Voynich theories and Voynich solutions

[MarcoP]

Hi Marco

I, in turn, disagree with your objections.

1) Emma was talking about following this method ourselves, so the fact that we don't have access to the artefact is a very real hindrance. Of course I do agree that we should be denied access to testing the VM at all costs . But the limitation remains.

So you seriously believe you have the competence to perform tests on a XV Century manuscript yourself.  Have you received a specific training or do you think that anyone can perform meaningful tests on artifacts? Exactly, how does your impossibility to perform tests on the ms hinders the research of the Voynich community? Don't you think it could be better to see the research community as something in which the roles of people depend on their competence, leaving tests to those with a specific training and blogs to amateurs?

2) There is still significant disagreement about the illustrations, and what is great about the approach people like Emma favor is that they circumvent this problem by studying the language-as-language. But yes, I personally think success will lie in a label-and-image-based approach. Still, this is much, much more complex in the VM than with, say, an inscription found in a nobleman's tomb. 

Disagreement doesn't make things nonexistent. Many amateurs disagree with Pallottino and are still at work on their own Etruscan theories: their disagreement doesn't make the results of scholars disappear. 
Much work can be done on the text only, but it's good to know that the visual context allows us to check that proposed readings are consistent with it. This is not a personal view, but the practice of contextual analysis.
You previously wrote that “There is no context at all”. But the context is there and its existence doesn't depend on the current state of Emma's research.

3) We know almost nothing about where the manuscript was made. Its contents are almost irrelevant. Even within Europe, there would be a huge difference if it was made in Germany, England, Northern Italy, Sicily or Spain. And even if we knew the country, we still know nothing about the context. Some people seem to favor a lonely scribe in a mountain cabin, while others think of a monastic setting or a "secular" workshop. 

Yes, there are indications, but this is again infinitely more complex than with an Etruscan inscription found in situ. I'm sure there are complex cases there as well, but there are plenty of inscriptions where the context is mostly clear.

Panofsky seems to have changed his mind about the manuscript based on the conviction that one of the plants was a sunflower and a German reading of the Mus Del marginalia. I have severe doubts about the sunflower, and German marginalia means that the manuscript passed through German speaking hands. His initial impression was a multi-cultural Spanish context.

And Touwaide and Toresella have done wonderful work in their own areas, but their statements about the VM have been vague, very careful or even in the negative about it belonging to known traditions. Do you really think they have provided sufficient argumentation to say that the VM has been made in x location?

Yes, I do believe in the value of this kind of antiquarian analysis. The identification of specific German and Italian elements is the result of the hard work of researchers to whom I am grateful. Even if we don't have a specific location, I don't believe their work is “almost nothing”. But then I also don't believe I can make meaningful physical tests on ancient artifacts nor that I can read inscriptions in pre-medieval tombs. I guess my awareness of my own limits makes it easier for me to appreciate advancements due to others.