19-08-2019, 05:24 PM
I hadn't seen the interactive timeline, and it's very nicely done.
I only found one tiny error, and it's a persistent one found in many sources (the year 1666 instead of 1665) so this can be forgiven.
It nicely shows how the manuscript was 'invisble' for over 200 years in the middle of its life.
I only found one tiny error, and it's a persistent one found in many sources (the year 1666 instead of 1665) so this can be forgiven.
It nicely shows how the manuscript was 'invisble' for over 200 years in the middle of its life.