Re: VMs: some thoughts/observations

[Nick Pelling <incoming@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi William,

The reason why cipher manuscripts aren't listed is probably that there 
aren't there to list. :-(  Perhaps the closest to the VMs is the Giovanni 
[de] Fontana ms, which has some sections written in a (trivial) 
substitution cipher, but that's really about it.

BTW: there is a short shelf on ciphers at the Warburg (next to its VMs 
books & monographs, IIRC), but unless the Royal Holloway's Library has a 
surprising collection hidden somewhere, I guess that's your lot for London 
libraries. :-(

You also ask why many of us are dismissive of Kelley-as-hoaxer theories: my 
own opinion is simply that it is hard to explain why a hoaxer would go to 
the trouble of producing an ms with structure at every level - stroke 
adjacency, letter adjacency, letter pairs, word structure, word-initial, 
word-final, Neal keys, line-beginning, line-end, paragraph, page, language. 
The question also arises as to why they would use a character set which is 
unsuited to fast writing with a quill (this would seem to be a very poor 
decision), and non-flamboyant content (as opposed to alchemy or obscure 
religious symbols). Furthermore, even if you accept that they would be 
bothered to take all those on as design aims, what was their methodology - 
ie, how did they achieve them?

Gordon Rugg has made a spirited attempt to capture the essence of VMs-ness 
in tables & grilles, but it's an enterprise which seems unlikely to 
succeed, for the simple reason that there are too many parallel design aims 
which need to be satisfied at the same time. He has the right scientific 
intention - if it is a forgery, how was it created? - but seems not to have 
fully grasped the numerous different types of structure within the text. Of 
course, he may ultimately be proved right... but my guess is that this is 
unlikely.

> BL:Sloane2624 ff17-20 is in Kelly's hand.  Alchemical symbols are used in
> the text.

I'd suggest that the best Dee/Kelley ms to look at is (the quite 
extraordinary) MS Sloane 3189 "Liber mysteriorum sextus et sanctus...". 
I've appended my notes on this ms below (originally posted to the list in 
August 2001), which you may find relevant.

Unfortunately, I should also note here that I found out recently from 
Brendan Smith that Dr Philomena Connolly (mentioned at the end of this msg) 
died unexpectedly in June 2002 - she was in her early fifties.

Cheers, .....Nick Pelling.....

                                * * * * * *

From 13th August 2001:-

Hi everyone,

In Rafal Prinke's page...

        http://hum.amu.edu.pl/~rafalp/HERM/VMS/dee.htm

.....he argues that the belief that the VMS' foliation was done by John 
Dee, whether true or not, cannot be properly inferred from the documentary 
evidence we have.

He further suggests that someone ought to compare the folio numbering with 
Edward Kelley's handwriting: and that a suitable place to start would be 
looking at the copy of "Liber mysteriorum sextus et sanctus..." in the 
British Library's Sloane manuscript collection [MS 3189], which is 
(supposedly) in Edward Kelley's hand.

I thought this was a good idea: and so added it to my online challenges 
list. In fact, I decided to take on the challenge myself (as I live near 
London)... and that's what I did this morning.

MS 3189 is a rambling, bizarre set of documents. To give you an idea, this 
quote is near the end:-

        "The first leafe is ye last of ye book, as it is a hotchpotch 
without order
        - so it signifies ye disorder of ye world."

It details conversations with the Angel Uriel and others, some parts 
written in English, some in Latin, and some in the language of the Angels 
(which is completely unlike Voynichese).

The best place for comparing the foliation is on pages 58-69, where there 
are five numbered magic squares arranged in a cross, with (conveniently) 
the central 7x7 square being numbered linearly - 1B, 2B, 3B, 4B up to 49B. 
(There is a circular key on a later page where each word radially spells 
out a (demonic? angelic?) name beginning with B, which probably explains 
the "B" here.)

Edward Kelley locates each number very rigidly on a line, as though to a 
set of two parallel lines (graphologically, these delineate the "middle 
zone": above is the "upper zone", below is the "lower zone"). Using this as 
a guide, I built up a table of features:-

0       small: fits completely in the middle zone.
        terminates either top left or bottom right (depends on previous 
digit?)

1       mostly fits into the middle zone, with the tail just dipping into 
the lower zone
        when on its own, often has a notch: inside a number, usually 
without a notch

2       feels crunched vertically: written to fit inside the middle zone
        lower bar runs along lower line: can end with a sall serif if alone

3       top curve extremely similar to curve of "2", similarly located in 
the middle zone
        lower curve entirely in the lower zone, but has variable length

4       three strokes, upright bar near vertical, but can tilt a little to 
one side
        when he gets tired, the top left stroke and the vertical stroke 
start drifting

5       the "signature" number: takes two forms:-
        (a) a very weak, lazy S shape - almost an f
        (b) with a kink halfway down on the left

6       the circle fits entirely within the middle zone
        the curve tails off into the upper zone
        the two meet very lightly, never crossing

7       upper bar runs along the top of the middle zone
        lower line is quite linear, but extends into the lower zone by 
varied amounts

8       lower half of loop is in the middle zone, upper half is in the 
upper zone
        stroke appears to start in the middle, go down, then up, then down 
again
        Occasionally, these completely fail to meet in the middle

9       single stroke, main loop fully in middle zone, end loop in lower zone.

I then placed the first part of MS Facs 461 (the British Library's 1931 
rotoscope copy of the VMS) right beside it for comparison, and went through 
it comparing each pair of numbers (much more reliable than comparing single 
digits, I'd have thought).

The two are... the same. Really, truly, the same.

With the caveat that I'm neither a palaeographer nor a graphologist, but 
that I've tried to be really careful and systematic, here's my reasoning:-

(1) the relative sizes of each numeral is the same
(2) the relative positioning of each numeral is the same
(3) the signature number takes Edward Kelley's weak form of "5"
(4) same notch on "1" when it's first, skipped/weaker if following
(5) length of tail of "3" varies in the same way
(6) the "8" seems very similar (but I only had time to look at folios 1-56 
today)
(7) the "2" has the same "crushed" feeling

The only numeral that is questionable is "8": Rafal's page has a diagram of 
how John Dee's 8's start at the top, whereas the VMS folio 8s start at the 
bottom... except they don't quite (the 8s in the VMS itself most definitely 
do start at the bottom, often leaving gaps there).

It looks to me like the folio numbering 8s start in the middle (written in 
italic), "go thin" with the italic direction down left, pause briefly to 
change direction, and then follow it round to the top and down again, 
finishing "thin" in the middle... which is how Edward Kelley appears to 
form his 8s.

The clearest example of an 8 in the Liber Mysteriorum is on page 44, where 
it's dated "1582" (with the signature "weak 5" and 
"non-connecting-in-the-middle 8").

I now strongly believe that the identification with John Dee's handwriting 
is weak, and that it is significantly more likely to be Edward Kelley's.

What this tells us about the provenance of the VMS is another matter 
entirely. :-/

I really think we should now contact a palaeographer to examine this 
properly. I emailed Dr Philomena Connolly (a palaeographer who showed an 
interest in the VMS on Usenet a few years back) at the Irish National 
Archives, but haven't yet received a response. :-(

Cheers, .....Nick Pelling..... 


______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list