Re: VMs: Re: Important

["GC" <gc-@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

NIck wrote:

> I suspect you're underestimating the importance of reverting the bifolios
> back to their original order (and to their original binding positions, in
> the case of quire 9) here, as well as the importance of seeing the VMs'
> images without an additional layer of misleading paint.

That is, assuming the painter and the author were different.  Or the author,
painter, and illustrator were different.  If I'm correct and the bifolios
were filled in when flat (I'm not saying there wasn't some plan to the later
bifolios, just the herbal section), then painting them while flat would be
the easiest way to go.  You may be underestimating the toll almost 500 years
of weathering can have on a book, even in a box.

> What we're looking at - even in the sidfiles - is still a secondary
> document obscured by these accreted layers: for example, your
> interpretation of the pharma pages is acutely dependent on who coloured
> what and when. Did the original author only draw the herbal plants'
> outlines? Did the original author paint the cosmology section? And so on.

Not my interpretation, I think.  Without color many of the plants are
recognizable as copies of those found in the herbal section.  Remember, we
made a lot of these connections in black and white.  Color adds a layer of
interest and intrigue to be sure, but we have some experience in viewing the
information without regard to color.  What I'm looking for here is any
evidence that there was more than one party involved in VMS construction.
The VMS has features that speak against the old "one guy printed text and
left space for drawings, the next guy drew and the next colored".   Many
things about this book say it was a low-budget personal production, "Attack
of the Killer Tomatoes" versus "Star Wars", something on that level.  That
it was constructed over a period of time, something akin to a personal
journal, and not a scribal shop copy made for resale or commissioned by a
rich patron.

Go through and count all the damage to the vellum that existed previous to
the writing or drawings.  Look at the ragged edges on short pages, and the
trimmed edges on long pages, trimming sometimes cutting into words.  The
vellum was damaged and repaired before use, the edges were ragged and
non-conforming.  A scribal shop would have discarded this or found another
use for it, like binding filler, etc., but would not have included such
material in anything they sold as a copy.  If you think so, point out one
book known to be a commissioned copy that incorporates this low-quality
vellum.

I've been through this on the handwriting before, but to say it again, I did
thousands of overlays of words and glyphs, trying to identify one hand from
the other.  Because I can't find it doesn't mean it isn't there, but my
distinct impression is that we're dealing with the same author over a period
of time, when the handwriting changes to a degree.  There's other evidence
as well.  Some sections start out nice and ruled, but as the paragraphs
progress, they're slanted, cramped, and no longer neat and straight.
There's a lot more to look at, but how much time are we talking?  My
impression is that we're looking at a period of years, not hours or days.

> By reconstructing the original order and structure of even a handful of
> quires, we can start to build up the page-by-page context of the VMs: in
> the herbal section, that might allow us to develop an understanding of the
> visual themes of quires far beyond what we can currently see.

I agree with the premise.

> >   All I needed to know is whether the thing was
> >written folio by folio as it is bound, or by flat bifolio.  I do remember
> >getting a little laugh out of myself when I realized that the back sides
of
> >the bifolios weren't necessarily written directly after the front sides.
>
> Are you asserting here that all bifolios were usually written one side at
a
> time, as opposed to both sides at a time? Do you remember roughly which
> bifolios you were looking at that supported this view?

No, that's not my assertion at all.  I have limited my comments specifically
to the herbal section, where each folio is a unit of thought, so order is
not paramount.  These were written bifolio-flat, one side at a time.  I
haven't delved into the other sections as deeply, but there is some evidence
that bifolios were written one side at a time on other occasions as well,
primarily on bifolios that exhibit volvelles or thematic drawings.  This
doesn't mean there was no overall plan or scheme for a quire, only that the
author had the book disassembled when he filled in the folios.  The last
quire would be the one I'd question in regard to my hypothesis, but we don't
know yet if the stars section is in the right order, or that it even
requires an order to be read.   I haven't run any tests on the text in this
section.  I've said before though, that I don't think the book started out
with any real outline or plan - this was something that developed as the
writing went on.  Because I see something in one section, it doesn't mean
the other sections are obliged to follow the same rules.  What you guys are
doing with the later sections may be far more appropriate for those sections
that what I did with the herbal section, since they're not from the same
time in the author's life.

You've forced me to dig up some notes I made back when this was fresh in my
mind, so here's what I know.

Bifolios 10, 12, 20 and 24 are a set.  I'd have to do some pretty fancy
figuring to tell you which came first, the chicken or the egg, but these are
an [a1] set.  11, 13, 24 and 27 are an [a1] set.  14, 18, 21 and 23 are a
[b1] set.  Bifolio 17 as a misplaced [b1] sits in the midst of these, but
has no connection.   24 and 27 were my interest at the time, so I know these
were written consecutively in their order.  Several others exhibit
connections between one side of the bifolio and a side of another bifolio,
as if they were in a stack of blank bifolios, illustrated, text added, all
on one side, then the stack was flipped over.

What caught my eye about these numbers is that they are groups of four, and
four bifolios form a quire. I also didn't miss the fact that the [a1]
groupings were even and odd in their present order, but I never attached a
meaning to this.

Remember, this was back when I'd just finished my tedious transcription of
the herbal section, and started playing with the data to see what came up
that was missed before.  You may have enough encoded detail in EVA to do the
same analysis, and extend it to the remainder of the VMS.  You get strange
words occurring, them go several pages and find them again.  The same with
variants and wierdoes, separated by several pages.  Then you go back and say
aha, they may be separated by many pages, but they're on the same side of
the same bifolio.  That wouldn't be normal if the herbal folios were written
as bound pages.

> FWIW, to my eyes, the thematic groupings from page to page (ie between
> bifolios, such as in the balneo section) and this idea (of text's being
> written one bifolio side at a time) seem fairly incompatible in a primary
> document - that is, the content is inter-bifolio, yet the writing is
> intra-bifolio, which I think supports the idea of the document's having
> been copied in some way.

I think I've covered that, at least to my satisfaction.  Simply because
somthing is happening in the herbal section doesn't mean it is elsewhere,
even when we see the author picking up visual cues from the left side of a
bifolio to the right.  He may have had the bifolios loose in a quire, and
took them out to write upon consecutively, folio by folio, in other
sections.  The real test would be to see if the text demonstrates any
connection to the other half of the bifolio.  I've never made the "copy"
connection, and I don't think what I've been saying points to it.  I always
thought I was saying that the VMS started out an herbal, but became
something different, more comprehensive, as the author's knowledge grew.

GC




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Nick Pelling" <incoming@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2004 3:48 AM
Subject: Re: VMs: Re: Important


> Hi everyone,
>
> At 22:28 25/06/2004 -0600, GC wrote:
> >There are even some clues in this presentation that lean toward certain
> >herbal bifolios, both in [a] and in [b], being closely associated, but
not
> >in the right order or sequence of writing.  I don't remember if I put
this
> >list of folios on the VMS-list, or simply jotted it down on some now lost
> >personal page, but I know I ran some numbers that argued very strongly
for a
> >different ordering of herbal bifolios than what is presented in the VMS
as
> >it currently stands.  I do know I walked away from the excursion
reasonably
> >certain that the VMS herbal section was written bifolio flat, one side at
a
> >time.  There are more definitive ways of looking at this that would help
> >clear up some of these questions, but I never followed through because
the
> >exact order of individual herbal bifolios has little bearing (to me) on
> >what's encoded in the text.
>
> I suspect you're underestimating the importance of reverting the bifolios
> back to their original order (and to their original binding positions, in
> the case of quire 9) here, as well as the importance of seeing the VMs'
> images without an additional layer of misleading paint.
>
> What we're looking at - even in the sidfiles - is still a secondary
> document obscured by these accreted layers: for example, your
> interpretation of the pharma pages is acutely dependent on who coloured
> what and when. Did the original author only draw the herbal plants'
> outlines? Did the original author paint the cosmology section? And so on.
>
> By reconstructing the original order and structure of even a handful of
> quires, we can start to build up the page-by-page context of the VMs: in
> the herbal section, that might allow us to develop an understanding of the
> visual themes of quires far beyond what we can currently see.
>
> >   All I needed to know is whether the thing was
> >written folio by folio as it is bound, or by flat bifolio.  I do remember
> >getting a little laugh out of myself when I realized that the back sides
of
> >the bifolios weren't necessarily written directly after the front sides.
>
> Are you asserting here that all bifolios were usually written one side at
a
> time, as opposed to both sides at a time? Do you remember roughly which
> bifolios you were looking at that supported this view?
>
> FWIW, to my eyes, the thematic groupings from page to page (ie between
> bifolios, such as in the balneo section) and this idea (of text's being
> written one bifolio side at a time) seem fairly incompatible in a primary
> document - that is, the content is inter-bifolio, yet the writing is
> intra-bifolio, which I think supports the idea of the document's having
> been copied in some way.
>
> Cheers, .....Nick Pelling.....
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
> unsubscribe vms-list

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