Diane, I am sure that Rene is simply defending his position, as you are. Casting aspersions simply distracts from the thrust of your argument and undermines your credibility.
In order to link the manuscript to a Jewish tradition, it would be interesting to see whether other codicilogical aspects of the book match the codecs you found which are similar in size.
I agree with you about the ruling - but this is a tradition in the monastic scribal copying houses.
If we look at other, less well known and more informal European manuscript traditions - such as professional handbooks for personal use- we don't see indications of ruling, and we also see other matches such as foldouts, rough cutting of quires from larger sheets, etc. Sorry I'm posting from my phone and can't supply examples at the moment.
This is not proof of course, but it is an aspect which must be taken into account. Folio size is only one of a multitude of variables to be taken into account.
Quote:Casting aspersions simply distracts from the thrust of your argument and undermines your credibility
This looks to me to be more of a forum issue.
What undermines the credibility is that, either by not reading posts of others, or simply ignoring their contents, the last post of Diane is full of statements that are plainly wrong, i.e. not true.
Don't worry, I'm not going to make a list.
People who actually do read the other posts will know.
In many areas of science and engineering people use the term: "signal to noise ratio" (SNR).
People who hear it for the first time will immediately understand its meaning or purpose.
I prefer reading contributions (here and elsewhere) with a high SNR. Fortunately, there are many.
@Rene
Binding question:
You write on your page the new cover page was performed by "Jesuits of the Collegium Romanum in Rome".
Did they also execute the new binding ?
Is this to be classified in terms of time ?
What I meant was that what we call the 'cover' was added by the Jesuits in Rome, replacing an earlier cover.
It is what in German is called the 'Deckel'.
Whether it was also stitched again at this time is not known to me. The conservators studying the MS in 2014 considered the stitching to be older than that.
Thanks Rene
I was just wondering if that would be noticeable if someone could have tampered between the Jesuits and the reopening in 2014.
Yes, there are several traces of that.
Wilfrid Voynich tore our the endpapers, probably in 1912, and removed whatever was used to stiffen the covers.
You can see an example You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. what it would have looked like before that. And You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. is what we have now.
Several people have written on the inside cover (i.e. on the parchment) with pencil.
The team of Kraus repaired the binding in the 1960's, adding leather thongs glued on top of the old ones, some modern parchment guards and improving the stitching with white thread.
You know, I always meant to ask you: Did Kraus ever commission or keep any reports on the book by any of his experts?
There is a letter from Kraus' consultant You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. . (Sorry no English wiki entry).
It is not clear if that was instigated by Kraus, or his own initiative.
This letter to Tiltman of 1 November 1963 is quoted twice by D'Imperio, on pages 7 and 8.
In the first he suggests Italy as a possible place of origin, also considering south Italy and exposure to the Arabic world.
In the second he writes: "there is a near agreement on the date of the CIPHER manuscript as around, or a little after, the year 1400."
This letter is probably in the Marshall library, as D'Imperio researched there, and I do not believe she used the Beinecke material.
Another important indication is Kraus' centenary catalogue: "35 manuscripts", in which he describes his most valuable manuscript for sale (without prices) and the Voynich MS is one of them. He quotes several sources but does not mention Lehmann-Haupt.
He describes the "documents accompanying the codex" which includes a lot of correspondence related to it.
(23-10-2019, 09:00 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There is a letter from Kraus' consultant You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. . (Sorry no English wiki entry).
If this letter contains more detailed arguments, it would be very interesting to read. The "near agreement" of these consultants on ca. 1400 Italy is much more relevant than O'Neill's six botanists who agreed about the sunflower.