Re: why not Dee

[Jorge Stolfi <stolfi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

    > I have now put up a Web page with my thoughts on Dee's connection
    > (or rather lack of it) with VMS. Have a look at:

Great job!

The circumstantial evidence (Arthur's recollections, the 600 ducats,
etc) had already been discussed in this list, and found to be very
weak. Your new arguments only finished the job.

For the page numbers, on the other hand, Watson's alleged
identification still carried some authority, in spite of Ron Carter's
message (which apparently had been forgotten by the time I joined the
list). But your images speak for themselves. Even if Watson had other
samples of Dee's numerals, more similar to the VMS ones, it is hard to
believe that they would have matched the 8's stroke order we see in
the VMS.

By the way: from your images, I get the impression that Dee used to
hold the pen mostly horizontal, while the VMS foliator held it closer
to the vertical. This is most visible in the digit "4" --- Dee's has a
thick horizontal stroke and a thin vertical one, whereas the VMS "4"
has just the opposite.  (Either that, of Dee and the foliator used
quite different patterns of hand pressure while writing the "4".)

All the best,

--stolfi