Sam G > 22-10-2016, 10:08 AM
Koen G > 22-10-2016, 10:19 AM
Sam G > 22-10-2016, 10:26 AM
(22-10-2016, 10:19 AM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I'm not an expert on this, but to me it actually looks like 1r has been written with a different utensil than the others. I see more clearly the quill strokes in it, while the others look almost modern.
ReneZ > 22-10-2016, 10:46 AM
-JKP- > 22-10-2016, 11:33 AM
Sam G > 22-10-2016, 11:46 AM
(22-10-2016, 11:33 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.from these fragments, I would venture that the hand on 1r is probably not the same as the one on folio 68r even though the letter forms are very similar (if it's two different hands, they may have learned to write at approximately the same time and place). Either that or the person was using a different writing tool that was not as familiar or comfortable to the hand.
Those on 67r and 70r are even more different and, judging by the writing tool and letter forms, might be later additions.
Helmut Winkler > 22-10-2016, 02:34 PM
Sam G > 23-10-2016, 04:22 AM
(22-10-2016, 02:34 PM)Helmut Winkler Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.1) It is common usage to cite columns on a page in a ms as a, b, c etc, e.g. 10ra. 10rb and so on
Quote:2) 67r and 70r look very late to me, I would say they could be 20th c.
Helmut Winkler > 23-10-2016, 07:30 AM
(23-10-2016, 04:22 AM)Sam G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.They look relatively modern to my untrained eye as well. How early do you think they could be? Is it at all possible that they are from the 17th century?
ReneZ > 23-10-2016, 09:44 AM
(22-10-2016, 10:46 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The Jesuits in Rome made many pencil annotations on Kircher's correspondence, so my first tendency is to suspect that they may have been responsible for this too.
This is of course speculative.