[split] Did the VM go straight from cerebellum to vellum?

[Jorge_Stolfi]

I just asked whether you have a source.

No, I don't have a source, sorry.  Neither an example of a manuscript that was definitely written straight from brain to vellum.  Maybe the paleographers can comment on this question?

your arguments, even if correct, only point towards this as not very efficient way and a recipe for some lost money

But the argument is that writing directly on vellum would cost more in time and money, because of the consequences of mistakes.

If the author wound't even use a good enough tool for drawing the circles and, according to you, miscalculated the arrangement of various elements on a few occasions, it's less likely that there was a proper draft first and more likely that the whole thing was designed immediately on vellum.

Again, a draft is not a full prototype.  The draft of a Zodiac page would probably have hand-drawn circles with only the labels and rings of text.  The Scribe was supposed to turn that into compass-drawn circles with the labels and text, and add the decoration -- nymphs and stars -- on his own.

On the Zodiac, in particular, I suppose that the Author and Scribe interacted at first, experimenting with the 2x15-nymph and 30-nymph layout, until they settled for the latter.  But I wonder whether the Author agreed with the layout of Gemini (f72r2) Scorpio (f73r), and Sagittarius (f73v), with the "overflow" nymphs on top -- which I suspect were put there only because the Scribe miscalculated the space when drawing the nymphs inside the diagram.

And also it's certainly possible to do some drafting or sketching on vellum with a sharp tip instrument.

Yes, and such lines are often seen in other manuscripts.  But AFAIK there is no trace of them on the VMS.  Even the guide lines on the bottom parag of f67r2 (the "Seven Planets" diagram) seem to have been drawn with the same ink attachment used to draw the circles, only with a straightedge instead of a compass.

Maybe you are assuming that people at the time routinely wrote on vellum?  AFAIK that was not the case.  Most manuscripts in libraries and museums may be on vellum, but only because those are infinitely more likely to be preserved than work on paper.  Both because they are more durable, and because they are generally more beautiful or historically important.  

Paper itself easily deteriorates and is food for mold and insects, while tanned vellum is not. And paper makes excellent tinder for lighting fires: I recall that part of Dee's writings were lost for that use.  Yet paper (and, a couple centuries earlier, papyrus) was generally used for any writing that did not need to be preserved for many decades.  

All the best, --stolfi