Re: VMs: Re: Important

["GC" <gc-@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I wrote:
>>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.

Nick replied:
> I too think that this is what happened - but I'm far from convinced that
> the VMs itself is that original accreting document. Instead, I suspect
that
> the VMs was a copy of that herbal-first document.

I'm not certain whether you're saying you believe the entire manuscript is a
copy of another, or only the herbal is a copy of another, and the rest is
the work of the copyist?  Whichever, (and I would like to know which), the
idea that ANY of the VMS is a copy and not an original has disturbing
consequences for many of us.

Consider the difficulty we have with our perceptions of even a single glyph,
and the differences that arise among us over even the most basic of these
forms.  Do we then assume that our copyist minutely recorded every single
detail of the original with the utmost accuracy?  At best we'd have a
copyist that understood the script, but if more than one person understood
the script, why do we not have any other examples?  Others add an even more
disturbing word to this picture - "dumb" , as in "dumb copyist", someone who
didn't understand the script at all, but simply recorded it as he saw it.
That category would include every one of us who've ever attempted to
transcribe the VMS, and you see from the transcriptions just how wide a gap
there is in our varied perceptions.

The case of the "initiated copyist" poses its own set of problems, since a
copyist makes an entirely different set of mistakes in copying than the
actual author does in composing.  Even an initiated copyist can suffer
boredom, and add his own little doodles, games or flourishes.  He's also
prone to revert back to his own method of spelling in a time when this
varied widely from one individual to another.  An original author doesn't do
this - he's motivated to be precise and meticulous in his presentation, and
any flourishes or embellishments come from  the author's style and desire to
enhance his presentation.

The notion of a "dumb copyist" has consequences for VMS research equivalent
to the "hoax" theory.  If this idea is true, we may all simply put away our
pencils and do something more intelligent with our lives, like figuring out
who killed Kennedy.  A dumb copyist
doesn't know the script or the language, so he's simply recording what he
sees.  You'd think he'd get better with time, but the style toward the end
gets more cramped, and the symbols more varied, not the other way around.
We have no way of ever being certain that a dumb copyist was capable of
accurately deducing the glyphs and recording them as they were written,
which means that we're viewing the transmitted information through an
unknown and unfamiliar filter.  That's as good as a hoax.

Ideas have logical consequences in perception and approach, so one needs to
get a
handle on a few foundational ideas before attempting to build a structure.
You've introduced a middle man into the mix, so why does bifolio layout
matter?  Maybe he didn't think the original was ordered properly, so it was
he who shuffled pages, or maybe he thought one thing belonged with the next,
so he changed the entire order on his own, and who knows what the original
actually looked like?  The idea that the writer and the illustrator weren't
the same adds another middle man.  Who knows if the text added is the
right text for the illustration, or if the colors are that of the original,
or even if the drawings resemble the originals?  That's a whole lot of doubt
that may be unnecessary, in my view.

I guess my question is, what makes you think it's a copy, and if so, a copy
of what?  The ink appears to be consistent, both in text and illustration.
I can't find anything to suggest that more than one scribe was involved in
the addition of text to the manuscript in the various sections.  In many
places the "labels" and drawings are integrated, apparently the work of the
same person.  Volvelles, star charts, pharma pages and balneological
drawings as examples.  Taken as a whole, there is nothing I can find to
suggest that the scribe and the illustrator were separate people.

If this is a copy, a copy of what, and a copy made for whom?  There is no
other example of the script, even in marginalia, that has been discovered.
There is no evidence that more than one person ever used this script, or
that it was ever used anywhere else but in the VMS.  There are no references
to the VMS or its script in other books.  Wouldn't the original have a
higher value than a copy, and if so, where is the original?  If it were
anything other than a personal work, why the poor quality vellum or the
different statistical variances that can be used to identify one stage of
construction from another?  Would this detailed information be properly
transmitted through the filter of a copyist?  Certainly not through the
filter of a dumb copyist.

So which is it, copy or original?  Should I stay the course or fulfill my
lifelong dream of finding Jimmy Hoffa?  I think he was last seen in Brazil,
doing shooters with Elvis......

GC


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Nick Pelling" <incoming@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2004 4:31 AM
Subject: Re: VMs: Re: Important


> Hi GC,
>
> At 18:16 26/06/2004 -0600, GC wrote:
> >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.
>
> Whether it was the easiest way to go or not is less the issue than
> determining what actually happened. A very small number of the colour
> transfers in the VMs are clearly water stains: colour transfers occur both
> left-to-right and right-to-left: most colour transfers (that I found) are
> in the herbal section: one pair of colour transfers goes both ways on the
> same pair of pages.
>
> My explanation is that these are instances of bleed-across which happened
> at the time the VMs was made, probably because the paint used was too
heavy
> for the thin vellum - and if you accept that, you can run miles with it.
> :-)  Your explanation is that, well, half a millennium is a long time to
be
> sat in a box and so anything might have happened.
>
> Personally, I've never seen colour transfers (and especially
bleed-through)
> on the scale found in the VMs in other mss, but that doesn't mean I'm
> right. Perhaps we should find some expert opinions on mss' aging to
broaden
> this rather polarised debate here.
>
> At the same time, you now seem to accept the idea that colour in the VMs
> might not be quite as important as we once suspected, so perhaps I'm
making
> progress after all. :-)
>
> >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.
>
> I fully agree that there's nothing about the VMs which suggests it came
> from a scribal shop.
>
> >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.
>
> If we can reconstruct the correct bifolio order - whether herbal, balneo,
> cosmo, or stars - I predict that we will find that the VMs' content is
> actually far more ordered than it superficially appears. I think that in
> the VMs' herbal section, for example, we may well be able to reconstruct
> quire themes, making a single page not just an isolated unit of thought,
> but part of a wider group of thoughts. If we can understand the theme of a
> reconstructed quire (poisons, eye remedies, whatever), this might help us
> narrow down the visual matches, and so try to move forward.
>
> >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.
>
> Thanks very much, this is heady stuff! I'll have to go away, document this
> properly, and play with the herbal bifolio order for a while...
>
> >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.
>
> I too think that this is what happened - but I'm far from convinced that
> the VMs itself is that original accreting document. Instead, I suspect
that
> the VMs was a copy of that herbal-first document.
>
> 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