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

["Rafal T. Prinke" <rafalp@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Nick,

> I've looked again and again at the VMS foliation, and I simply can't draw
> the conclusion that all the VMS folio 8's were drawn from the bottom. For
> example:-

OK - but even if you find one or two suspect examples, it is
no hard evidence. Both VMS foliator and Kelley may have had
moments of bad mood when their pens just went astray.
I was still taught to write with pen and ink (early 1960's)
and can remember that when the pen ran out of ink, you
dipped it in ink and continued the letter from wherever 
you finished.

> But, my caveats for the 8s aside, I'd really like you to have a close look
> at the rest of Kelley's numbering - I can't begin to stress how similar it
> feels to the VMS when placed side by side. I drew careful sketches of how
> each number was drawn and varied, not expecting any kind of match: and was
> then extremely surprised at how closely similar the two were.

I certainly do believe you :-)  But try the same with numbers
written by yourself and some other people of your age. I bet
they will also look (almost) identical.

> I'll try to buy a copy of that page to post up here - but if anyone knows a
> better source of Edward Kelley's handwriting in the British Library
> (especially italic!), please shout now before I waste my money!

Before you do that, perhaps you could check both against
a neutral witness - some sample English manuscript in the British 
Library from circa 1580-1600 with foliation which was certainly
*not* by Dee or Kelley. If they look identical again - then
it would indeed be a waste of money to buy the reproduction!

> >It assumes that because Dee and Kelley
> >were in Bohemia during Rudolf's reign, they must have had
> >something to do with the VMS.
> 
> What I said was: from what I've seen, the foliation is significantly more
> likely to be Kelley than Dee - in fact, there's really no contest between
> the two, it's Kelley all the way.

It was just a general observation - I did not mean your input
(which was very welcome). I meant there is no slightest hint
in the available evidence that Dee/Kelley had anything to do
with the VMS. It was just an "educated guess" of one of the early
researchers (I don't remember who was the first to suggest it and 
why).

> So: you're completely right, I am framing this in relative terms: but if we
> could only judge the VMS in absolute terms, we'd probably all give up in a
> matter of minutes. All we can do is try to run with different scenarios,
> and see how far they take us.

That's right - and now I think the Dee/Kelley connection has
been definitely disproved (with your help). So a different
scenario should now be considered. As the Book of St. Dunstan
has been mentioned, I wonder if Welsh has been considered as
the underlying language? Perhaps it has - and failed :-)

Best regards,

Rafal