Difference between revisions of "Index:EBC s.d. 0209.pdf"
From GATE
ArchivesPUG (talk | contribs) |
|||
Recipient | Recipient | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
− | [[has uncertain recipient:: | + | [[has uncertain recipient::Vicar of Gaeta]] |
Date | Date | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
− | + | unknown | |
Bibliographic level | Bibliographic level | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
− | + | [[has bibliographic level::Typescript]] | |
Remarks | Remarks | ||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
[[Category:EBC Metadata]][[Category:EBC Missing metadata]] | [[Category:EBC Metadata]][[Category:EBC Missing metadata]] | ||
[[Category:Letters]] | [[Category:Letters]] | ||
+ | Given the point of the collection where Tromp places this letter, one could assume that he would have dated it about 1601-1602; anyway nothing in the text points to this assumption, so the date field has been set to 'unknown'. The same applies to the name of the recipient, that it can't be identified without a date. The "vicar" should be the vicar of the bishop of Gaeta. |
Revision as of 15:21, 21 May 2019
◅ Previous letter |
Next letter ▻ |
Sender | Roberto Bellarmino |
Recipient | Vicar of Gaeta |
Date | unknown |
Place of origin | Roma |
Place of destination | Gaeta |
Language | ita |
Bibliographic level | Typescript |
Progress | To be validated |
Transcription | 1 |
Remarks |
Given the point of the collection where Tromp places this letter, one could assume that he would have dated it about 1601-1602; anyway nothing in the text points to this assumption, so the date field has been set to 'unknown'. The same applies to the name of the recipient, that it can't be identified without a date. The "vicar" should be the vicar of the bishop of Gaeta. |