[split] Line padding, layout, Currier's "groups of letters"...

[Aga Tentakulus]

The theory of copying is misguided.
It is already apparent in the first book, and the second page where I looked it up.
There, too, the stretching occurs, and words are simply separated wherever possible.

For the one who couldn't read it didn't matter anyway, and the one who could read where knew it was going on.
This seems to be strange only by today's standards.
You have to read the books to understand it.

[Aga Tentakulus]

Since I do not see punctuation (.,?!) or hyphens in VM. But I can't find the same in other books of the time, and it looks the same, I can assume that it is the same even if I' don't understand it.

[Helmut Winkler]

Beinecke 408 has no layout, that is one of his outstanding features, it is not a copy, but an autograph

[ReneZ]

From somewhere after post 30, this discussion has been on a different topic than originally foreseen, namely on layout.

I wonder if one of the mods could split it?

[Koen G]

There you go.

When copying, more often than not the contents had to be adjusted to a new form (e.g. different page format). So it may be that a text is copied, but the layout is still original to the copy.

For the VM, if you look for example at the large-plant pages, you see that the layout is affected by the image already on the page, so we know almost for certain that they did not plan text frames, and in some cases the layout of the text would be unpredictable. So I think the question of copying is irrelevant here, because the text would have to adapt to a new shape anyway, whether it existed only in the scribe's mind or in another document or on a tablet.

Unless, of course, images and text division were copied.

[Aga Tentakulus]

I agree you Koen. It wouldn't matter if one line more or less.

It is because the text would show a special detail, but then the placement would be visible.

[Torsten]

All three can be true at the same time - i.e. that the layout was largely preserved (as Rene suggests, as per my argument that we can see copies of layout gaps that were presumably in the preceding document), that the text is abbreviated (e.g. if the text had previously been expanded via an intermediate verbose cipher stage), and also that the scribe was copying blindly (e.g. that the text was transformed in place on a wax tablet, and copied from there onto the page).

These are not entirely new observations. ;-)

The facts tells us otherwise. As expected damages in the vellum led to layout gaps. For example the rim on top of folio 112 is distorted. The corresponding layout gaps on folio You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. confirm that the layout for this page was made during writing.

       

[RenegadeHealer]

damages in the vellum

Dear all, this is not a rhetorical question: What most likely went wrong with the sheet of vellum used to make f112? I'm not being funny here, I look at both sides of that sheet in the hi-res scans, and I could believe there's something not quite right about that skin, but I can't put my finger on what it is.

[-JKP-]

Maybe it came from a less optimum section, like near the legs or buttocks.

[Monica Yokubinas]

Has it ever been tested to see if it is human skin. 
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.