Re: VMs: Nick's Strokes [was: thoughts etc]

["Maurizio M. Gavioli" <mmg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

> Barbara Babbles;
> I was saving this for the planned website but I can't let this go by; I've
> just *got* to challenge it on two levels (and I'm sure our on-list expert,
> Maurizio, will correct me where and if I'm in error - our differences so far
> seem only to be that I use less technical language than he <g>).

First of all, I cannot claim any expertise at all. I am grateful to Barbara 
for the compliment, but I simply happened to graduate in Latin Paleography 
in early 80's (which is a lot of time ago) with a great professor.

Second (and for what it is worth given the previous disclaimer ;-) ), I 
agree almost at 100% with Barbara's analysis of the Vms writing and its 
comparison with 'regular' Latin writings.

About terminology, which seems to be my specialty (<g>), I would contribute 
a distinction which might be useful. We were taught to distinguish between 
_tempi_ and _tratti_ (literaly: "times" and "strokes", but _tempo_ is 
better translated in this case by "sequence", "suite"?)

A _tempo_ is exactly what Barbara defined as "stroke": "from pen-down to 
pen-lift",
A _tratto_ is a (portion of) stroke keeping the same direction (or the same 
curve).

So, a capital I is made of 1 _tempo_ and 1 _tratto_, a capital L is made of 
1 _tempo_ and 2 _tratti_, a capital E is made of 3 _tempi_ and 4 _tratti 
(the first _tempo_ being the L-portion of the E).

I don't know if this distinction is useful in this context, but it proved 
to be very useful in studying the evolution of letter forms and I thought 
it might of some interest. A more suitable English translation of the two 
terms would be welcome.

At 13:26 21/02/2004 +0000, Barbara Barrett wrote:
> 1 stroke; i o e d
> 2 stroke; a b r n s q y ch m z g* j*
> 3 stroke; x sh**

The only detail I do not agree with is the 'd': for me it is made of 2 
_tempi_ (Barbara's strokes) and 3 _tratti_:
* first a 'c'-shaped _tempo_
* then a vaguely P-shaped _tempo_ made of a counterclockwise circle and a 
vertical down-stroke (sometime slightly slanted to the right)
It is actually a slightly modified form of the 'et' ligature (our modern '&').

> Eva considers sh as a separate character from ch + plume diacritic, so I've
> included its stroke count here. But personally I classify sh as ch plus the
> plume diacritic

Me too. But I do not count this as an EVA limitation: as far as the string 
"Sh" remain unambiguous (as long as it is not also the transcription of a 
different sequence of ms. sings), it may unambiguously transliterated into 
a different convention.

> I think these facts are somewhat supportive of the shorthand school of
> thought, the "speed-writing" faction of which have received shorter shrift
> than I think they've deserved so far.

I know nothing (yet?) about this "shorthand school of thought", but I would 
like to learn more!

> I've animation's planned for the future website that'll demonstrate writing
> the characters...

Wow! I am eager to see them!!!

At 12:14 21/02/2004 +0000, Nick Pelling wrote:
> If the alphabet's shapes weren't appropriated from a wax tablet shorthand, 
> where did they come from? I've looked at hundreds of Quattrocento ciphers, 
> and none has the same "shape sensibility" as the VMs' alphabet.

Why not simply from 'regular' writing? Leaving aside "weirdos" (which in 
most cases are either cursive variants or combinations of simpler signs), 
the 'basic' alphabet is to a great extent made of forms usual in the Latin 
writing tradition, the exceptions being the 4 gallows plus 'j' and 'x' 
(neither of which I remember as particularly frequent).

> I'd also argue that it was probably copied by a formally-trained scribe

This seems to me almost tautological: a person able to write a codex was, 
by default, assumed to have received a formal writing training: you don't 
waste the skin of ca. 30 sheep on scribblings.

> And here's the question: you place the component strokes of the letters 
> within a (transitional gothic) littera moderna tradition - but others 
> argue that the overall hand appears (from its uprightness and discrete 
> letters) to be within a more (humanist) littera antiqua tradition. What do 
> you make of that?

I agree that the overall *style* of the writing is probably not unaware (is 
litote acceptable in English?) of post-humanistic reform styles. However, 
the letter forms themselves are definitely in the line of the _littera 
moderna_. I would quote at least three elements, two refer to the letter 
forms and are partially overlapping: the great assimilation between strokes 
and the absence (or very low presence) of turns of pens 'special' for 
single characters, which are the foundation of the _littera antiqua_; the 
third element is rather technical: the constant "writing angle" (i.e. the 
angle between the pen nib and the writing line), which is characteristic of 
the _moderna_.

I don't see why uprightness should be distinctive of either _littera 
moderna_ and _littera antiqua_. Perhaps, a case should be made for the Vms. 
writing to be more 'round-looking' than many _modernae_ (it is not of the 
same flock of, say, black letters), but very rounded _modernae_ existed 
too, like the _littera bononiensis_ or the _littera sti. Petri" (both were 
very formal, and earlier, than our codex, but show that the possibility was 
present in the system).

In general, I am not suggesting that the Vms. writing consciously borrowed 
from this or that writing (for instance, it could be said that "ch" is 
actually the 't' of the Beneventan script!), but rather that it is rooted 
in a specific writing tradition, which seems to me that of the _littera 
moderna_.

Cheers,
        Maurizio


 Maurizio M. Gavioli -  VistaMare  Software
 via San Bernardo 5, I-16030 Pieve Ligure, ITALY
 http://www.vistamaresoft.com/

______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list