VMS foliation - Rafal Prinke's theory examined...

[Nick Pelling <incoming@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi everyone,

In Rafal Prinke's page...

	http://hum.amu.edu.pl/~rafalp/HERM/VMS/dee.htm

.....he argues that the belief that the VMS' foliation was done by John Dee, 
whether true or not, cannot be properly inferred from the documentary 
evidence we have.

He further suggests that someone ought to compare the folio numbering with 
Edward Kelley's handwriting: and that a suitable place to start would be 
looking at the copy of "Liber mysteriorum sextus et sanctus..." in the 
British Library's Sloane manuscript collection [MS 3189], which is 
(supposedly) in Edward Kelley's hand.

I thought this was a good idea: and so added it to my online challenges 
list. In fact, I decided to take on the challenge myself (as I live near 
London)... and that's what I did this morning.

MS 3189 is a rambling, bizarre set of documents. To give you an idea, this 
quote is near the end:-

	"The first leafe is ye last of ye book, as it is a hotchpotch without order
	- so it signifies ye disorder of ye world."

It details conversations with the Angel Uriel and others, some parts 
written in English, some in Latin, and some in the language of the Angels 
(which is completely unlike Voynichese).

The best place for comparing the foliation is on pages 58-69, where there 
are five numbered magic squares arranged in a cross, with (conveniently) 
the central 7x7 square being numbered linearly - 1B, 2B, 3B, 4B up to 49B. 
(There is a circular key on a later page where each word radially spells 
out a (demonic? angelic?) name beginning with B, which probably explains 
the "B" here.)

Edward Kelley locates each number very rigidly on a line, as though to a 
set of two parallel lines (graphologically, these delineate the "middle 
zone": above is the "upper zone", below is the "lower zone"). Using this as 
a guide, I built up a table of features:-

0	small: fits completely in the middle zone.
	terminates either top left or bottom right (depends on previous digit?)

1	mostly fits into the middle zone, with the tail just dipping into the 
lower zone
	when on its own, often has a notch: inside a number, usually without a notch

2	feels crunched vertically: written to fit inside the middle zone
	lower bar runs along lower line: can end with a sall serif if alone

3	top curve extremely similar to curve of "2", similarly located in the 
middle zone
	lower curve entirely in the lower zone, but has variable length

4	three strokes, upright bar near vertical, but can tilt a little to one side
	when he gets tired, the top left stroke and the vertical stroke start drifting

5	the "signature" number: takes two forms:-
	(a) a very weak, lazy S shape - almost an f
	(b) with a kink halfway down on the left

6	the circle fits entirely within the middle zone
	the curve tails off into the upper zone
	the two meet very lightly, never crossing

7	upper bar runs along the top of the middle zone
	lower line is quite linear, but extends into the lower zone by varied amounts

8	lower half of loop is in the middle zone, upper half is in the upper zone
	stroke appears to start in the middle, go down, then up, then down again
	Occasionally, these completely fail to meet in the middle

9	single stroke, main loop fully in middle zone, end loop in lower zone.

I then placed the first part of MS Facs 461 (the British Library's 1931 
rotoscope copy of the VMS) right beside it for comparison, and went through 
it comparing each pair of numbers (much more reliable than comparing single 
digits, I'd have thought).

The two are... the same. Really, truly, the same.

With the caveat that I'm neither a palaeographer nor a graphologist, but 
that I've tried to be really careful and systematic, here's my reasoning:-

(1) the relative sizes of each numeral is the same
(2) the relative positioning of each numeral is the same
(3) the signature number takes Edward Kelley's weak form of "5"
(4) same notch on "1" when it's first, skipped/weaker if following
(5) length of tail of "3" varies in the same way
(6) the "8" seems very similar (but I only had time to look at folios 1-56 
today)
(7) the "2" has the same "crushed" feeling

The only numeral that is questionable is "8": Rafal's page has a diagram of 
how John Dee's 8's start at the top, whereas the VMS folio 8s start at the 
bottom... except they don't quite (the 8s in the VMS itself most definitely 
do start at the bottom, often leaving gaps there).

It looks to me like the folio numbering 8s start in the middle (written in 
italic), "go thin" with the italic direction down left, pause briefly to 
change direction, and then follow it round to the top and down again, 
finishing "thin" in the middle... which is how Edward Kelley appears to 
form his 8s.

The clearest example of an 8 in the Liber Mysteriorum is on page 44, where 
it's dated "1582" (with the signature "weak 5" and 
"non-connecting-in-the-middle 8").

I now strongly believe that the identification with John Dee's handwriting 
is weak, and that it is significantly more likely to be Edward Kelley's.

What this tells us about the provenance of the VMS is another matter 
entirely. :-/

I really think we should now contact a palaeographer to examine this 
properly. I emailed Dr Philomena Connolly (a palaeographer who showed an 
interest in the VMS on Usenet a few years back) at the Irish National 
Archives, but haven't yet received a response. :-(

Cheers, .....Nick Pelling.....

PS: sorry for the long email (again), but I didn't want to miss anything out