Re: Another explanation for dain daiin...

[Nick Pelling <incoming@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> > 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. :-)