15-03-2016, 07:59 AM
(This post was last modified: 15-03-2016, 08:01 AM by Diane.
Edit Reason: grammar
)
Koen,
This work was first done, I think, by Nick Pelling, and since his book was published in 2006, it has become fairly common knowledge that the precision of the colouring is not that of the drawings. In some cases (again refer to Pelling's work which was the original), this may be due simply to an indifference to the lines as boundaries. (We see the same thing all the time in printed fabrics, for example). In other cases, especially those which Nick describes as the 'heavy painter's' it looks much more a result of carelessness in some cases, deliberate attempts to obscure or subvert in other cases.
This is so well-known to older Voynicheros that I guess everyone supposes you will know its not some new insight, or any recent one, and so they forget to add that information - which of course led you to suppose that Rene was speaking of his own ideas. It is a reminder to me, too, to be aware when speaking to newcomers that things we take for granted need to be properly atrributed to their authors, so that new-comers can go back to the original and see for themselves the argument that led to that point of view. Sometimes things become distorted by group mis-apprehensions, or just by careless re-phrasing, so knowing the original source is always a good thing, isn't it?
Anyway, take a look at the comments on Pelling's site, and if you can get a copy of his book. There are a lot of comments on things like the handwriting, and the codicology, that are now repeated just as routinely because they have become standard opinions.
Cheers.
This work was first done, I think, by Nick Pelling, and since his book was published in 2006, it has become fairly common knowledge that the precision of the colouring is not that of the drawings. In some cases (again refer to Pelling's work which was the original), this may be due simply to an indifference to the lines as boundaries. (We see the same thing all the time in printed fabrics, for example). In other cases, especially those which Nick describes as the 'heavy painter's' it looks much more a result of carelessness in some cases, deliberate attempts to obscure or subvert in other cases.
This is so well-known to older Voynicheros that I guess everyone supposes you will know its not some new insight, or any recent one, and so they forget to add that information - which of course led you to suppose that Rene was speaking of his own ideas. It is a reminder to me, too, to be aware when speaking to newcomers that things we take for granted need to be properly atrributed to their authors, so that new-comers can go back to the original and see for themselves the argument that led to that point of view. Sometimes things become distorted by group mis-apprehensions, or just by careless re-phrasing, so knowing the original source is always a good thing, isn't it?
Anyway, take a look at the comments on Pelling's site, and if you can get a copy of his book. There are a lot of comments on things like the handwriting, and the codicology, that are now repeated just as routinely because they have become standard opinions.
Cheers.