20-09-2019, 08:59 AM
(20-09-2019, 12:08 AM)-JKP- wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
In the 16th century, judging by the correspondence between the Jesuits who were discussing the mysterious book that was probably the VMS, they seemed to think it might be an exotic language (the term hieroglyphics was somewhat broadly used in those days to refer to a number of foreign languages). They didn't say cipher.
How someone would have interpreted it in the 15th century, I don't know, but the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. in the right margin of folio 1r suggests that SOMEONE thought it was a substitution cipher. I have posted a timeline on my You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. of when I think the column text might have been written, but because the column text is so faint and because it is not full words, I cannot be absolutely sure. I think the estimate is reasonable, however, and should be given at least some credence.
Yes, evidence of early reception as a ciphertext is suggestive evidence that it would have generally be regarded as such closer to the time of creation. Likewise with evidence of early reception as an exotic language. Two good and contradictory points of evidence. How frustrating, and how consonant with everything else about the VM.