Re: Why not Dee

["Rafal T. Prinke" <rafalp@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Clay Holden wrote:

> 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.

That would be superb! Thanks, Clay. 

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

Maybe also some numbers from the text itself? We cannot be sure if
it wasn't foliated by Dee after Kelley had made the clean copy 
of it.

> 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.

That's right. But it can disprove the identification if Dee formed
his 8's consistently in the same way - different from the VMS foliator.
If it is not so, and they were sometimes similar (or identically
formed), it still does not prove it was really Dee.

I tend to think that the unjustified Dee connection really obscures 
the real picture. As Julie Porter said: "The man just will not 
go away." If he disappears, then perhaps hundreds of others will
show up: physicians, philologists, artists, people from Rudolf's
court, students and professors from Charles University and
Jesuit colleges, etc. 

Best regards,

Rafal