[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: VMs: Dated At Last?

Zitat von Robert Teague <rteague@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

> > This is clearly related to your proposed dating 
> > of a number of events shown in the MS to the 
> > late 1500's. 
> True. The astronomical evidence collected so far
> indicates such.

I dunno... "evidence" is a strong word; I still have to see any "evidence" in 
this context.

If I understand correctly, we have hints and assumptions that it is _plausible_ 
that the VM describes late 16th-century events. But this is by no means proof, 
until we rule out any alternatives.

Do we have any counter-checks, ie did you establish that in the late 15th 
century (or any other epoch) there were _no_ events which could correlate with 
the VM images?
> > ... the proposal is at odds with other expert opinions
> > which date the MS to a century earlier, it will
> > require some solid basis.
> Please explain how it can be accepted that Edward Kelly 
> could have written the VMs (in the mid to late 1500s to sell
> to Rudolph), and yet experts say it was written in the 1400s.

I take it that stylistic arguments (handwriting, women hairdo, clothes) point 
to a late 15th-century origin.

This would not rule out the possibility that Kelley either was an old-fashioned 
artist, or deliberately imitated an antique style. But on the other hand it 
can't be taken for granted that the MS was written in the late 16th century.

> Robert



P.S.: You may have guessed it, but my own "gut feeling" is that the VM was 
written in the late 1400's.

debitel.net Webmail
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list