Re: VMs: some thoughts/observations

[William Edmondson <w.h.edmondson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Nick et al

On 20 Feb 2004, at 10:53, Nick Pelling wrote:

> 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. :-(

I'll have to check  -  I've not found time to go to other libraries.  
By chance I'll be at Holloway on 13th march - I'll check ahead and see 
what they have.
> 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.

He he he.  I tried for two days to get that MS - it was being read by 
someone else in the reading room.  The kindly staff even checked to see 
if the book was actually being used in case I could take an hour or so 
with it.  No luck.  Mysterious or what?

Thanks for the comments.

William

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