- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
Why I think that the copyist(s)/scribe(s) did not fully understand the material
- Why I think that the copyist(s)/scribe(s) did not fully understand the material
-
Why I think that the copyist(s)/scribe(s) did not fully understand the material
ReneZ > 05-08-2025, 08:40 AM
As mentioned a few days ago, I have seen one example where I feel that the scribes/copyists made a tell-tale mistake.
For this, let's look at the pharmaceutical section.
This consists of three sheets (bifolia), each with a single page to the left and a foldout page to the right:
f88+f89
f99+f102
f100+f101
Of these, the third: f100 + f101 appears incomplete, probably unfinished: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. has no labels at all, and on f101v, the labels of the bottom row are missing.
On f100, the containers appear to have no labels.
The other two bifolios consistenly have one label for each container and one label for each plant fragment.
The container label may be written below it, on it (under the paint) or next to it.
But let's look at the top of f88r:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
This has five plant parts, and six words surrounding them.
However, the leftmost word is the container label and should have been written near the container.
I can only conclude that the scribe was not aware of this. -
RE: Why I think that the copyist(s)/scribe(s) did not fully understand the material
oshfdk > 05-08-2025, 08:56 AM
(05-08-2025, 08:40 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The other two bifolios consistenly have one label for each container and one label for each plant fragment.
I'm not sure I know now to split and count them properly, most of the plant fragment labels appear arranged in a way that allows multiple ways to split and count. I opened one folio from this range randomly, it was f99v:
There is a container label and anywhere between 4 and 7 labels for 5 plant fragments.
Edit: but no matter how we split them to make it 5, we can probably repeat it for 88r top and also get 5 labels, so this just would be an example of an unlabeled container, which is not uncommon. All containers on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. appear to have no labels. -
RE: Why I think that the copyist(s)/scribe(s) did not fully understand the material
ReneZ > 05-08-2025, 09:56 AM
(05-08-2025, 08:56 AM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Edit: but no matter how we split them to make it 5, we can probably repeat it for 88r top and also get 5 labels, so this just would be an example of an unlabeled container, which is not uncommon. All containers on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. appear to have no labels.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is quite clear. There is always one more label than the number of plant parts.
Unlabeled containers are not common, except on the incomplete bifolio. -
RE: Why I think that the copyist(s)/scribe(s) did not fully understand the material
oshfdk > 05-08-2025, 10:20 AM
(05-08-2025, 09:56 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.f88r is quite clear. There is always one more label than the number of plant parts.
Unlabeled containers are not common, except on the incomplete bifolio.
Even if the leftmost labels on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. are not plant labels, I think there are still other possible explanations for this. I'm not sure of the original order of pages, but if You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. was the first page with the containers, maybe the scribe only realized later that it would have made more sense to put the heading label onto/next to a container and not in a single line with the other labels.
I think the arrangement in the top two rows of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. in the image below is the same - labels in a single line, the count of labels is one more than the count of fragments. And it's only at the bottom of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. that the label appears next to a container. To me look compatible with gradual adjustment to find the best placement for the section header or something like that.
-
RE: Why I think that the copyist(s)/scribe(s) did not fully understand the material
ReneZ > 05-08-2025, 10:25 AM
Well, one can certainly have different opinions, but it should be made after paying some attention to the entire pharmaceutical layout.
The case on f99v, which is certainly confusing, is rather the exception, and may well be another case where the scribe was not clear.
While it is not always easy, in the majority of cases the plant parts and labels can be matched with each other. -
RE: Why I think that the copyist(s)/scribe(s) did not fully understand the material
bi3mw > 05-08-2025, 10:27 AM
Someone on Reddit asked whether the VMS could be a copy. My first thought was that the copyist(s) may not have been familiar with the “writing system” and therefore created a “blind copy.” In other words, he / they copied it without understanding it. If that were the case, I wouldn't be surprised if errors such as overlooked or misplaced labels occurred. Of course, this is just speculation in the end. -
RE: Why I think that the copyist(s)/scribe(s) did not fully understand the material
oshfdk > 05-08-2025, 10:41 AM
(05-08-2025, 10:25 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Well, one can certainly have different opinions, but it should be made after paying some attention to the entire pharmaceutical layout.
The case on f99v, which is certainly confusing, is rather the exception, and may well be another case where the scribe was not clear.
While it is not always easy, in the majority of cases the plant parts and labels can be matched with each other.
I'm not very familiar with the layout of the pharmaceutical section, this is why I'm trying to see what happens there with these croplets.
If a mistake of assigning the container label to the list of fragment labels occurred at the top of 88r, can we say that the same mistake occurred in the top two rows of 89v You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (in my previous post)?
Or is the whole problem with the top of 88r just the extra gap between the top left label and the container? So, if the labels were arranged like the below, would everything be according to the plan?
-
RE: Why I think that the copyist(s)/scribe(s) did not fully understand the material
ReneZ > 05-08-2025, 11:36 AM
(05-08-2025, 10:41 AM)oshfdk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Or is the whole problem with the top of 88r just the extra gap between the top left label and the container?
For me, the top row of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is the only clear case, but all of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. might well suffer from the same problem.
There is a lot more going on in the pharmaceutical section that may betray things about the creation of the MS, but inevitably it is all speculative. For me, this means that we can keep it in the back of our mind, but should not give too much weight to it. It can be part of a bigger picture.
Apart from the (probably) misplaced label, the 'unfinished' bifolio is intriguing. Unfinished parts can be seen in other manuscripts too, but it is not very common.
What intrigues me is that this is language A, Hand 1, which is what the MS starts with.
Odd, to say the least, and I think that this could be seen as further evidence of a collaboration project. -
RE: Why I think that the copyist(s)/scribe(s) did not fully understand the material
Jorge_Stolfi > 06-08-2025, 01:11 AM
(05-08-2025, 10:27 AM)bi3mw Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Someone on Reddit asked whether the VMS could be a copy. My first thought was that the copyist(s) may not have been familiar with the “writing system” and therefore created a “blind copy.” In other words, he / they copied it without understanding it. If that were the case, I wouldn't be surprised if errors such as overlooked or misplaced labels occurred. Of course, this is just speculation in the end.
I am quite convinced by now that the Scribe who put the VMS to vellum did not understand any of the contents -- including the language and the encryption. He presumably had been trained on the alphabet, but may not even have known how the signs should be pronounced.
There are other cases of obvious errors in the Zodiac section, where the Scribe forgot to draw the left arms of some nymphs and therefore the stars that they were supposed to hold. In a couple of cases the mistake was partly fixed by whoever applied the light yellow paint. Here is a write-up from some time ago:
Every nymph on f72r2 is holding or touching a standard star with the
left hand; except the outer one at 04:00 and the inner one at 01:30,
who are also missing their left arms entirely. The star of outer one
at 04:00 is missing entirely. The stars of the the outer nymph at
09:30 and the inner one at 01:30 are missing the penned outline and
instead are fully painted with the yel. Most other stars have a yel
splot (which varies in intensity, sometimes being almost invisible),
and several have a dot core.
Every nymph on f72r3, but two, is pointing to or holding a standard
star with the left hand. The two exceptions are the nymph in the
middle band of figures at 03:00 and the one in the outer band at
08:30, who are missing both the star and the left arm.
-
RE: Why I think that the copyist(s)/scribe(s) did not fully understand the material
Koen G > 06-08-2025, 05:46 AM
Imagine making a manuscript and messing up a few parts and then 600 years later people argue that you must have been a complete ignoramus.