Dunstan...

[Nick Pelling <incoming@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi everyone,

I've just been reading "The Food of Angels: Simon Forman's Alchemical 
Medicine", a paper by Lauren Kassell in "Secrets of Nature: Astrology and 
Alchemy in Early Modern Europe", ed. William R. Newman and Anthony Grafton, 
MIT Press (2001).

In note [130], Lauren talks about the few surviving copies of Dunstan's 
alchemical tract:-

	"[C.H.Josten, in "Elias Ashmole, Autobiographical and Historical
	Notes, Correspondences, and Other Sources", OUP 1966] identified
	the Dunstan text as possibly Sloane MS 1255, Item 2. See also
	Sloane MSS 1744 (which also contains some Forman and some
	Robson), 1876, 3738, and 3757."

All OK so far. :-)

	"Oxford, Corpus Christi College, MS 128 is the only medieval copy
	identified. It may have been owned by John Dee and is listed in
	Julian Roberts and Andrew Watson, eds, "John Dee's Library
	Catalogue" (London: Bibliographical Society, 1990) as DM[129]."

I think it's time we tried to rigorously debate the question of whether the 
VMS was or wasn't the "Boke of Dunstan": so here are four different 
possible scenarios for discussion. If my premises and/or arguments are 
wrong, please correct me, I don't mind! :-)

(1)	Dee owned the real book of Dunstan
	Kelly owned nothing - everything else is fantastical conjecture

	Pro:	simplest explanation - Occam's Razor
	Con:	the quire markings appear to be John Dee's (I think the
		Beinecke catalogue that states it to be his foliation is wrong)

(2)	Dee owned the real book of Dunstan AND the VMS
	Kelly owned nothing

	Pro:	consistent with Dee's probable quire markings
		Dee's "inner library" may have had additional uncatalogued books
	Con:	nothing like the VMS appears in Dee's catalogue
		no Dee marginalia in the VMS

(3)	Dee owned the real book of Dunstan
	Kelly owned a book he attributed to Dunstan, which wasn't the VMS

	Pro:	if you accept Schmieder's account, this is fairly probable
	Con:	inconsistent with Dee's probable quire-markings
		nothing else much like the VMS still survives

(4)	Dee owned the real book of Dunstan
	Kelly owned a book he attributed to Dunstan (actually the VMS)

	Pro:	fits many fragments of the various sources
		consistent with Dee's probable quire numbering
	Con:	the Schmieder text is shaky ground to build upon

Additional data:-
X1:	I believe the foliation numbers are in Kelly's hand (having compared 
the positive rotograph of the VMS with the "liber mysteriorum" at the 
British Library) - but this is weak support for anyone but me, as I'm not a 
palaeographer.
X2:	When Dee refers to the "very Boke of Dunstan", is the word "very" a 
mark of Dee's linguistic precision, so as to rigorously distinguish the 
real boke of Dunstan from Kelly's supposed "Boke of Dunstan"?

My position is basically (4). That is,
-	the Voynich was owned by Kelly
-	its quires were numbered by Dee
-	its pages were later foliated by Kelly
-	Kelly had it "revealed" to him (erroneously) that it was written by Dunstan
-	Dee had a copy of the real Dunstan (he had a copy of just about everything)
-	there's no Dee marginalia because it wasn't his to write on

I understand (and share) the huge reservations about Schmieder's 
believability - but for me, the physical evidence of the VMS' quire 
markings (and the foliation numerals) weighs heavily on my belief that one 
(or both) of Kelly and Dee (I'd guess the former rather than the latter) 
did own it at some stage.

However, this also rests on my firm belief that the Beinecke made an honest 
mistake in its catalogue description of MS 408, and that Andrew Watson 
would have matched the quire-numbering (which AIUI is how Dee habitually 
marked manuscripts) with Dee's haphazard and impatient hand, rather than 
with the folio-numbering.

Asking Andrew Watson to clarify this would probably be a step in the right 
direction: as would asking a real palaeographer to compare the foliation 
numerals with those in Kelly's hand.

Also: if Kelly's treatise/text on the philosophers' stone (that he wrote in 
prison) still exists, or if a copy of some of it was made, it may be 
possible to use *that* to improve the guess as to whether DM[129] was owned 
by Dee. This is because, according to Lauren Kassell, Dunstan expounded a 
quadripartite description of the philosophers' stone, rather than the 
traditional tripartite (animal/vegetable/mineral) description often 
ascribed to Hermes Trismegistus: which may well have been reflected in 
Kelly's writing on the subject - especially if he made a 40-page copy from it.

Opinions? :-)

Cheers, .....Nick Pelling.....

PS: has anyone here looked at Corpus Christi MS 128 (the medieval Dunstan) 
at all?