19-08-2019, 03:02 PM
(19-08-2019, 05:50 AM)-JKP- wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.We're not talking about Parkinson's here. There's no hint of tremor or small writing.
It's someone in a hurry, doing a boring task, having to add numbers to every-so-many pages.
It's just a messy 9. The stroke order of 9 and the stroke order of the "n" on folio 116 are different. So is the shape.
You are TRYING to turn it into an "n" based on your presumption that you want it to be "n". It's not. It's just an ordinary ordinal number, like all the others, but a bit messy. Have you never written a messy letter? It's still readable as "9".
JP, It's looking doubtful that we are going to reach agreement on this so perhaps it is best to simply move on.
I've checked out all of the quire numbers and there is not another instance of a "9" that can be reasonably interpreted to be anything other than a "9". Only the "9" on folio 72 is problematic.
It's pretty obvious that your inclination is to conclude that something has to be what it should be. That is a good rule to follow in normal circumstances but the VMS is not a normal manuscript.
There are many indications that the VMS marginalia constitutes what I would call "cryptic communication", for which a great deal of care and forethought would have gone into the planning of very stroke. It is highly unlikely that they would ever be "messy".
Are you sure that, if you had seen that "9" in another context or in isolation, you would be quick to take it as a "9"? I doubt it.
Thus, if the "9" on folio 72 can be seen as resembling an "n", it has to be because they wanted us to think of an "n".