[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Re: Re: VMs: Folio and Quire numbers
"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
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 :-).
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying: