Expert opinions about the VMS

[Diane]

Just to point out a couple of errors.

Rene is in error saying that "Proper, qualified opinions about the imagery are relatively rare still".

Stolot is not an expert on the Voynich manuscript's imagery and has never produced or published any detailed study of it to my knowledge - do correct me if I am mistaken.

Touwaide is certainly an expert on the history of Latin European and Byzantine medicine and in the course of his academic research has seen so many examples that his opinion on any medieval herbal manuscript in those traditions, or in the Arabic may be relied upon.  I am sure that despite his being a genuine and recognised expert, he would also be the first to deny that he is an expert on the imagery in the Voynich manuscript.

As it happens, I am also a formally qualified expert in iconographic analysis and provenancing, as Rene is well aware, and have thirty-five years' experience in that field - as Rene is also aware.

I find it very ironic then, to read that he believes one should not reject detailed and expert assessments of the imagery because they don't accord with one's opinions.

That is the last time I will remind Rene that to insinuate that a qualified professional is not entitled to be regarded as such is inappropriate from a person without any training or experience in the discipline.  As in any field, of course, there are levels of competence and particular fields of expertise.  Mine is comparative iconography and provenancing. And in my qualified opinion, the botanical imagery in the Voynich manuscript is not of Latin European origin and does not constitute a herbal in the usual sense.

Thank you all.