This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Someone should expanded this with a more detailed description of the inscriptions and the different views on interpretation. Seraphim84 14:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
The John Danforth link points to the wrong John Danforth. There does not yet appear to be a Wikipedia article for the correct John Danforth, so I am going to un-link this. Chillowack ( talk) 10:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
There seems to be a word missing from '...were even successful in making out apparent characters than have been some later observers...' Jackiespeel ( talk) 09:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Is [1] the relevant document - it does not have the quote. Jackiespeel ( talk) 15:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
It does. Section II after p.408: Cotton Mather had never seen the rock, so far as we know, and this statement of his is doubtless on a par with his other statement that the characters are on "a mighty Rock." Greenwood gives the first reliable description, in 1730. He definitely says that the "indentures are not very considerable/' and his drawing and his other statements prove that he had as much difficulty in making out the real characters as has ever been experienced since then. Even on the lowest part of the face, which alone does show evident signs of much wear, Mather's raughtsman, and Greenwood, and their next followers, were even successful in making out apparent characters than have been some later observers. Sewall in 1768 and Kendall in 1807 made definite statements to the effect that the greater part of the lines were so much effaced as to make their decipherment impossible, or wholly subject to the fancy. Doug Weller ( talk) 20:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Someone should expanded this with a more detailed description of the inscriptions and the different views on interpretation. Seraphim84 14:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
The John Danforth link points to the wrong John Danforth. There does not yet appear to be a Wikipedia article for the correct John Danforth, so I am going to un-link this. Chillowack ( talk) 10:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
There seems to be a word missing from '...were even successful in making out apparent characters than have been some later observers...' Jackiespeel ( talk) 09:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Is [1] the relevant document - it does not have the quote. Jackiespeel ( talk) 15:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
It does. Section II after p.408: Cotton Mather had never seen the rock, so far as we know, and this statement of his is doubtless on a par with his other statement that the characters are on "a mighty Rock." Greenwood gives the first reliable description, in 1730. He definitely says that the "indentures are not very considerable/' and his drawing and his other statements prove that he had as much difficulty in making out the real characters as has ever been experienced since then. Even on the lowest part of the face, which alone does show evident signs of much wear, Mather's raughtsman, and Greenwood, and their next followers, were even successful in making out apparent characters than have been some later observers. Sewall in 1768 and Kendall in 1807 made definite statements to the effect that the greater part of the lines were so much effaced as to make their decipherment impossible, or wholly subject to the fancy. Doug Weller ( talk) 20:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)