Why is this an 'either/or' question? Why not 'some of both'? VMs artistry has proven the use of "trickery". Why would deception be absent from the linguistic investigation?
So, what's with trickery and deception? An example is the use of attributes to establish identification. Another example is the use of heraldic canting. Another example is the use of visual ambiguity and intentional duplicity. Another example is the change from pictorial representation to linguistic description. Another example is the use of combined illustrations. Trickery, combined with a lack of relevant information, makes deception that much more effective. But information has started to catch up to the VMs: the little quatrefoils, the nebuly lines, the strange, little cosmos with its curved spokes, Melusine and other stories, the historical Fieschi popes.
Has the same sort of trickery been applied to the linguistic situation? If the available methodology is relevant to the 15th Century, then even the creator of the VMs written text might assume that any available method of secret communication would not withstand subsequent investigation. What can be done?
Creation of a cryptic text requires two elements. First there is the methodology, but there is also the specific passage of the written text. If the methodology cannot be disguised, how about hiding the relevant text passages among other passages of nonsense text? Perhaps the trail of quatrefoil breadcrumbs and the tradition of the red galaero will indicate a way forward.
So, what's with trickery and deception? An example is the use of attributes to establish identification. Another example is the use of heraldic canting. Another example is the use of visual ambiguity and intentional duplicity. Another example is the change from pictorial representation to linguistic description. Another example is the use of combined illustrations. Trickery, combined with a lack of relevant information, makes deception that much more effective. But information has started to catch up to the VMs: the little quatrefoils, the nebuly lines, the strange, little cosmos with its curved spokes, Melusine and other stories, the historical Fieschi popes.
Has the same sort of trickery been applied to the linguistic situation? If the available methodology is relevant to the 15th Century, then even the creator of the VMs written text might assume that any available method of secret communication would not withstand subsequent investigation. What can be done?
Creation of a cryptic text requires two elements. First there is the methodology, but there is also the specific passage of the written text. If the methodology cannot be disguised, how about hiding the relevant text passages among other passages of nonsense text? Perhaps the trail of quatrefoil breadcrumbs and the tradition of the red galaero will indicate a way forward.