17-09-2024, 01:26 AM
Another thing (back to f1r):
Brumbaugh writes in his book (p.115-116):
"After some work with ultraviolet light on folio 1r, my son Robert Conrad Brumbuagh, who was assisting me, proved that indeed someone had recognized the Bacon attribution cipher and had written it here in the margin. It is now badly obliterated and faded. In very small numbers, just above this table, is a date 1 * 3 0, the * illegible. Now, 1630 would fall into the period between the death of Tepenecz (in 1622) and Marchi's inheriting the manuscript (prior to 1644). At first, I thought the table might be earlier, a deliberate invitation to any would-be purchaser to read the ''Bacon'' cipher in the key. But we now favor the 1630 date, and assume that the writer of this table, having found that it read the key text, hoped that it would work for the balance of the cipher manuscript text as well."
There is quite a bit to unravel here, but the one thing that I have always found interesting is his reference to these tiny numbers above the cipher tables. I have looked and never seen anything.
Can we see this now?
(Note: Brumbaugh also thought that below the Tepenec signature was the word "Prag" but this we now now says "No 19".)
Brumbaugh writes in his book (p.115-116):
"After some work with ultraviolet light on folio 1r, my son Robert Conrad Brumbuagh, who was assisting me, proved that indeed someone had recognized the Bacon attribution cipher and had written it here in the margin. It is now badly obliterated and faded. In very small numbers, just above this table, is a date 1 * 3 0, the * illegible. Now, 1630 would fall into the period between the death of Tepenecz (in 1622) and Marchi's inheriting the manuscript (prior to 1644). At first, I thought the table might be earlier, a deliberate invitation to any would-be purchaser to read the ''Bacon'' cipher in the key. But we now favor the 1630 date, and assume that the writer of this table, having found that it read the key text, hoped that it would work for the balance of the cipher manuscript text as well."
There is quite a bit to unravel here, but the one thing that I have always found interesting is his reference to these tiny numbers above the cipher tables. I have looked and never seen anything.
Can we see this now?
(Note: Brumbaugh also thought that below the Tepenec signature was the word "Prag" but this we now now says "No 19".)