Re: VMs: Something New?

[Rene Zandbergen <r_zandbergen@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- DANA SCOTT <dscott520@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> I believe that the following quote from Brumbaugh
> refers to the mysterious date in question:
> 
> "After some work with ultraviolet light on folio 1r,
> my son Robert Conrad Brumbaugh, who was assisting
> me, proved that indeed someone had recognized the
> Bacon attribution cipher and had written it here in
> the margin.  It is now badly obliterated and faded. 
> In very small numbers, just above this table, is a
> date 1*30, the * illegible.  Now, 1630 would fall
> into the period between the death of Tepenecz (in
> 1622) and Marchi's inheriting the manuscript (prior
> to 1644).  At first, I thought the table might be 
> earlier, a deliberate invitation to any would-be
> purchaser to read the "Bacon" cipher in the key. 
> But we now favor the 1630 date, and assume that the
> writer of this table, having found that it read the
> key text, hoped that it would work for the balance
> of the cipher manuscript text as well.  So here is
> one reason for an attribution to "Rodg." Bacon."

Indeed!  I need to learn not to trust my memory
too much !
In any case, the above is an interesting insight in
the reasoning of Brumbaugh. Anybody who can explain
how the suggested date of 1630 confirms the
Roger Bacon origin is hereby invited to do so.
In my humble opinion, if 1630 were correct, then it
would appear that the table is a decipherer's
attempt at a single substitution cipher.

Cheers, Rene

> ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: Rene Zandbergen 
>   To: vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx 
>   Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 1:29 AM
>   Subject: Re: VMs: Something New?
> 
> 
> 
>   --- Robert Teague <rteague@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>   > I'm still examining f1r, trying to see what I
> can of
>   > the alphabet list.
>   > 
>   > I tried making the image negative, and just
> above
>   > the <sh> starting
>   > the last word of the first line the number
> "1708"
>   > lept out at me.
>   > 
>   > Has this been seen before?
> 
>   I wonder...
>   Brumbaugh reports that he can read 16*8
>   where the * is unreadable. He proposes that it was
>   written by the owner prior to Marci, and the *
>   could be a 3.
>   I need to check the reference, but I don't think
>   that he explains precisely where this figure
>   appears.
> 
>   Cheers, Rene 
> 
>   __________________________________
>   Do you Yahoo!?
>   Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
>   http://search.yahoo.com/top2003
>  
>
______________________________________________________________________
>   To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx
> with a body saying:
>   unsubscribe vms-list
> 


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
http://search.yahoo.com/top2003
______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list