The 'Chinese' Theory: For and Against

[Jorge_Stolfi]

But indeed maybe there were section titles in the original SBJ [Shennong Bencao Jing] too.  Descriptions of the original only mention the division into 120/120/125 entries.  So perhaps 3 of those 4 "titles" in the SPS are the headers of those original sections.  But the first two are on the same page (f105r) only a dozen recipes apart; and there seems to be no title at the start of the SPS (page f103r)....

Here are the lines of the Starred Parags section (SPS; from page 105r to page 116r line 30) that I am currrently considering to be "titles":

<f105r.T1.9a>
   

<f105r.T2.36>
   

<f108v.T1.52>
   

<f114r.T1.34>
   

The middle two, <f105r.T2.36> and <f108v.T1.52>, which are centered on their respective lines, seem to be correct: if there are titles in that section, those two must be among them.

The creators of the interlinear file were uncertain about the last one, <f114r.T1.34>.  Three possible interpretations are

1. Line 34 is a title too.  
   
2. Line 34 is the last line of the previous paragraph.
   
3. Line 34 is words that should go between lines 35 and 36.
   

In any case, it is very likely that line 34 was written after line 35 was started but before it was completed, because line 35 is bent and tilted with respect to line 33, as if to leave space for line 34.

An argument for (2.) is that line 34 ends with -m, a glyph that is common at end of paragraphs, while the previous line (33) has full width and does not end in -m.  

A possible explanation for the right-justification in options (1.) and (2.)  is that the Scribe copied line 33, then skipped line 34 by mistake, started to write line 35, noticed the omission, wrote line 34 at the right, then continued line 35, bending it down to avoid line 34.

For option (3.), a possible explanation is that that the Scribe skipped several words at the "carriage return" from line 35 to line 36.  Several lines later, when the omission was noticed, he/she went back and added the missing words in the nearest space available  -- right-justified above line 35.  But this conjecture does not explain why line 35 is tilted and bent as it is.  

So now I am more inclined to believe in (2.) above.  I will fix the file accordingly.

The first title <f105r.T1.9a> is even more dubious.  Here it is again for convenience:
   
Here the previous paragraph ends with a half-line (9) so line 9a is unlikely to be part of it.  Line 10 starts right below line 9, with only a bit of extra space, as expected for a parag break; but is tlted with respect to line 9, as if to leave space for line 9a.  That would suggest that line 10 was written after line 9a.  However, the way the words of line 9a avoid the tall p gallows of line 10 says that line 9a was written after line 10 was completed.

Thus, in this case, explanation (3.) above seems more likely than (1.) and (2.), except that it does not explain the extra tilt of line 10.  Anyway, I think I will accept this explanation and insert line 9a between lines 10 and 11.

Incidentally, note that the handwriting changes abruptly at the next parag break, between lines 12 and 13.  Could this coincidence be related to that anomalous line?

I have fun visualizing the Author checking on the work of the Scribe after he finished line 12, noticing the hack of line 9a, and firing him on the spot.  Then hiring another Scribe, training him on the script, and instructing him to write with smaller "font" to save vellum.

However, I don't see much difference between the two handwritings, apart from "font" size, ink color, and stroke width.   So I think it is more likely that the explanation for the discontinuity is more banal, simply a long pause in the work between lines 12 and 13.