[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Another explanation for dain daiin...
--- Jorge Stolfi <stolfi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> After the latest flip-flop, I feel I should clarify
> my current views on the VMS.
Inevitably, a response :-)
> Here are some things that I consider
> satisfactorily proved:
I won't comment on anything I fully agree with...
> * The VMS was written before 1650.
> * The VMS is meaningful text.
> * Voynichese "words" are indeed words, spaces are
> spaces, labels are labels.
> There are too many distinct "words" for them
> to be just letters, or syllables of polysillabic
Not sure about the 'too many to be just syllables,
but the label argument does it.
> * Voynichese is not a Vigenère-style cipher.
> * The (bi)folios were bound in the wrong order.
> * Whoever wrote the folio and quire numbers could
> not read the book.
> * The VMS is in a single language.
Apart possibly from incidental phrases.
> * The VMS was written by a single person.
I'm less than 100% sure myself
> * The VMS author was not Roger Bacon.
> * John Dee never owned it.
This we cannot know for sure. There are significant
gaps in his diary IIRC. But it is certainly very
> The alleged identification of Dee's hand
> in the folio numbers has been substantially
> discredited by Prinke.
If I understand correctly, the identification by
a credable expert, as recorded in the Beinecke
description, actually refers to a page in Dee's
manuscripts written by Kelly. Even if the
idenfication were correct (which I'm also not too
sure about), it would be Kelly, not Dee, and
Kelly had a completely different history in
Bohemia than Dee.
> * The VMS is a product of the European culture.
> * The "michiton" text on f116v was written by the
> VMS author.
Hmmm, I wonder how many people agree. Possible,
Oops, my E-mail program truncated the original
message here. Well, I'll leave it at that :-)
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!