The 2006 online article by Cinato and Surprenant ("Retrieved 13 May 2011") is not online any more.
Several claims attributed to it (such as the missing folia, or the "1320s" date) is not found in the 2009 book by the same authors.
I conclude, therefore, that these are not opinions held by these authors, even if they may have been speculatively forwarded online at some point.
I know of no reason why material should be missing from the ms., or why it should be dated to 1320 rather than to 1310 or 1300.
I would readily accept any date between 1290 and 1330 (1350 seems a tad late, but who knows), and it creates an undue illusion of positive knowledge to place it "in the 1320s". --Dieter Bachmann 13:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- yeah, and the royal armouries homepage still dates it to the "late 13th century", so I rest my case. It can be dated to either side of the turn of the 14th century. --Dieter Bachmann 13:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- I recently discussed the dating issue with Scott Brown, and he told me that the 1320s date is based on linguistic analysis (he said 1325 plus or minus five years) by Latin experts. That research hasn't been published yet, but I have no reason to doubt his word. Perhaps this will be confirmed in Jeffrey's new book.
- Regarding the missing leaves, the power point made it clear, but I can't find it anywhere on the Seven Internets, so hopefully Jeffrey covers that as well. Cinato's site still makes mention of the probably contents of the missing leaves (noting gaps in the otherwise coherent treatise), and of course there are the thirty "lost plays" that recur in treatises throughout the early 16th century, decades before the discovery of the I.33, and whose origins are unknown. That's actually the thing that interests me the most about Jeffrey's forthcoming book, his analysis of those plays (and the possibility that he'll propose a scheme for placing them in the larger treatise).
- ~ Michael Chidester (Contact) 15:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)