Anton,
Sorry, I just noticed your reply:
I see. I thought this was about provenancing the manuscript.
Since Touwiade has recently confirmed that the manuscript appears to have been made in Italy, I'd think it more likely that we'd find any cognate works there, or perhaps in England, if it is accepted that the Arabic page numbers are in John Dee's hand (this from a recognised expert in that area).
I know that Wilfrid never wasted a minute, and was very diligent in seeking the work's earlier history. He concentrated on England and Italy - and I think he was right to do so from the meagre evidence we have.
Still, I guess alll of us follow our own interests in this subject don't we? Thanks for the civil reply, Anton. As ever.
Rene - yes, I'm familiar with that scenario, and know of your long-term efforts to find a way to argue that the manuscript was owned by the Emperor and by Matthias etc.I can only admire the persistence with which you have been attempting to find such evidence, now, for almost twenty years. I certainly wouldn't have maintained the interest in following such an apparently unfruitful line of enquiry, but then they said the same of Schleimann, and in the end he found what he was looking for. I hope you will too.
Sorry, I just noticed your reply:
Quote:It's actually not about evidence, but about attempts to locate any historical records about manuscripts in Rudolph's collection which potentially could match the VMS. There are not that many of such records. I remember we discussed another one in Nick's blog - mentioned in a book by Czech historian, - and that one also did not look as a good match for the VMS.
I see. I thought this was about provenancing the manuscript.
Since Touwiade has recently confirmed that the manuscript appears to have been made in Italy, I'd think it more likely that we'd find any cognate works there, or perhaps in England, if it is accepted that the Arabic page numbers are in John Dee's hand (this from a recognised expert in that area).
I know that Wilfrid never wasted a minute, and was very diligent in seeking the work's earlier history. He concentrated on England and Italy - and I think he was right to do so from the meagre evidence we have.
Still, I guess alll of us follow our own interests in this subject don't we? Thanks for the civil reply, Anton. As ever.
Rene - yes, I'm familiar with that scenario, and know of your long-term efforts to find a way to argue that the manuscript was owned by the Emperor and by Matthias etc.I can only admire the persistence with which you have been attempting to find such evidence, now, for almost twenty years. I certainly wouldn't have maintained the interest in following such an apparently unfruitful line of enquiry, but then they said the same of Schleimann, and in the end he found what he was looking for. I hope you will too.