[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: VMs: Re: Important
Hi GC,
At 01:52 29/06/2004 -0600, GC wrote:
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.
Whoa there, GC - "copy" in the sense which Philip Neal & I use it here
means a document which copies some parts (such as the layout, structure,
and perhaps some plants) and enciphers other parts (such as the text,
diagrams, and perhaps some plants). It's not yet certain which is which,
though. :-o
All the same, the "virtual vellum flaw" on f112 looks like it was copied:
and the hole scraped through the vellum on f34 looks as though it was
integral to the original's design, and hence was probably copied as well.
But that's a long way from asserting it was a "dumb copy" - I don't think
either Philip or I are arguing for the "dumb copyist" position at all.
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.
Whoa there, GC - I'm trying to reduce doubt, not introduce it. If you
accept that quire 9 has been rebound (the "mislaid" quire signature is
consistent with the line of needle-marks which looks [as Ken W also just
pointed out] like an earlier binding line), then you have to accept that
the VMs was rebound between quiration and foliation (as the quiration and
foliation are inconsistent here).
Hence, neither the rebinder nor the foliator show any signs of
understanding the VMs' content. Furthermore, if the original herbal quire
structure was quite different (I suspect, from the paired features on the
first page of alternate quires, that it was originally bound in quires of 8
bifolios), then the quirator too could not have understood the VMs' content
- but there's less evidence there.
The doubt here surrounds the issue of what the VMs originally looked like
(ie, what it was *supposed* to look like) - and it is that which I'm trying
to resolve, so that we may catch a glimpse of that primary (correctly
ordered, correctly [un]coloured) document. And if that means we catch an
occasional glimpse of other documents that preceded the VMs, so much the
better. :-)
Taken as a whole, there is nothing I can find to
suggest that the scribe and the illustrator were separate people.
I'd agree that there isn't yet any evidence that more than one person did
the outline drawing, the fine detail colouring (such as the nymphs' cheeks
and mouths) and the text.
However, if bleed-across happened contemporary with the painting, then I
think that the heavy painting must have happened once the VMs had been
rebound into its current order - and hence probably after the quiration and
rebinding, but (I guess) before the foliation.
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......
How about "both"? Yes, folks, it's a carpet cleaner *and* a creamy dessert.
Buy it today on the shopping channel... :-)
Cheers, .....Nick Pelling.....
______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list