29-09-2025, 01:45 PM
(This post was last modified: 29-09-2025, 01:45 PM by LisaFaginDavis.)
I really cannot get at my bespoke version of Archtype anymore, but IT DOES NOT MATTER. I don't know how many ways I can say this: Archtype is a TOOL. It is not a calculator or a computer or a neural network. I have reams of paper on which I wrote notes and worked on the hands of the manuscript, but no one seems to care about those even though Archtype is just an extension of those notes; it is a substitute for cutting out glyphs and sorting them on a table. It's time to let this go. I've written two articles about this work and have two more coming out soon, and my work speaks for itself. Accept it or not, that's up to you. Just be careful that you are not drawing contrary conclusions just because your favorite theory might turn out to be wrong if I'm right. It matters a lot to some people that I be proven "wrong", because if I'm right, their ideas might fall apart. Base your conclusions on the evidence, not the other way around.
The manuscript was written by humans. Humans are variable and inconsistent. Paleography is about trends and tendancies and bell curves, not about absolutes and binaries. My experience tells me that it is more likely than not that folios 1 and 2 were written by the same hand, even though if you look microscopically you will find inconsistencies. My experience tells me it is much more likely than not that folio 14 and folio 103 were written by different hands. You might try to argue that folio 1r was written by 17 different hands, or that the entire manuscript was writte by a single hand. All of these are POSSIBLE, but they are not EQUALLY possible.
If, in order for your own theory to be "right" (and here I'm addressing everyone on the site), the manuscript must have been written by one scribe, or 300, you may need to step back and consider your methodology and logic. Don't draw conclusions and THEN look for evidence to support them. Start with the evidence.
This really is the last time I'm going to defend my work here. Accept it or not, that's up to you.
The manuscript was written by humans. Humans are variable and inconsistent. Paleography is about trends and tendancies and bell curves, not about absolutes and binaries. My experience tells me that it is more likely than not that folios 1 and 2 were written by the same hand, even though if you look microscopically you will find inconsistencies. My experience tells me it is much more likely than not that folio 14 and folio 103 were written by different hands. You might try to argue that folio 1r was written by 17 different hands, or that the entire manuscript was writte by a single hand. All of these are POSSIBLE, but they are not EQUALLY possible.
If, in order for your own theory to be "right" (and here I'm addressing everyone on the site), the manuscript must have been written by one scribe, or 300, you may need to step back and consider your methodology and logic. Don't draw conclusions and THEN look for evidence to support them. Start with the evidence.
This really is the last time I'm going to defend my work here. Accept it or not, that's up to you.
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)