This is a very interesting discussion, but I'm puzzled about why my name should have been brought into it. Since Anton couples my name with that of a Professor of Linguistics, I wonder if it isn't a slip, and the person mentioned was meant for another linguist, such as Anna May Smith?
Anton said:
My research has had nothing to do with linguistics, nor with the written part of the text at all. I work within my own field which is the provenancing of imagery in problematic artefacts.
Since my conclusions are usually presented online with some of the historical and comparative iconographic evidence which led me to those conclusions, and no other qualified person has ever disputed either the evidence or the conclusions, I do not see that I have any need to defend my conclusions at present. Vague sneers and determined avoidance have been pretty much the only reactions I've seen by Voynicheros between 2008 and the present, so for that reason too I have had no reason to defend any of my conclusions, comparative evidence or reasoning. They have never been challenged or argued against.
I wonder if Anton has misunderstood my use of the word "Latin Europe".
It is used of that region whose dominant culture was Christian and official common language Latin. I might have said "western Christendom" but the term is out of favour.
Saying that the imagery is not a product of that region and its dominant culture says nothing about the written part of this text. As example: suppose that an early copy of Aratus had been discovered, and that while its imagery was copied exactly, the text was translated into a form more congenial for its present time and owners.
So the imagery would continue to speak of a non-Latin and non-Christian culture but the text might well be in Latin. Correctly identifying the region(s) and time(s) for first enunciation of this imagery, noting signs of later alterations and additions *to the original matter*, and finally positing a time, and cultural environment for the exemplars informing our present copy was not an easy task, but one of these days it may prove useful to those interested in what the manuscript actually contains, and where the material came from and so forth.
Perhaps Professor Bax - like Anna Smith, or Rene Zandbergen and everyone else - feels his work also likely to be of use to others in the longer term?
Anton said:
Quote:No I am not disputing this ... but there are researchers who are. I won't speak for Bax or O'Donovan or others (let them defend their points of view themselves). What I mean is that scientific discourse should be based on criteria of scientific truth, not on assertions like "this is clear" or "this is evident" or "thus spake D'Imperio".
My research has had nothing to do with linguistics, nor with the written part of the text at all. I work within my own field which is the provenancing of imagery in problematic artefacts.
Since my conclusions are usually presented online with some of the historical and comparative iconographic evidence which led me to those conclusions, and no other qualified person has ever disputed either the evidence or the conclusions, I do not see that I have any need to defend my conclusions at present. Vague sneers and determined avoidance have been pretty much the only reactions I've seen by Voynicheros between 2008 and the present, so for that reason too I have had no reason to defend any of my conclusions, comparative evidence or reasoning. They have never been challenged or argued against.
I wonder if Anton has misunderstood my use of the word "Latin Europe".
It is used of that region whose dominant culture was Christian and official common language Latin. I might have said "western Christendom" but the term is out of favour.
Saying that the imagery is not a product of that region and its dominant culture says nothing about the written part of this text. As example: suppose that an early copy of Aratus had been discovered, and that while its imagery was copied exactly, the text was translated into a form more congenial for its present time and owners.
So the imagery would continue to speak of a non-Latin and non-Christian culture but the text might well be in Latin. Correctly identifying the region(s) and time(s) for first enunciation of this imagery, noting signs of later alterations and additions *to the original matter*, and finally positing a time, and cultural environment for the exemplars informing our present copy was not an easy task, but one of these days it may prove useful to those interested in what the manuscript actually contains, and where the material came from and so forth.
Perhaps Professor Bax - like Anna Smith, or Rene Zandbergen and everyone else - feels his work also likely to be of use to others in the longer term?