Lisa Fagin Davis wrote:
Quote:In other news, my paleography article in Manuscript Studies was published a few days ago. It will be available open-access on May 7, I believe
OK, it's not there yet, but I already like the cover of the issue. I would be happy to know which MS it is from.
Edit:
Oops, it's there:
University of Pennsylvania, Kislak Center for Special Collections, Rare Books and Manuscripts, MS Codex 1881, 35v
In case anyone is interested, there is a video on UPenn Codex 1881:
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
I exceeded the maximum length of a post title. That should have ended with:
"Volume 5, Number 1, Spring 2020"
This may be the link:
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
The issue and the article are available now.
Vol.5, Nr.1: You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
The article: You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
Well written and well explained.
I still liked the mention of Klingon. ( pach pah, pach peh ) " to be or not to be "
Question:
If there were five scribes, who were the other four forgers?
Related to the paper, but not its main topic (hand identification), I noted the collation of the MS.
The minor point is that quires have been numbered 1-18. That of course reflects the physical layout of the MS as we have it today. The quires 16-18 have quire marks that indicate different numbers, namely:
16 has "17th"
17 has "19th"
18 has "20th"
but this certainly reflects some earlier collation of the MS that we don't know.
What really triggered my interest was that the missing folios 91, 92, 97 and 98 were 'grouped with' quire 16.
I understand that this may be a conventional approach, since the collation does not count lost quires. There is no other place to account for them.
It could even work, in case there were two more bifolios outside what is now quire 16, namely 92/97 and 91/98.
However, that does not really work, because it puts the wrong quire mark (17 instead of 16) on a quire-internal folio.
Although l am now doing precisely what the author warns several times that his data is NOT to be used for - l can’t help but note that Lisa’s conclusion of five scribes suggests a school (or other institutional) setting for the production of the VM.
Counting Scribes: Quantifying the Secularization of Medieval Book Production
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
The relative lack of explicit religious imagery argues for a secular setting but l am ignorant of what kinds of schools might exist at the time that weren’t directly connected to the church. Maybe there were none - but l would be interested in hearing from those better versed on the topic.
I know none of this thought is original, but it was quite interesting to read Lisa’s paper (well done!) followed by this one.