01-10-2016, 06:37 AM
(This post was last modified: 01-10-2016, 07:45 AM by Diane.
Edit Reason: shorten
)
Dear JKP
Rene says himself that what he did in 2010 was compare the size of the Vms..
His list of those manuscripts shows they are European herbal manuscripts.
So the point Rene was making in that talk in 2010 (a powerpoint slide seems to imply a limited and private audience)... is that herbals come in a range of sizes and that the Vms is small compared to some.
So there's no "turf war" as you imagine.
And I see that I do not need to add a note about precedence as I thought might be in order. -As my readers know, it is my habit to mention any precedent work of which I hear, whether or not I knew of it before doing my own. This is so that one "plays fair" with those who come later and deserve to be presented with the full range of available comment on a folio or an issue.
But Rene was only showing that European herbal manuscripts come in large and small versions, which has nothing to do with the issue investigated by my own survey.
What I published was, instead, an investigation of when and where we find substrate used in the fairly unusual dimensions of the untrimmed standard bifolia in Beinecke MS 408. Its an issue of codicology and economic history as it affects provenance.
I thought the results of that basic survey were rather interesting. You say:
I think it's fair to say that until the recent advent of Voynich.ninja, the custom had arisen whereby only fellow members of a "theory-fraternity" were ever thanked for the work they did.
I cannot recall receiving any thanks from anyone for publishing my own study, brief as it was. But perhaps you are right, and it should become a more general habit to thank people for sharing the results of their work.
I do hope others accept that principle.
First of all - My point was that the dimensions of the manuscript have no relevance to the content. The relevant codicological issue is where substrate of these dimensions was being produced and used.
Also, there is so close a link between standard sizes of membrane and of paper that there is no point in limiting study to one type of substrate, or even just to membrane. The isssue is where and when substrates (as bifolia) were produced in those sizes, and when.
Thirdly, because the dimensions of the untrimmed bifolia in Beinecke MS 408 are unusual (see my survey of all the Brit. Lib. illuminated manuscripts and all the herbals), it is important to see where else we find those dimensions - and I did find them elsewhere - I've published that information too. Some paper sheets in the Cairo geniza predate those from the English, northern French and northern Italian.
As you can see if you have time to investigate this point, there are quite a number of posts where I've shared results of my research into this question, and shared also the comments of experts who were kind enough to give their advice and opinion.
What you will not see, I should think, is any comment saying "thank you".
After eight years of nothing but ad.hominems or determined silence, it is certainly a nice thought that some of the "new wave" might adopt your suggested policy of even-handed courtesy.
Cheers.
Rene says himself that what he did in 2010 was compare the size of the Vms..
Quote: with various known herbal manuscripts.....
His list of those manuscripts shows they are European herbal manuscripts.
So the point Rene was making in that talk in 2010 (a powerpoint slide seems to imply a limited and private audience)... is that herbals come in a range of sizes and that the Vms is small compared to some.
So there's no "turf war" as you imagine.
And I see that I do not need to add a note about precedence as I thought might be in order. -As my readers know, it is my habit to mention any precedent work of which I hear, whether or not I knew of it before doing my own. This is so that one "plays fair" with those who come later and deserve to be presented with the full range of available comment on a folio or an issue.
But Rene was only showing that European herbal manuscripts come in large and small versions, which has nothing to do with the issue investigated by my own survey.
What I published was, instead, an investigation of when and where we find substrate used in the fairly unusual dimensions of the untrimmed standard bifolia in Beinecke MS 408. Its an issue of codicology and economic history as it affects provenance.
I thought the results of that basic survey were rather interesting. You say:
Quote:thank him for sharing his list..
I think it's fair to say that until the recent advent of Voynich.ninja, the custom had arisen whereby only fellow members of a "theory-fraternity" were ever thanked for the work they did.
I cannot recall receiving any thanks from anyone for publishing my own study, brief as it was. But perhaps you are right, and it should become a more general habit to thank people for sharing the results of their work.
I do hope others accept that principle.
Quote:Why don't you give examples of non-European herbal manuscripts written on parchment that include dimensions and add to the list if you think it's too Euro-centric?
First of all - My point was that the dimensions of the manuscript have no relevance to the content. The relevant codicological issue is where substrate of these dimensions was being produced and used.
Also, there is so close a link between standard sizes of membrane and of paper that there is no point in limiting study to one type of substrate, or even just to membrane. The isssue is where and when substrates (as bifolia) were produced in those sizes, and when.
Thirdly, because the dimensions of the untrimmed bifolia in Beinecke MS 408 are unusual (see my survey of all the Brit. Lib. illuminated manuscripts and all the herbals), it is important to see where else we find those dimensions - and I did find them elsewhere - I've published that information too. Some paper sheets in the Cairo geniza predate those from the English, northern French and northern Italian.
As you can see if you have time to investigate this point, there are quite a number of posts where I've shared results of my research into this question, and shared also the comments of experts who were kind enough to give their advice and opinion.
What you will not see, I should think, is any comment saying "thank you".
After eight years of nothing but ad.hominems or determined silence, it is certainly a nice thought that some of the "new wave" might adopt your suggested policy of even-handed courtesy.
Cheers.