Re: VMs: f112r-f112v

[Nick Pelling <nickpelling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi everyone,

At 00:06 03/05/2005 -0600, John E Koontz wrote:
> I notice that the upper outer margin of the f112r-f112v leaf is a bit odd.
> There is a sort of indentation here - a place where the page edge is
> noticeably less square than usual.  I assume this is a typical feature of
> this sort of vellum notebook?  Since the text accomodates the hole, I
> assume it was part of the original paage.
>
> If this is a typical feature, is it typical for the margin of the text to
> indent correspondingly, too?  This occurs on the verso, though not only
> does the margin wander inward - or actually, outward, as the page reaches
> its usual width - but the first two paragraphs are distinctly
> block-indented over the following ones.  On the recto, there is also a
> fairly distinct indentation, but more irregular, that extends over the
> first five paragraphs.  It looks a bit like a gap for an illustration that
> is missing.

Why then would the same gap appear on both sides of the folio in the same 
place?

The argument has been made a number of times (both by me and (IIRC) by 
others) that (a) the VMs is a copy (perhaps enciphered, perhaps not) of 
another document; and that (b) what you're looking at in that top corner is 
a copy of writing going around a vellum flaw (probably a vertical tear) in 
the original document - that is, it's a copy of a gap.

While I think this is completely convincing, GC's counter-argument / 
suggestion was that there might in fact be a vellum fault on the VMs in 
that same place which we can't actually see (but which is nonetheless 
there): however, there seems to be no sign of that on the sidfiles, so I'm 
not sure that this holds (much) water. Still, it would be worth a close 
physical examination (just in case).

Any other possible explanations you can think of for this? I guess 
hoax-proponents might say that it could be a fake copy of a non-existent 
gap, but that would seem somewhat contrived (even by the high standards of 
sophistry required to argue for a 16th century fake of a 15th century cipher).

If anything, I'd say it points to a strong codicological argument against 
the hoax hypothesis.

Cheers, .....Nick Pelling..... 


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