Thanks for that vote of (very slight) confidence, much appreciated.

Of course, unless someone happens to decipher the VMs, I can’t currently see any sign of a “smoking gun” proof of anyone’s authorship emerging for a good while. But all things considered, I do believe there is far more of the VMs’ early history to be extracted from the marginalia than there is in any Prague archive.

Cheers, ….Nick Pelling….

PS: conversely, having no opinion is merely the safest way to lose. :-/

Well, here’s another “neutral” opinion. I certainly feel that Nick’s hypothesis is quite a
lot more probable than that of Rich, but I would add that it (Nick’s) feels like a large
structure built on a small foundation. This is hardly a very strong form of criticism,
since this small foundation is all we have got. Surely, there are lots and lots of
new observations, but for each there are multiple possible explanations.

To be more precise about it, I find that the evidence is strong enough to show that
Rich’s theory is almost certainly incorrect, and the evidence is not strong enough to
support the identification of the author of the VMs as one Averlino.

The only way to win here, is to have no theory of one’s own, and this rather cowardly
approach is mine, nowadays. I console myself that this is also the result of the amount
of time I am willing to spend on the MS.

Cheers, Rene

When you start making arguments, I’ll start answering them. For example, I somehow doubt that saying “a tad of speculation on either side, isn’t it?” is the most constructive thing you’ve ever posted. In fact, a good word to describe it would be “flamebait”. But don’t worry, there are plenty of people on the VMs list who don’t mind being trolled, feel free to bait them all you like.

Googling +possibilistic: 247,000 hits (most of which seem to be full-on papers on logic and reasoning)
Googling +pointfuller: 2 hits
Googling +flamebait: 233,000 hits

Cheers, ….Nick Pelling….

If you chose to answer arguments rather than simply shifting your stance, this whole conversation would be much pointfuller.*)

Elmar

*)If you can make up words, so can I.

You’re a bright guy, but you’re barking up completely the wrong tree here.

Having spent years directly engaging with every aspect of the evidence so as to work out what can be said with near certainty about the VMs, I _then_ began to build up my hypothesis, so that it was derived from and consistent with that evidence, i.e. [All of the evidence] –> [hypothesis]. Whether you agree with my conclusions and the proposed narrative is irrelevant, but at least acknowledge that my reasoning is based on primary evidence, and on strongly probabilistic historical inferences based on that evidence (such as dating the marginalia, the circular maps of Milan, the view from the Campanile in Venice, the 4o pattern in Sforza ciphers up to 1465, etc).

By way of comparison, Rich SantaColoma’s hypothesis was inspired solely by his claimed “microscopes”, for all his sustained elaboration on this theme: his only apparent strategy for supporting his claim is not to point to evidence, but to undermine the whole notion of evidence. ~[Hypothesis] –> ~[any of the evidence]. His repeated claim that all possible alternative readings should be accorded the same status is utterly symptomatic of the antihistorical depths which the VMs list now plumbs.

What you seem to be missing here is that the last 3-4 years has actually seen an explosion of positive, well-supported knowledge about the VMs – but you wouldn’t know it from the list, which has long been a self-referential, empty, anti-evidential game. Many of its participants happily tell me off-list how much they secretly loathe it, while all the time feeling compelled to stay subscribed just in case something genuinely transformational to Voynich research gets posted there.

Errrm… fat chance.

By directly comparing my conclusions built on all the evidence with an hypothesis built on the slimmest of observational reeds by someone who actively seeks to discredit the whole troublesome idea of evidence, you make an abysmal category error. Only an utterly uncritical eye could classed both as historical research at the same time.

So: if you truly think that the two end-points are so equal, all I can say is – you’ve spent far, far too much time on the mailing list.

Really, the moment that critical thought degenerates into cynicism about knowledge itself, I think you lose your soul. And this isn’t some bullsnot optimistic-vs-pessimistic good-cop-bad-cop riff: if you can’t see by now that the strategy of relying on unsupported possibilities gets you basically nowhere in historical research, you really haven’t got with the programme, whatever you might think.

Cheers, ….Nick Pelling….

PS: “possibilistic” is not only a perfectly good word, it is the correct one to describe the vacuous focus on possibility that has come to dominate the list. At some stage, real knowledge – which is about fighting battles over carefully chosen probabilities – has to step forward.

Don’t you think you’re going a little over the top here?

Whatever the state of the VM list is (I don’t think it’s degraded that much from when I started in 2003, and interestingly I found the greatest drop in quality *after* the advent of the HiRes scans), it’s a bit tough to blame Rich for it all. He may be a man with his faults, but what he did is propose a slightly exotic hypothesis about the VM and taking a stance to defend it — *if* the list wasn’t able to cope with that kind of thing (I think to the contrary it is), that’s the list’s problem, rather than Rich’s.

As for the stringency of methods, frankly — I don’t see that much difference between the two of you. Rich’s microscopes in the VM, your wind wagons in its illustrations or “TOA F” signatures in the plants… a tad of speculation on either side, isn’t it?

P.S. — I’m not a native speaker, but are you sure a word like “possibilistic” exists?

Elmar

Questioning the reliability of evidence based on genuine doubts arising from the subtle interplay of historical knowledges is one thing.
Questioning the reliability of evidence simply because an extremely improbable alternative can be constructed is another entirely.

Whereas the first is nuanced, balanced, probabilistic, and even holistic, the second is superficial, sniping, demeaning, and unhelpful.

The main reason I left the VMs mailing list was because what had long ago been (1) had descended into a constant barrage of (2), replete with emptily possibilistic flame-wars, an antihistorical culture of which you seemed to be a vigorous proponent.

It seems little has changed.

Cheers, ….Nick Pelling….

Are you sure that the picture you would like to paint of yourself is really shared by any of the people you have fought with in public at such protracted length over the last few years?

Well I don’t know if it is shared by others or not… but the image of me, whether as you say is “painted” by me, or genuine, must vary from the perspective of the individual reading my work. But the numbers either way will not change what is, and what is not, historically accurate. I can only do my best to explore my area, and post my observations and findings. I urge anyone to read my work, and decide for themselves (link at top!).

As for “fought with”, I think you still miscast this… perhaps my arguing with you may feel that I am fighting, while when others do it, it is somehow “debating with peers”. But I can only hold true to my investigation, and discuss it with others, and yes, argue my points. I can’t control your perception of what that means to you.

…publicly working to undermine the perception of the reliability of any evidence that happens to conflict with that hypothesis

I like that you used the phrase “perception of the reliability of any evidence”. Almost all the evidence is a matter of perception, and as such, is open to debate. And so, yes, I will continue to discuss the points with which I feel the perception is incorrect, or at least, debatable. Perceptions are not facts, if they were, your theories and mine and many others would vaporize, and the general perception would prevail. Rather than an artifact of fiction or an architectural work, the Voyinch would be seen only as a 1420-1460 herbal, and that would be the end of that. And by the way, I accept that it could be just that…

…and have also managed to reduce the usefulness of the Voynich mailing list to an all-time low.

Well that is assigning just a bit to much to my evil powers! I think you overstate my influence. The list is chugging along quite well, I think, whether I offer input or not. Some great stuff going on over there, and as always, I hope and wish that you will return from your long hiatus. I agree open debate… not fighting… is healthy, and the list is a great place to find it. I have almost zero followers there… except for a few supportive lurkers who write to me from time to time, to lend support. But I do stay there, because I do want to hear constructive feedback, and test my ideas, in such an intelligent and informed forum.

All the best, and keep up the good work… as I, too, intend to do… Rich.

History is not about the private assessment of historical probabilities, it is about the public airing of probabilistic judgements: and as an intrinsic part of their job, historians are completely comfortable with the notion that those who follow will assess many fundamental probabilities quite differently.

Nor is being an historian about projecting one’s own assessments onto other people’s work: rather, it is about making an informed, balanced stand on the evidence, and debating that with peers so as to advance everyone’s knowledge of past events. The process of doing history is about negotiation and debate, about compromise and adjustment, all done in the open. Without that open historical debate of probabilities and judgments, all we have is an accumulation of empty possibilistic thoughts… something you might recognize from the Voynich mailing list over the last few years.

Are you sure that the picture you would like to paint of yourself is really shared by any of the people you have fought with in public at such protracted length over the last few years? And even your comment here, for all its attempts at defensive rhetoric, fails to address any of the substantive points I make about the nature and practice of history.

Look, there are two basic ways of trying to do historical research: (a) moving from the evidence taken as a whole to an hypothesis, and then looking for ways to critically test that hypothesis (which is the right way); and (b) constructing a speculative hypothesis based on a fragmentary piece of evidence and then looking for correlative evidence to support it while publicly working to undermine the perception of the reliability of any evidence that happens to conflict with that hypothesis (which is the wrong way). Given that (a) has unfortunately been the path far less trodden in Voynichology, I would encourage you to find ways of pursuing your interesting theories that don’t so obviously resemble path (b).

As an aside, I don’t think you’ve managed to undermine me at all to any appreciable degree: but you have managed to undermine your own credibility as far as considering yourself anything like an historian, and have also managed to reduce the usefulness of the Voynich mailing list to an all-time low.

Cheers, ….Nick Pelling….

Your conscious decision has been not to assess probabilities, but it is no victory to attack people who do not share this approach.

It is not that I do not assess probabilities, it’s that I do not publicly project them on other’s work. Of course I have my own personal opinions as to what is probable, and what is not… but I do not use those opinions to decide what I will help with, and what I will work against (considering I work against no one, that is an obvious call). So I’m not sure why you think I am attacking anyone? I was giving my opinion as to what I thought the Wikipedia article should contain, and why. Since that is most everything, I am far from adversarial there.

But to fight to undermine others as a primary strategy for your own limited “success” is a way of ensuring that everyone loses out.

What are you referring to? I fight with no one, and undermine no one’s work. I work hard on my own personal theory, support others, and support the generic whole of the research, when I can.

Besides, this concept of “success” I don’t share with you. I do work toward being more visible, because I think it is helpful to my research. More eyes out there, who might notice some bit of information I might never see… that is the goal. But these concepts I see of a “fight”, a competition, of “success”, of winning and losing… in my opinion, have nothing at all to do with learning about the Voynich, and are actually very hurtful to the investigation.

So I am sorry if you feel I am undermining or attacking you in some way… I’m only happily going along with my own investigation, and joining in on the debate when I have input. And I’m always there to help you or anyone in their research, no matter what I feel the probabilities are that they are correct. That’s “full hearted”, in my opinion, and also helpful to the field. Rich.