27-09-2026, 08:10 PM
Personally I think the statistical properties vary quite considerably for the same hand in differnt parts of the manuscript, while two different hands in the same section write extremely similarly, but this isn’t really relevant to the discussion here ultimately.
I think across the manuscript on every page you can see scribes adding visual flourishes to text, making the text visually beautiful is one of the few things we can conclusively prove, regardless if the text carries meaning or is gibberish. This isn’t surprising, as many scribes from this time took pride in the visual aesthetics of their writing.
The theories you have posited for the repetition are: it reduces the effort, a mistake, and because they felt like it, which I will interpret to mean they didn’t care one way or another about repetitive text.
I’ve already stated why I don’t find the effort argument compelling, with respect to direct repetition.
As far as errors, repetition appears much more common than errors, and I think would have been caught in the preparation stage before being put onto vellum.
The last, that they were unconcerned with repetition, is perfectly valid, but also unfalsifiable.
All 3 of the theories you have suggested are based on the assumption that the text is meaningless. That’s fine, honestly I have not entirely ruled out that possibility myself, although I feel it is almost as confusing because it doesn’t really address motive.
The theory that they actually preferred aesthetics of repetition, could be valid whether the text has meaning or not. Is your concern that it leaves open the possibility the text is not meaningless? Or do you genuinely think aesthetics were not important to the scribes, or the theory is otherwise flawed?
I think across the manuscript on every page you can see scribes adding visual flourishes to text, making the text visually beautiful is one of the few things we can conclusively prove, regardless if the text carries meaning or is gibberish. This isn’t surprising, as many scribes from this time took pride in the visual aesthetics of their writing.
The theories you have posited for the repetition are: it reduces the effort, a mistake, and because they felt like it, which I will interpret to mean they didn’t care one way or another about repetitive text.
I’ve already stated why I don’t find the effort argument compelling, with respect to direct repetition.
As far as errors, repetition appears much more common than errors, and I think would have been caught in the preparation stage before being put onto vellum.
The last, that they were unconcerned with repetition, is perfectly valid, but also unfalsifiable.
All 3 of the theories you have suggested are based on the assumption that the text is meaningless. That’s fine, honestly I have not entirely ruled out that possibility myself, although I feel it is almost as confusing because it doesn’t really address motive.
The theory that they actually preferred aesthetics of repetition, could be valid whether the text has meaning or not. Is your concern that it leaves open the possibility the text is not meaningless? Or do you genuinely think aesthetics were not important to the scribes, or the theory is otherwise flawed?