifteenth century, I doubt she has yet the range or confidence to offer a discussion of how and why the imagery does not conform to fifteenth-century Latin Christian artefacts'.
In this case - and in fact always, including with one's own efforts - there are three chief points to be kept in mind.
1. What is the range of reading which has informed the proffered opinion? (check the bibliography in a formal paper).
2. What is the persons' range of theoretical, and of applied knowledge? ( Do they show evidence of practical experience).
3. What does the writer omit mentioning - (what can they not explain)
and in addition, I always ask a fourth question: How do they cope with being unable to explain a greater or lesser amount of specific detail?
In relation to Beinecke MS 408, there is a pronounced and widespread (surprisingly widespread) practice of sliding past the bits a given writer cannot explain - sometimes just by making soothing and meaningless noises. Watch for that.
Otherwise, I look unenthusiastically on attempts to just rationalise, or ignore what doesn't fit a desired storyline as 'theory' - in general, two of the things ignored are the sun with an artificial beard from the astronomical-meteorological section, and conjoining of two distinctly different animals under one (absent) head in the botanical section. They are not unparalleled, nor without sensible explanation - but they are not part of the Latin milieu.
Theory-driven assertions have another major weakness in this study - one deeply entrenched in the poorer sort of work. I mean that by which a Voynichero, at a loss to explain some aspect of the manuscript, resorts to inventing an imaginary character, (deemed the 'artist' or 'scribe' or 'author') who is then made to shoulder all responsibility for the inability of the Voynichero to fit this or that within their favourite theory.
Those being all general observations. Before I criticise this graduate's paper, it will have to be offered online. Let's hope that might happen. And that the writer duly acknowledges her debt to Alain Touwaide, an eminent authority.
