05-03-2024, 08:41 AM
Don't just search for that term either. Also look for terms like Leonardo da Vinci, notebook, folio order and binding.
We know that the VM's current binding is not its original one. We can also be reasonably certain that the current folio order, while perhaps logical to us now, was not always the order of the folios. We can be reasonably certain there are at least several folios missing. Since binding was always the last step in the making of an illuminated medieval manuscript, it is very unlikely the VM started as a bound book but would have originally been loose sheets of vellum during its drawing and writing, though most of the bifolios and quires would likely have been predetermined. However, it has also been suggested that, like Leonardo da Vinci's notebooks, the VM was also its author's (or authors') personal notes accumulated on loose sheets of vellum over many years and possibly not bound for the first time until after his, her or their lifetime. And it has been proposed, and possibly proven, that the VM was written by more than one author and/or scribe.
All these possibilities and probabilities have been discussed on this site multiple times in multiple threads and are in keeping with what you are suggesting. Not to the extent, say, of some manuscript collections wherein completely separate complete and partial original works by different authors at different times were re-bound together by a particular collector much later, of which various institutions hold at least several such examples. The VM is too fluidly written for that and it has a common codicology. But certainly the VM could originally have been a combination of separate loose sheets, bifolios and/or unbound quires by multiple authors of common backgrounds and interests who worked together at some point and whose cumulative work was not bound together as the VM until much later, probably multiple times over the centuries. Each of these separate documents would then have been a separate manuscript originally.
One thing I don't think has been considered yet is whether or not the first binding may have been as more than one volume. That could be an interesting line of research, assuming there is sufficient evidence of the first binding.
That said, the contents of the VM, perhaps especially the linguistics/cryptology, which has been discussed on this site in great detail, will be a primary factor in determining its overall purpose and must be considered when determining its construction. While each conventional section of the VM may be at least somewhat separate in its purpose from other sections, the codicology unites the volume as a single, cumulative work, regardless of how many authors/scribes made it, regardless of its original folio order, and regardless of when and how it was first bound.
I look forward to hearing more of your thoughts on this.
We know that the VM's current binding is not its original one. We can also be reasonably certain that the current folio order, while perhaps logical to us now, was not always the order of the folios. We can be reasonably certain there are at least several folios missing. Since binding was always the last step in the making of an illuminated medieval manuscript, it is very unlikely the VM started as a bound book but would have originally been loose sheets of vellum during its drawing and writing, though most of the bifolios and quires would likely have been predetermined. However, it has also been suggested that, like Leonardo da Vinci's notebooks, the VM was also its author's (or authors') personal notes accumulated on loose sheets of vellum over many years and possibly not bound for the first time until after his, her or their lifetime. And it has been proposed, and possibly proven, that the VM was written by more than one author and/or scribe.
All these possibilities and probabilities have been discussed on this site multiple times in multiple threads and are in keeping with what you are suggesting. Not to the extent, say, of some manuscript collections wherein completely separate complete and partial original works by different authors at different times were re-bound together by a particular collector much later, of which various institutions hold at least several such examples. The VM is too fluidly written for that and it has a common codicology. But certainly the VM could originally have been a combination of separate loose sheets, bifolios and/or unbound quires by multiple authors of common backgrounds and interests who worked together at some point and whose cumulative work was not bound together as the VM until much later, probably multiple times over the centuries. Each of these separate documents would then have been a separate manuscript originally.
One thing I don't think has been considered yet is whether or not the first binding may have been as more than one volume. That could be an interesting line of research, assuming there is sufficient evidence of the first binding.
That said, the contents of the VM, perhaps especially the linguistics/cryptology, which has been discussed on this site in great detail, will be a primary factor in determining its overall purpose and must be considered when determining its construction. While each conventional section of the VM may be at least somewhat separate in its purpose from other sections, the codicology unites the volume as a single, cumulative work, regardless of how many authors/scribes made it, regardless of its original folio order, and regardless of when and how it was first bound.
I look forward to hearing more of your thoughts on this.