Re: VMs: VMS author

["Robert Teague" <rteague@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> If many experts come to the same conclusion about
> the age of the MS independently, it takes more
> than the above generic statement to convince
> people (well, at least me) that they are wrong by
> 1.5 centuries. 

And you're correct to say so. 

> Furthermore, the identification of dates in the
> VMs and of certain events being displayed on some
> pages is not based on fact but on hypotheses.

The only conjecture made was that the number correspondences
were correct. This led to the discovery of dates on a few folios, 
which in turn led to finding the celestial event in the year given.

The list I posted recently showed the dates of events hang together
from 1533-1615. I would have been just as happy if they had been
a century earlier.

The dates also brought out a connection between several folios not
seen before. To me, at least, it is a strong argument *for* a meaningful
text.

> I would therefore say that the evidence is
> highly in favour of the earlier date.

This isn't the first time I've gone against expert opinion, and if
I'm eventually proven wrong, I will admit it. But at the moment,
the jury's still out.

Robert

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