(11-10-2025, 01:11 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Oddly enough, the single page found by Fabrizio Salani, which he claims may be one of these pages, is painted, but using modern pigments.
I just watched You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.. If I got it right, he himself seems vague and does not claim that it is the copy that Barsch sent to Kircher. He notes that, if Baresh made a copy, it must have been on paper (like all the other letters in the Carteggio). And the style of plant is like that of herbals of the 1700s, not of the 1400s. So he thinks that it is rather a copy of that copy made some time later for display purposes.
I myself think that it is just a modern copy.
But more interesting, he seems to say that the letter from Kircher to Baresch has been found! Has it?
All the best, --jorge
Thanks so much, Lisa! I was particularly impressed by your research questions and how clear you were in presenting your results. I can’t wait for the fuller article; I’m looking forward to your reconstructed order for the balneological pages the most!
This is excellent. We are fortunate that Lisa Fagin Davis has spent so much energy on trying to figure out this ms. Such a striking contrast with all the posts from people who declare victory with scant evidence.
For anyone interested, there is a discussion of these results at the Nick's Pelling blog:
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
Read the blog entry and the comments, Lisa herself answers some questions there.
[
attachment=11786]
Regarding Nick's comment.
Perhaps my senses are playing tricks on me. But to me, next to the 67, it looks like a crossed-out 62.
There is no possibility of smudging or show-through.
Is there more to it? Does it help with the sequence, or is it all just my imagination?
I agree - there's definitely a 6 in the foliator's hand followed by a 2 or another 7, but it is difficult to say for sure. The next time I am with the manuscript, I'll bring a handheld UV light and ask permission to examine that page.
I don't think knowing what numbers are written there will help with the sequence, as it seems clear that the manuscript has been in its current sequence since before the folio numbers were added. The foliator might have just made a mistake and scraped it away.