06-05-2023, 06:41 AM
It is also worth keeping in mind that Lisa Fagin Davis considers the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. inscription to be a bit later than the manuscript itself, although she expresses this with uncertainty. She wrote (pers. comm.):
"I think it's a bit later than the manuscript itself; perhaps late 15th-c., although it's a fairly small sample with unusual letterforms, so it's difficult to say with real certainty."
I would pu 116v later than he rest of he ms. myself, but only out of the internal logic, thre most distinguishing feature of the scripthe big loops are found since around 1400
"I think it's a bit later than the manuscript itself; perhaps late 15th-c., although it's a fairly small sample with unusual letterforms, so it's difficult to say with real certainty."
I would pu 116v later than he rest of he ms. myself, but only out of the internal logic, thre most distinguishing feature of the scripthe big loops are found since around 1400