RE: The gallows intrusion, the baseline jumps and multipass
Anton > 08-05-2020, 06:27 PM
Hi Julian,
I have not undertaken any systematic analysis, that's a lot of work indeed, but from what I see at a glance, the major pattern observed in many places is as follows. There is the "main" block, which is the middle one. It is generally written top to bottom and is the largest in size. Next, there is the left block comprised of one or two vords each line. It's not easy to tell whether it's written before the main block or just "filled in" afterwards. And next, there is the right block which is written BTT, and thus it postdates the main block. In some cases it looks like the right block is written not in one pass in itself. Beside that, the main block does not in all cases look contigious, that is it looks like there are blanks left when the major part of it is written, which are filled afterwards.
About plotting the glyph density. That's an interesting idea, but with two problems.
First of all, it's a question how to approach that. Different folios have different amount of text, and, beside that, it's not clear what is to be considered a "container" across which the plot has to be made. By "container" I mean a well-defined range of folio space which is filled with text in accordance with pre-defined rules, and which will set forth the coordinate space for the plot. For example, should the plot be made across the entire folio, or paragraph-wise? It's not clear if the entire folio is a container, or each paragraph is a container in itself. There are cases which look as if the last line of the preceding paragraph was written after the first line of the subsequent paragraph, due to the baseline jump in the last line to avoid the gallows intrusion. However, there are also cases when the basejump (if I may, for brevity) of the last line is exhibited without any intrusion from beneath, which may suggest that it's just an effect of multipass in general, but not of the gallows intrusion in particular.
Next, even if each single paragraph is a container, what about paragraphs split by imagery, e.g. by a stem of a plant? Are they one container, or two different containers (e.g. two different paragraphs, effectively)? I'd say, in certain cases it looks so. If the latter, then is each of them written in mutipass in itself?
The second problem is that I'm not sure offhand what may be achieved by such analysis, except highlighting some things already known (e.g. that the m likes to be line-ending). One could hope to detect the systematic block borders through such analysis, but if the block borders are defined in spatial terms (like, e.g. each tenth character of each third line is the block border) then this analysis will show nothing, because with the natural flow of text the position of the tenth character may be occupied by any glyph. If, on the other hand, the block borders are defined by certain markers, then, by definition, such markers will be observed in different positions (if you have the positions already defined, you don't need markers), and the density plot will again show nothing. It will reveal something only if the borders are certain markers in certain systematic positions - which is, as I explained, redundant, but not impossible for the "naiive" medieval mindset.
Regarding the coordinate system, when I looked for the structure of narration back in 2015, I introduced L-coordinates and P-coordinates (short for "line" and "paragraph", respectively), wherein the value of the coordinate is the ratio of the number of the line (or paragraph) in question to the total number of lines (or paragraphs) in a folio. One could do the same for characters in a line. I'm not sure offhand, if it makes sense to use relative (as I did) or rather absolute coordinates in the analysis that you propose. Maybe it makes sense to use both.