Re: VMs: dating the VMs

[Nick Pelling <incoming@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi everyone,

At 11:19 27/02/2004 +0000, Philip Neal wrote:
> I am particularly
> interested in the dating of the quire marks. They were presumably added
> shortly after the MS was written, and it seems to me that the forms of
> the numerals used are perceptibly older than the numerals used in the
> page numbering. Would you agree with me that the quire marks are
> typical of the 15th century and the page numberings have a 16th
> century appearance?

We really ought to determine exactly what Prof. Watson claimed to have 
identified as John Dee's - the quiration or the foliation - and why. 
They're manifestly different hands, so it will surely be one or the other 
(and not both).

While I agree with Rafal that the foliation is probably not Dee's, AFAICT 
the attribution of the quiration remains open (for now).

And while I also agree with Philip's point (that the quiration looks more 
like a 15th century hand than a 16th century hand, and that the foliation 
looks like a formally learnt 16th century hand), I also think that the 
opinion of Prof. Watson on this should be properly understood and 
considered, and not just rejected (for what reason?)

The original identification was from the printed Yale catalogue: the 
earliest mention on the mailing list was by Jim Reeds (7 Sep 1992). Rene 
Zandbergen 20 Jun 2000 posted:-

> (we thank A. G. Watson for confirming this identification through a
> comparison of the Arabic numerals in the Beinecke manuscript with
> those of John Dee in Oxford, Bodleian Library Ashmole 1790, f. 9v,
> and Ashmole 487)

But these could equally have been Kelly's - true or false? This is a mess 
which really should have been cleared up years ago. :-(

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


______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list