02-02-2017, 01:07 AM
I may be mistaken here, but I think Philip Neal was among the first to comment intelligently on the manuscript's 'hidden letters' and there is also much of interest about them in Nick Pelling's book Curse of the Voynich (2006) and in his later blogposts.
While later writers may build on the original researchers' comments and correctly acknowledge them, it is important to have read, and to cite, the earlier work. Apart from anything else it saves rediscovering things already discovered and creates a solid line of development for re-examination by those who have come more recently to the study.
Personally, I think that some of the things which earlier scholars assumed is long overdue for re-investigation, but that is no reason to pass over the fact that they contributed original insights which remain valuable and on which many later writers relied.
While later writers may build on the original researchers' comments and correctly acknowledge them, it is important to have read, and to cite, the earlier work. Apart from anything else it saves rediscovering things already discovered and creates a solid line of development for re-examination by those who have come more recently to the study.
Personally, I think that some of the things which earlier scholars assumed is long overdue for re-investigation, but that is no reason to pass over the fact that they contributed original insights which remain valuable and on which many later writers relied.