Re: VMs: Folios Incognito

[Nick Pelling <incoming@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Dana,

At 22:29 01/04/2004 -0700, Dana Scott wrote:
> It has recently come to my attention, though I do not recall where, that the
> original incunabula discovered by Voynich may not, in fact, be exactly the
> same in content as what is now housed at Beinecke. In other words, certain
> folios may have been removed after the 1912 discovery. I find this posit to
> be rather intriguing and wonder if we have at our disposal the earliest
> known description of photo copy of the manuscript to compare to what we find
> today? Then perhaps we can somehow determine approximately where and when
> the missing folios were removed.

This has been mentioned on-list several times (possibly most recently by me 
[appended below]). Unfortunately, I don't have any updated information, 
sorry - though all comments are welcome!

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

                                * * * * * * *

Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 02:44:15 +0100
To: vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx
From: Nick Pelling <incoming@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: VMs: Missing leaves...?

Hi everyone,

Hmmm... I'm thinking about the missing folios mentioned on Jim Gillogly's 
front page:-

        http://www.voynich.net/
        Fourteen of the numbered leaves are missing; comparing Newbold's
        careful catalog with Kraus's shows at least six of these disappeared
        since Voynich obtained the manuscript.

Can anyone please tell me what the numbers of these six missing leaves are?

Also: IIRC, Newbold was active circa 1919-1921: so the "disappearing 
leaves" event would have happened before Petersen started his transcription 
in 1931 (just after Wilfrid Voynich died). Do we have any record of who 
else might have examined the VMS during 1921-1931?

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


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