[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
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.
P.S.: You may have guessed it, but my own "gut feeling" is that the VM was
written in the late 1400's.
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying: