29-01-2016, 04:27 AM
VMS has been dated to sometime in the 15th century, or at least the parchment has. It has also been noted that there don't appear to corrected errors, i.e. the author made no mistakes he had to correct. Finally the ink analysis seems to indicated that, while more than one type of ink is used for main text, page numbers and some marginalia, it is all consistent with a 15th century origin.
Page numbers weren't common in early manuscripts. Their earliest uses appear to be when making a copy of a manuscript to ensure the copy and original were ordered the same. This would be especially important if one couldn't read the original. If you wanted to work on understanding what the original meant you would want your own copy. And your copy would include marginalia from the original.
If the artist were likewise copying images of plants he had never seen from an earlier work that might account for the fact that none of the plants are easily recognizable from the drawings.
Obviously the only way to prove this would be to find an earlier copy of VMS. But, purely for purposes of discussion, if VMS is someones workng copy of an earlier manuscript, how much will that impact any attempts at a translation?
Page numbers weren't common in early manuscripts. Their earliest uses appear to be when making a copy of a manuscript to ensure the copy and original were ordered the same. This would be especially important if one couldn't read the original. If you wanted to work on understanding what the original meant you would want your own copy. And your copy would include marginalia from the original.
If the artist were likewise copying images of plants he had never seen from an earlier work that might account for the fact that none of the plants are easily recognizable from the drawings.
Obviously the only way to prove this would be to find an earlier copy of VMS. But, purely for purposes of discussion, if VMS is someones workng copy of an earlier manuscript, how much will that impact any attempts at a translation?
