Monday, 31 October 2011

to Paul Barford

Look at:
You could have asked. I have a website and available email.
Have you read the original book?
Have you seen the drawing, at least in high res?
Do you know about vellum? Have your tried cutting it?
Do you know about the production of specially printed books on vellum?
Do you know about the other versions in London and Paris and their foliation?
Etc etc.
One placement in the book is, as is clear in the narrative, to match where the stitching is most visible; the other is the actual placement.
A small sample was used for the carbon dating, obviously. The thickness was measured thus.
Poland has not been "dragged in".
We have a responsibility  as historians to use language properly and not to post such assertively categorical comments without checking adequately.  Amateur, irresponsible and damaging.
Pascal Cotte has prepared a point-by-point rebuttal.

1 comment:

  1. "look at:"
    undated, though, isn't it? Was it published at the same time as the Guardian article?

    As I said, my blog is just a blog.

    Poland was "dragged in" inasmuch as a series of sensationalist announcements was being made in the foreign press about the mutilation of objects in the national collections which were not co-ordinated with any concurrent announcements in the Polish press (which only appeared two days later and were based on the English articles). If the drawing was in the royal collection and/or the Zamojski collection, when and under what circumstances did it leave them? These are questions I was interested in.

    As I say, I look forward to a proper published account of the research which proves that drawing was on that piece of vellum when it was in the Warsaw volume. If it was.

    [Yes I do "know about" vellum, thanks and did a course in bookbinding and the conservation of bookbindings and have a few myself.]