02-11-2017, 10:53 PM
"Mich" is not "milch", but as suggested in the main 116v thread by those who are more proficient in linguistics than myself, that kind of omitting a letter is generally OK for the century in question. The problem with milk (as well as with liver) is that they сould be justified as components of a recipe, but where's that recipe?
One could argue the same in respect of the alleged rennet bag, but the rennet bag is not something derived from the text area of f116v. It resides in the clearly separated (!) "imagery area" in the corner of the folio lefwards to the parchment impairment, so apriori assumptions of that this imagery has something to do with the text area do seem to me unreliable.
One could argue the same in respect of the alleged rennet bag, but the rennet bag is not something derived from the text area of f116v. It resides in the clearly separated (!) "imagery area" in the corner of the folio lefwards to the parchment impairment, so apriori assumptions of that this imagery has something to do with the text area do seem to me unreliable.