Re: Why not Dee

[Clay Holden <cholden@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Rafal T. Prinke wrote:

>I am sure Clay Holden (if he listens) could give more authoritative
>judgement of Dee's 8's from his extensive study of Dee's MSS.

I'll try to scan some representative samples of Dee's numbering
(particularly his "8"s) from several of his MSS. I have copies of and post
them on my web-site this coming weekend. I also have microfilm print-out of
the Voynich, so I'll scan some representative samples of "8"s and other
foliation from it as well. This should qualify as "fair use" by any
reasonable understanding of the term, yes?

Unfortunately I don't have a copy of either Ashmole MS.1790 or 1587.
However, I *did* finally obtain a copy of Roberts and Watson's edition of
Dee's Library Catalogue (today, finally, ten years after it was
published!), so I will refer to it as well for examples which I do not have
in my microfilm collection.

>I could not find any reproduction of Kelley's handwritten numbers -
>except one very poor sample with a 7 which looks much more like
>VMS foliation 7's.

I also have Sloane MS. 3189 ("Liber Loagaeth") which is in Kelley's hand,
so I will also scan some of his foliation.

The whole issue of being able to identify a MS. by something as basic as
foliation numbers seems a bit of a stretch to me. At best, it should be
useful in determining the approximate date of said foliation.

Best wishes,

Clay