ReneZ > 30-01-2016, 06:42 AM
-JKP- > 30-01-2016, 08:25 AM
ReneZ > 30-01-2016, 02:46 PM
-JKP- > 30-01-2016, 03:53 PM
(30-01-2016, 02:46 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The small strip between the two Taurus images is similar to strips found in the folds of the bifolio f67-f68 and of the single folio f73, and is a kind of reinforcement that was sewn in at the time of the present binding.
I learned this as part of the answer to a question related to the bifolio 67-68. From the images, one cannot be entirely certain whether this is one very wide sheet (widest of all in the MS), or two sheets sewn together and these were the two ends.
It turned out to be the first option.
R. Sale > 30-01-2016, 07:34 PM
Linda > 24-01-2017, 07:05 AM
Linda > 27-01-2017, 08:33 AM
Koen G > 27-01-2017, 09:01 AM
Helmut Winkler > 27-01-2017, 09:47 AM
(27-01-2017, 09:01 AM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.For thread restoration's sake, I wrote here before that during the first centuries BCE the Roman calendar corresponded to the months as we see them now in the VM, December being the tenth (decem) and final month. Helmut then added that a number of European calendars, including the Venetian one, also used to start on March 1. Apparently the general conversion to January 1 only came during the 16th century.
Some calendars started on March 25 (Annunciationis Mariae), e.g Archdiocese Trier
So if we assume that the intention behind the series was to use it as some kind of calendar (somebody wrote month names on it after all), and we change the question to "why is March first?", then the answer should be clear: because some calendars started with March.
I think so too
Linda > 27-01-2017, 04:15 PM