Diane O'Donovan has a new blog that I was not aware of until very recently (Nick Pelling alluded to it on his blog).
In it, she wrote:
"I’ve recently seen it asserted, with no evidence offered and my request for directions to the original argument refused with some vigour, that someone has argued a case for considering inscription of the German (and only the German) marginalia so closely contemporary with the rest of the work that we should believe the whole manuscript to be, in some sense, a product of German culture."
She did not identify who wrote (or said) this and I've never seen anyone assert this (nor have I seen anyone refuse directions to an argument "with some vigour").
Has anyone else seen a recent assertion that "the inscription of the German... marginalia" means "we should believe the whole manuscript to be... a product of German culture"?
In it, she wrote:
"I’ve recently seen it asserted, with no evidence offered and my request for directions to the original argument refused with some vigour, that someone has argued a case for considering inscription of the German (and only the German) marginalia so closely contemporary with the rest of the work that we should believe the whole manuscript to be, in some sense, a product of German culture."
She did not identify who wrote (or said) this and I've never seen anyone assert this (nor have I seen anyone refuse directions to an argument "with some vigour").
Has anyone else seen a recent assertion that "the inscription of the German... marginalia" means "we should believe the whole manuscript to be... a product of German culture"?
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)
