So that I can quote the information, I wonder if David and Rene can provide some details:
David explains how he reached the conclusion that the tear occurred while the parchment was being stretched - so it reads as an original observation, with conclusions drawn.
However, Rene then repeats that, if it were something already well known, but not referring to any earlier source, saying: " the tear with the small holes left and right of it are the result of stitching during the parchment preparation process"
- so is it something that has been previously noted before, and if so by whom? Is David's observation the first? Perhaps Rene means just to nod, and show that he accepts David opinion?
I don't want to get the footnote wrong, so would be glad of clarification.
Further, Rene says that "The MS was rebound by the Jesuits, probably in the late 18th or early 19th Century.." Is this deduced from the pencilled numbers, or have we a document as record of the re-binding. And if we do:
1. I'd like to properly cite that document, or credit the person who informed Voynich studies of it;
2. I'd like to know (if there is documentary evidence for the date/s of that rebinding) how the manuscript is identified in that evidence: is it listed by the same code written in the pencilled J+numbers, or by some book title, or .. how?
It seems there must be some objective record of the way the Jesuit library had described the manuscript, because Rene says further
"From reports in the Collegium Romanum catalogues it seems that it was already under the attack by woodworms before that.."
So for those reports to tell us, specifically, that Beinecke 408 was affected by woodworms ('woodworms'? not 'bookworms?), there must be some way that it was specified: is this by an accession number, shelf-number, title or something else?
How do we know that the Voynich manuscript is included, particularly, in a record of treatment? - How do I cite that?
and then:
"Some pages were clipped" but Rene says "this could have happened at the same time...it may have happened earlier..not certain.." Is there any of the scientific descriptions which includes a list of folios clipped/trimmed? Is it perhaps in McCrone's unpublished data? How should one cite the original source, and explain the vacillation over when that happened?
about Rene's saying..
"Voynich
almost certainly took off the Jesuit cover .." How do we know this? Is the doubt about the removal, or about who did the removal? Again, what original sources should I cite for this idea?
About the linked Jesuit manuscript - is the cover is of goatskin? What is that manuscript's title and date - I don't see a catalogue description on the Uni of Heidelberg site, though I expect this is my oversight, not theirs.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
"Kraus made some repairs in 1967..."
- what citation should I give for this information? Is Kraus' report or memorandum of repairs anywhere online - at the Beinecke library, perhapsr?
Finally - am I correct in crediting Ellie Velinska with having first noticed these wormholes and drawn others' attention to them? Perhaps that is a question I should ask on Ellie's own blog.
Thanks in anticipation to David and Rene. In Voynich studies, writing accurate footnotes is more of a struggle than any other area I've researched in the past forty years. Like archaeology, the original source seems often sunk under layers and layers of dust.