The missing folios 59-64

[Diane]

Rene
re your post of April 3rd., 1016 10:52 pm

When you say that Touwaide is referring to both manuscripts - the one made in Lombardy (I assume that's what you mean, and not culturally "Lombard"), and the other manuscript that wasn't made in Lombardy, and say - if I take your meaning correctly - that Touwaide's description of the binding alludes to those two manuscripts... can you provide a bibliographic reference for that?  I'd like to read it in the original before I quote it.

Thanks

---

Anton,
Sorry, I just noticed your reply:

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)....

Does Touwiade define what he means by Italy?

There was no Italy in the 15th century as we know it. It was a general term to encompass a collection of city states and even in the late 15th century, after Lombardy and the Roman Empire had significantly receded northward, "Italie" only reached somewhat north of Venice. North of that were Recia, Vindelitia, and Noricum which still had significant Germanic populations at the time (vestiges of Lombardy).

Once more - just saw your comment, Anton (There was no Italy in the 15th century as we know it...)

 I don't come by so often at the moment, sorry.

Yes of course - after hammering for years the foolishness of imposing modern conceptions of national units upon the fluid nature of medieval movements and their having a single common language ( of the literate) -namely Latin - I sort of assumed people would know that I use the term geographically or else - as the medieval scholars did - to indicate a person's vernacular tongue. 

It's interesting, I think, that the idea of a 'nation' in medieval times went straight back to biblical ideas about the tower of Babel.  So the universities called the group of people with English as their common tongue the 'nation' of the English and so on.  You couldn't talk about "being French" as we do now.  A 'man of France' belonged to the King of France whose territory shifted year by year.  That's part of what is meant by the old practice of the kings in calling themselves 'France' or 'England'.

Most readers of medieval studies know that in a publication, modern terms such as 'France' are used for convenience, but adjust their interpretation of 'France' what they already know about medieval history. In one year 'France' might include Mallorca, but the next it is included in the term 'Spain' etc.

Usually I use these terms in a topographic/geographic sense. Three researchers had earlier thought it made in that region.  Pelling thought Milan; I think more likely Padua and Veneto; If Sherwood still thinks Leonardo da Vinci wrote it as a child, I guess she would opt for Vinci in modern Italy (if he is imagined leaving it in his home town), or perhaps Amboise in modern France if she thinks he had it still when he died.

All things considered - perhaps we should say it was most likely made in spitting distance of the via Francigena?