Re: Re: Re: VMs: Folio and Quire numbers

["Jan" <hurychj@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Maurizio,  

  You wrote:

"What the Vms. pretends to be?" I think there are two ways to answer this 
(rather important, IMHO) question:

1) Telling the INTENTION (or purpose) of the maker of the ms.
2) Telling what the ms. looks like (and assuming this is what it was intended to 
look like)

I assume that 1) is largely impossible, without asking the maker himself and 
trusting his answer.

-------- Right you are and we may never know that, but that does not matter too much, since being a hoaxer, he may even lie :-). 

On the other hand, 2) seems to me relatively easy: it "looks like" a ms. of the 
late XIV - early XVI century, with text written in a writing not attested 
elsewhere and with drawings of plants, bathing women.... the text "looks like" 
is it related to the drawings.

---------- We know what it "looks like", but the point  is elsewhere: is it a pretens? Is it for instance 
pretending it is an unknown script? No, it is really the UNKNOWN script! Does it pretend 
it is older than it is? We DO NOT KNOW that - no serious scientific dating was 
done and the rest are only guesses.  Is it pretending it has a meaningfull text and it does not? We DO NOT KNOW  that for sure - all we know WE cannot read it. To provide similar document which 
we cannot  read either is no proof at all - get me the similar document I can read, then we can 
start talking about hoax.   Even so,  it would be a long way to go: there is a question of script, language used a possibly the futher enciphering being present.   To call VM a hoax without a proof is more like American saying "it all looks Chinese to me".  The only pretensions I can see in the VM are the pictures of the plants - they apparently never existed in the shapes they were drawn. The rest is again only a speculation.

It might sound simplistic (and probably it is), but I can't see much more than 
that on this issue (a typical Forrest Gump's statement?). 

---------I thought that You called  it a rather important question :-). It is however the answer which is 
 even more important.  To call it a hoax requires some series proof. In regard 
to Ruggs experiment: many artists can copy Mona Lisa rather well, but that is no  
proof that the one on  display in Paris is a fraud :-). 

 Jan 



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