Re: Another explanation for dain daiin...

["Gabriel Landini" <G.Landini@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 22 Jan 2002 at 5:26, Jorge Stolfi wrote:

> After the latest flip-flop, I feel I should clarify my current views
> on the VMS.

Great! Just a comment:

>   * Did Rudolf ever own the VMS?
>       Note that in Baresch's letter to Kircher there is no mention of
>       Bacon or Rudolf.  In fact, Baresch offered a very different
>       theory about the book's origins, and he seemed to think of it as
>       a mere curiosity that was "taking up space uselessly in his
>       bookshelf". That's is a strange way to describe a book that an
>       Emperor once paid 600 ducats for.

The interesting thing is that it seems that B did not want to send it to K, so perhaps it was important to him 
and knew about its value.

Also let's suppose that he was aware of the possible fact that JdeT "borrowed" the book and never 
returned it. How B would explain that it was in his hands? Maybe he did not want to explain anything and 
kept it quiet.

Whether JdeT had it (and stamped his signature) has no consequence. He obviously could not read it 
either, but it creates a possible route from Rudolf to B if we are to believe Raphael.
The alleged signature is the only link. Without signature we would have no idea how it appeared in B's 
hands.

Cheers,
Gabriel