[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: VMs: Re: Important


I'm glad we got that cleared up.  I was afraid I was having one of those
rare lucid moments....  scary! :-)

carpet cleaner, creamy dessert *and* gentle but natural hair remover, all in


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Nick Pelling" <incoming@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 4:51 AM
Subject: 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),
> >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
> >he who shuffled pages, or maybe he thought one thing belonged with the
> >so he changed the entire order on his own, and who knows what the
> >actually looked like?  The idea that the writer and the illustrator
> >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
> >or even if the drawings resemble the originals?  That's a whole lot of
> >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
> bifolios), then the quirator too could not have understood the VMs'
> - 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
> 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
> 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
> >doing shooters with Elvis......
> How about "both"? Yes, folks, it's a carpet cleaner *and* a creamy
> Buy it today on the shopping channel... :-)
> 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