27-10-2016, 08:38 PM
(This post was last modified: 27-10-2016, 08:39 PM by Diane.
Edit Reason: cut
)
Anton,
There is no doubt at all that the material is vellum. It is not uterine vellum, but vellum none the less. Parchment may be made from the skins of sheep or goats, but vellum is always from the skin of calves.
For various reasons, the nature and quality of the material impacts on theories about provenance, and using the general term 'parchment' serves to obscure the flaws in certain theories about the manuscript, as does glossing over the degree of finish for the vellum.
One may say of a manuscript made in an Aegean island, in the eastern Mediterranean, in Spain, England or Germany that it is on 'parchment' but to say it is on perfectly equalised vellum dating to the 12thC (for example) would strongly limit the range within which it could have been made. Accepting that the Vms was made before 1440, and on relatively coarse vellum (as it is) limits the regions and likely makers.. directly impacting on theories about it.
But that's why, as I see it, we should not speak of 'parchment' but be quite specific, just as we should be specific about the style of binding (which Touwaide sees as Italian style) and as specific as we can be about the style of script. It would be careless just to talk generally of "European" binding, or "European" handwriting - and just so it is careless to speak of 'parchment'.
All these things are important criteria to provenancing, and failing to be precise can only mislead those who come later.
There is no doubt at all that the material is vellum. It is not uterine vellum, but vellum none the less. Parchment may be made from the skins of sheep or goats, but vellum is always from the skin of calves.
For various reasons, the nature and quality of the material impacts on theories about provenance, and using the general term 'parchment' serves to obscure the flaws in certain theories about the manuscript, as does glossing over the degree of finish for the vellum.
One may say of a manuscript made in an Aegean island, in the eastern Mediterranean, in Spain, England or Germany that it is on 'parchment' but to say it is on perfectly equalised vellum dating to the 12thC (for example) would strongly limit the range within which it could have been made. Accepting that the Vms was made before 1440, and on relatively coarse vellum (as it is) limits the regions and likely makers.. directly impacting on theories about it.
But that's why, as I see it, we should not speak of 'parchment' but be quite specific, just as we should be specific about the style of binding (which Touwaide sees as Italian style) and as specific as we can be about the style of script. It would be careless just to talk generally of "European" binding, or "European" handwriting - and just so it is careless to speak of 'parchment'.
All these things are important criteria to provenancing, and failing to be precise can only mislead those who come later.