[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Another explanation for dain daiin...

> The alleged identification of Dee's hand
> in the folio numbers has been substantially
> discredited by Prinke.

If I understand correctly, the identification by
a credable expert, as recorded in the Beinecke
description, actually refers to a page in Dee's
manuscripts written by Kelly. Even if the
idenfication were correct (which I'm also not too
sure about), it would be Kelly, not Dee, and
Kelly had a completely different history in
Bohemia than Dee.

The *foliation numerals* are in an ordered, standard sixteenth-century hand (which, when put next to Kelly's at the British Library, appeared very similar - but this fell a long way short of definitive identification)... but that the *quire markings* were extremely similar to John Dee's random, careless hand, and that these had been identified as Dee's by several people (on-list and off-list).

BTW: I'm now quite comfortable with identifying the VMS with Kelly's "boke of Dunstan", especially now that I've read (in Breisach) about Caterina Sforza's alchemical experiments - I couldn't see the link before that. :-)