19-03-2016, 11:28 PM
I looked into this thread just to move it (which I did) 
, and found that it is a very interesting thread!
Strange thing is that early 20th c. fake indeed!
I remember reading somewhere about that issue with Dorrer (was it in Nick's blog?) and even remember myself googling after this Dorrer, with no results.
I agree that the statement describes an "old book with drawings" (not by Dorrer) and a "copy thereof" (by Dorrer).
Now, does the "unbound and not complete" refer only to the copy or to the original book as well?
I do not think that this entry refers to the VMS though. While "alt geschrieben" might indeed have been used to describe anything which they could not understand, "philosophisch" is quite more narrow. Of course, this term had a wider meaning in those times than it has now, but is not the VMS rather "herbal and astrological", at least at a glance? Even if the 15th c. (?) copyist could read and understand the book, as Helmut suggests, - while Kircher (though allegedly) already could not, - then how the guys at Rudolph's knew that the book was philosophical?
, and found that it is a very interesting thread!Strange thing is that early 20th c. fake indeed!
I remember reading somewhere about that issue with Dorrer (was it in Nick's blog?) and even remember myself googling after this Dorrer, with no results.
I agree that the statement describes an "old book with drawings" (not by Dorrer) and a "copy thereof" (by Dorrer).
Now, does the "unbound and not complete" refer only to the copy or to the original book as well?
I do not think that this entry refers to the VMS though. While "alt geschrieben" might indeed have been used to describe anything which they could not understand, "philosophisch" is quite more narrow. Of course, this term had a wider meaning in those times than it has now, but is not the VMS rather "herbal and astrological", at least at a glance? Even if the 15th c. (?) copyist could read and understand the book, as Helmut suggests, - while Kircher (though allegedly) already could not, - then how the guys at Rudolph's knew that the book was philosophical?