23-03-2018, 03:45 PM
(23-03-2018, 04:19 AM)-JKP- wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It's not "lh" it's a double ell. It's written in Gothic cursive and there's really no doubt about it being double ell if you are familiar with Gothic cursive script. Look at the last page and you can see that whoever penned this and the text on the last page does not write "h" that way. No one did at the time this style of script was in vogue (which was primarily the 15th century). It either had a hook leg or a rounded leg, not an angle leg as seen here. Also, it was very common to not dot the "i" (or to dot only some of them). It is an "i" with a beginning serif, just as they are written on the last page. Note the slight gap between the serif and the ell.
Also, the fleur de lis shape looks like a flower head in the same drawing style as the other flower heads in the manuscript.
I saw "li" as an alternative to "h" which could alter the underlying language but not affect the meaning of the word.
It looks to me like the authors of the VMS made a huge effort to make it as perfect as possible, that is, not to display visible imperfections. Thus, it frankly makes no sense at all for those same authors to then damage such perfection by scribbling in various marginalia.
It is my understanding that ink cannot be dated and that ink was made from similar components across the ages. One of the hoax promoters even claimed that the VMS ink could have been made as late as 1912.
As for handwriting, I concede that a style first seen in the 17th century is unlikely to have been used in the 16th century, but the reverse is not true. You cannot claim that a style seen in the 15th century could not have been used in the 16th century as you appear to be doing.
Great scholars of the 16th century would have been familiar with many different types of handwriting, and there are reports that some scholars personally made use of different styles of handwriting depending on the occasion: formal, informal, legal, or whatever.
In brief, you have failed to convince me that Shakespeare could not have written the marginalia on page 17r where we find a fleur de lys shield pointing to his pedestal.
Recall that on page 85+ we see an unambiguous drawing of the fleur de lys so the VMS authors were clearly familiar with this symbol. Also, let me remind you that, historically, the fleur de lys is predominantly associated with France rather than Italy.