17-10-2016, 03:59 AM
(This post was last modified: 17-10-2016, 04:03 AM by Diane.
Edit Reason: cut
)
Koen,
I like that id as the Lyre.
Part of the problem is finding a way to shift the previous century's mass of hypothesis and speculation built upon efforts to justify, after the fact, the idea that the manuscript's content is all the product of a Latin Christian author, or entirely of the Latin (i.e. western European) Christian tradition.
Since 1912, so many people have adopted that hypothesis, and then invested time, effort, networking skills and personal image into supporting it, that it is very difficult now to introduce more rigorous method or any wider parameters to the investigation. The pattern of response to any evidence or conclusions which find that the content is not compatible with theories of a Latin Christian authorship, and (more recently) of central European Christian origin, tend to result in sustained efforts to discredit the research - not by addressing the evidence and argument - but by creating a general impression that the researcher themselves is 'bad'.
Georg Stolfi is the first I saw subjected to that sort of treatment and I'm not sure it had ever been seen before the 2000s. Until then, the general tenor of discussion had been intelligent and about enquiry, not about camps whose leaders said, in effect, that whoever wasn't with them was against them. But that sort of atmosphere did develop from the early 2000s until it finally killed Santacoloma's mailing list.
Discussions of liinguistics and cryptography have tended to remain much more open in their horizons, and intelligent and co-operative: people being more interested in getting it right than anything else. Where the imagery is concerned, though, or theoretical narratives as 'history' the opposite and lower standards are often seen.
Nick Pelling did ascribe to the "Latin Christian author" idea, but he nominated a fifteenth century Italian, when the popular theory was something to do with 16th or 17thC central Europe, so he was also subjected to the sort of campaign composed of "pals behind the scene" slander and public ridicule which proved so effective before and which has done so since. Being subjected to personal insult, and then defending himself, he was said to be "agressive"... etc.
We saw something of the same occur in Sam G's perfectly sensible thread about an image in a north African mosaic.
Since I began publishing my research online, I have been treated to the same method that I call the "Stolfi discouragement" since it appears to have begun about that time and since then to have been directed to any who do not reach conclusions compatible with a central European, Christian, origin for the work's content.
I would suggest then, that if you want to begin a thread which might not result in matter that can be used to support the "all Christian European" content hypothesis, that you speak in advance to the moderators.
You can't blame people for feeling upset at the idea that their theory is flawed. But we have to be able to consider more than one theory, and in depth.
Postscript - Ellie's post went up while I was writing this one; it shouldn't be mistaken for a response to hers.
I like that id as the Lyre.
Part of the problem is finding a way to shift the previous century's mass of hypothesis and speculation built upon efforts to justify, after the fact, the idea that the manuscript's content is all the product of a Latin Christian author, or entirely of the Latin (i.e. western European) Christian tradition.
Since 1912, so many people have adopted that hypothesis, and then invested time, effort, networking skills and personal image into supporting it, that it is very difficult now to introduce more rigorous method or any wider parameters to the investigation. The pattern of response to any evidence or conclusions which find that the content is not compatible with theories of a Latin Christian authorship, and (more recently) of central European Christian origin, tend to result in sustained efforts to discredit the research - not by addressing the evidence and argument - but by creating a general impression that the researcher themselves is 'bad'.
Georg Stolfi is the first I saw subjected to that sort of treatment and I'm not sure it had ever been seen before the 2000s. Until then, the general tenor of discussion had been intelligent and about enquiry, not about camps whose leaders said, in effect, that whoever wasn't with them was against them. But that sort of atmosphere did develop from the early 2000s until it finally killed Santacoloma's mailing list.
Discussions of liinguistics and cryptography have tended to remain much more open in their horizons, and intelligent and co-operative: people being more interested in getting it right than anything else. Where the imagery is concerned, though, or theoretical narratives as 'history' the opposite and lower standards are often seen.
Nick Pelling did ascribe to the "Latin Christian author" idea, but he nominated a fifteenth century Italian, when the popular theory was something to do with 16th or 17thC central Europe, so he was also subjected to the sort of campaign composed of "pals behind the scene" slander and public ridicule which proved so effective before and which has done so since. Being subjected to personal insult, and then defending himself, he was said to be "agressive"... etc.
We saw something of the same occur in Sam G's perfectly sensible thread about an image in a north African mosaic.
Since I began publishing my research online, I have been treated to the same method that I call the "Stolfi discouragement" since it appears to have begun about that time and since then to have been directed to any who do not reach conclusions compatible with a central European, Christian, origin for the work's content.
I would suggest then, that if you want to begin a thread which might not result in matter that can be used to support the "all Christian European" content hypothesis, that you speak in advance to the moderators.
You can't blame people for feeling upset at the idea that their theory is flawed. But we have to be able to consider more than one theory, and in depth.
Postscript - Ellie's post went up while I was writing this one; it shouldn't be mistaken for a response to hers.