[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: VMs: Re: Re: Inks and retouching
At 02:29 23/07/2004 -0600, GC wrote:
I seriously don't understand why so many people need to added to the mix,
instead of trying to figure out how "one" person constructed this book. It
took this man years to write this thing, you don't think he went back once
in awhile and made a mark or two in correction or clarification?
Think of parts - a single actor may play several different parts in a show.
We're trying to find out what different roles were played out in the VMs'
drama, as well as evidence that might indicate whether those parts were
played by one, two, or many actors. So, if I read "Heavy/Dark Painter" or
"Dark Ink Retoucher", I take it to mean a *role*. Seeing them all as being
played by a single actor might ~possibly~ be the end of that whole
deductive process - but it's certainly not the beginning.
evidence up to now supports my observations more than your own, and you have
only one glyph that has been obviously "retouched", something that could
have been done on the spot by the author himself. You may be satisfied with
your evidence, but I have deep reservations.
BTW, you talk about two different types of "o", but have you considered the
possibility that one may be the original author's "o"-form (which I suspect
is the round form) and the other a retoucher's "o"-form (which I suspect is
the "a"-like form)? This may help reconcile some of the subtle shape
variation you observe... or it may not. :-o
Another angle to consider is that if the physical composition of the
various inks proves to be as different as Jorge believes (and this could be
tested later), we should be able to infer that any retouching was done as a
later pass (though by whom is another matter).
In general, I think that many of your criticisms of Jorge's exposition are
themselves weak. For example, on f1r-3 mark 4/5, the plumes are weakly
inked but the letters themselves are strongly inked. To my eyes, that might
well point to a "Dumb Restorer" role - someone restoring the <ch>/w part
but not the plume... doesn't sound much like the original author to me. :-o
Finally, a [Devil's Advocate] challenge both to you and Jorge: on (for
example) his f3v-1 image, why are so many "o"s retouched, yet so few "a"s?
Jorge proposes a decipherer trying to differentiate between faint "a"s and
faint "o"s (doesn't quite ring true), while your proposed strong
downstrokes would surely be just as noticeable on "a"s (so this doesn't
quite ring true either).
Cheers, .....Nick Pelling.....
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying: