Because this series of posts is a demonstration of an analytical-critical approach, not an exposition of my own research, I’ve built into the two examples treated so far two very common errors found in Voynich writings since 1912 and just as prevalent now as then.
1st – the habit of thinking in terms of a parochial ‘nationality’, which carries with it a fixed idea that whatever happens in one region must be somehow native to that area and occur no-where else.
2nd – a failure to test, re-test and test again information gained at second hand.
Pausing to check, to correct, and to re-appraise a developing analysis is a vital stage of an analytical-critical approach.
I thought I’d post this caution now, in case any reader became too enthusiastic about the previous two posts and started disseminating the material in them.
I didn’t make the errors huge ones. I wasn’t aiming to mislead, but to explain that it isn’t just about making a ‘plausible’ explanation; its about working to understand the mentality and intentions of someone who lived more than half a millennium ago, in some place and some cultural environment yet to be determined.
I’ll come back next week and show how, after a first phase of research, we move to that utterly vital stage of checking, doubting, cross-examining and testing our initial assessments.