- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
f72v1 and f72r1
- f72v1 and f72r1
-
f72v1 and f72r1
dashstofsk > 11 hours ago
Has there ever been some discussion about the hole on pages f72v1 and f72r1? It seems that the drawings had to be made to avoid the hole, which can only mean that it was there before the pages were written. -
RE: f72v1 and f72r1
Bernd > 2 hours ago
Others surely know more about this but to me it looks like a vellum defect so it's reasonable to assume the hole predates the imagery. It's certainly not a wormhole. As of why a sheet of vellum with such defect was still used? It's a fairly large piece so maybe there was nothing better of this size available -
RE: f72v1 and f72r1
Jorge_Stolfi > 1 hour ago
(11 hours ago)dashstofsk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Has there ever been some discussion about the hole on pages f72v1 and f72r1? It seems that the drawings had to be made to avoid the hole, which can only mean that it was there before the pages were written.
There is a visual gag on that page that the Scribe did. It cannot be seen on the Beinecke scans because the folio was lifted when it was scanned. It can be appreciated on a set of old BW images (whose origin I don't remember any more, unfortunately). Here is a clip of that page:
Here is a description of the gag that I wrote some time ago:
There is a large elliptical hole in the vellum (~16 mm high and ~13 mm
wide) at 09:15, just inside circle 4 and just after the 09:00 nymph of
the inner band. The somewhat irregular edges of the hole look like
they were cut with a knife. Around that cut, for a mm or so, the
vellum looks rough and discolored.
When the book is open on this page, some details from page You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. are
visible through the hole; specifically, the star from the inner-band
nymph at 08:30, the head of the nymph at 09:15, and a few glyphs from
the middle ring of text, just above the latter. (This coincidence is
not visible in the recent Beinecke scans --- because in the latter
page f72r1 is lifted away from f73r and shifted left by several mm.)
On f72r1, the left arm of the nymph at 08:30 seems to be holding the
star from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. through the hole; while an extra arm has been added
under and after the hole, so that the nymph from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. seems to be
reaching into this page, and holding the star at 09:30.
If one were to consider that intruding nymph, there would be six
nymphs and six stars in the inner band and 31
of both on this page.
(2 hours ago)Bernd Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It's certainly not a wormhole.
There are parasitic flies whose larvae burrow into and out of the hide of cattle leaving holes in the leather. That hole on f72r1 and the one in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. were probably made by such pests, and thus would be original "features" of the vellum.
(2 hours ago)Bernd Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.As of why a sheet of vellum with such defect was still used?
By and large the vellum used on the VMS seems to be of poor quality -- not even Amazon or AliBaba quality, but eBay quality -- and the Author apparently used every scrap he had, including folios with very irregular edges and half-width flaps in the fold-outs.
I have seen a claim that the price of vellum in the 1400s was equivalent to US$ 1-2 per folio in today's money. If that is correct, the vellum used on the VMS would have cost U$ 200 or so. So it would seem that the author did not have much money to spare. Or perhaps he could not buy decent vellum where he was.
All the best, --jorge -
RE: f72v1 and f72r1
ReneZ > 51 minutes ago
Neither the holes nor the irregular edges are rare.
There are numerous blog posts from medievalists on this subject, search for example for Erik Kwakkel, and/or generic terms like manuscript, parchment, holes.
Or even embroidery.