Some illustrations reminiscent of the VM

Here are some illustrations that I’ve stumbled upon recently which deserve mention.

First, there is this part at the top of an unusual 8-meter long scroll titled Les Six Ages du Monde, which if I understand well is an early XVth century French manuscript held in Switzerland. The moon, stars and quick untidy painting are quite reminiscent of the VM (I’m not claiming this is the same author of course, but it does ring a bell, and era-wise it is just in the right bracket, while the vellum looks similar in quality) :

The reference is : Sion/Sitten, Archives de l’Etat du Valais/Staatsarchiv Wallis, S 109, f. recto – Six ages of the World (http://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/en/list/one/aev/S-0109)

Below is part of f86v from the VM :

There exists another copy in Reims of the same scroll, illustrated by the same master (so says e-codices) which looks like this :

and here is the link to it.

So overall, this master and the VM author do share similar influences, but those are probably not specific enough to go much further.

Another illustration that is a little reminiscent of the VM is f40 of MSS Pal.Lat. 1726, but since it is under copyright I can only provide the link here.  It depicts a VM-style naked lady with a crown in a small pond with fishes and birds, and corresponds to the month of March in that manuscript. It is in fact Venus (as mentioned here) and the manuscript is Fulgentius megaforalis.

Again, I’m not claiming this is the same author as that of the VM, other illustrations nearby make that clear (a very dissimilar sun in particular), but it does have similarities in that the VM also has two fishes for march on f70v and they seem to be of the same species (shape, number of fins, type of head).

A third element that I’m happy to have found recently, and by chance, is a vellum repair that looks quite similar to those of the VM. Consider for instance this part of f82v, one sees that the holes are not crisp, as if some tension on a still fresh vellum had been applied :

For some time I couldn’t find manuscripts that had the same type of repair, either the sewing thread was still there hiding it, or it had been too closely sewn and just looked different.

But the bottom right corner of the final folio f68v of Pal. Lat. 1158 here does have some similarities. Also, the shape and thickness of the bottom of that manuscript’s f66v is typical VM style vellum, I would think. Alas, according to this, we’re looking at a XIIth century vellum here! So that type of sewing repair, and of folio cutting, isn’t specific at all to the VM nor its era since it existed centuries earlier. On the other hand, since most XVth century manuscripts have much better-looking repairs, it might be that the VM vellum is of a fairly artisanal origin.

Hopefully some DNA testing will be done on the VM in the nearby future, and compared to other sources. Some genetic variants may well help pinpoint a specific type of cattle, or at least a not too rough geographical origin.

[Please note : as a policy on this blog I shall not let in all comments, only a select few that I find interesting.]

 

A comment on the f116v script

Since the well-known marginalia of f116v seems to have some German aspect to it (line 1 and 4, that is), I have started to look for instances in German manuscripts of handwriting, and hopefully even bits of sentences, that look as similar as possible.

One large source of digitized German manuscripts is the Universitätsbibliothek Heidelberg, in particular its Codices Palatini Germanici holding, a set of 848 manuscripts, a good half of which were written between 1350 and 1510.  I am in the process of reviewing each such manuscripts, and far from done yet.  Here I’d like to report on something a little similar to aspects of the script that appears on f116v of the VM.

I’m referering to Cod. Pal. Germ. 329, a text written in 1415/1415 by Austrian ministrel Hugo von Montfort (1357-1423).  The book itself is written in a nice and regular gothic script, with many beautiful decorated initials.

But on folio Vv, just before the book begins, one sees a short ex-libris written by Hugo von Monfort in a different, hasty-looking, script: probably the way he wrote casually everyday. According to the library record this reads:

s[e]q[uitu]r eyn hubesch buch von werbung

eyner frouwen mit clugen worten

vnd liedern und kimpt von graff

hug von montfort

There are two things to note here.  First, the word ‘clugen’ has its ‘cl’ which looks quite close to one of the VM gallows. That’s only the second time, outside the VM, that I’ve found a similar shape that is true text and not a decoration, the other instance being the ‘-tem’ part of the latin word ‘item’, and so it is the first example where it can occur at the beginning of a word, like in the VM.

Secondly, the letter ‘r’  (clearly seen  in the words ‘werburg’, ‘worten’ and ‘graff’) does appear quite similar to those appearing on f116v of the VM: a vertical bar, sometimes with a hint of upward-right motion at its base, followed by a dot.

But the rest of the script is markedly different (letters ‘m’, ‘a’…).

So, while I’d conclude that this is certainly not the author of the VM marginalia, the occurence on a provably 1415 german text of both that quite rare shape for ‘r’ together with a gallow-looking symbol (which turns out to be standard alphabet) makes me want to find more examples both of Hugo von Monfort’s casual handwriting, and more generally of that of his contemporaries, to see whether they, too, wrote ‘cl’ like that.

 

More comments on quire numbers

Context

The amount of information that the VM’s quire numbers (discussed previously on this blog and elsewhere) actually contain is yet unclear, so it is desirable to try and narrow things down as much as possible.

Nick Pelling has recently mentionned another manuscript, Cod. Sang. 688, where within the main text a ‘quartus’ abbreviation matches that of the VM, but the other abbreviations do not match.

Here, I’d like to mention some different manuscripts which happen to contain very similar abbreviations than those of the VM.  They are currently held by the Universitätsbibliothek of Graz, Austria, but they have varied provenances.

The website containing the currently digitized manuscripts is here (use the top horizontal bar to navigate manuscripts) while the catalog is there (type your search in the ‘Suchbegriff’ box). I’ve been patiently through all of the digitized ones this week (around 100 of them), searching for anything from zodiac depictions, to quire numbers, to marginalia, to types of handwriting. (Not all manuscripts held there have been digitized yet, far from it.)

Regarding quire numbers, there are two manuscripts standing out.

A first manuscript

The first one is MS384 (catalog record). It is a 12th century manuscript, with 12th century roman quire numbers, but that has been annotated at the top of each folio with the book and chapter numbers corresponding to the text. These annotations were made in the 15th century, but unfortunately no precise date (I infer this both from the handwriting and the fact that tha catalog says a typical leather cover with stamps was added to the manuscript in that century).

Now, Ms384 comes from the Benedictine Seckau abbey (Chorherrenstift Seckau — here is the translated more informative german wikipedia article), which is in the middle of Austria, some 400km east of Lake Constance. It has been kept there for centuries, and was acquired by the Universitätsbibliothek of Graz around 1830 (a part of the manuscripts from the abbey went there, the other part to the city archives Steiermärkische Landesarchiv — probably both are good places to do further research then).

These added annotations are varying throughout the manuscript: sometimes the person wrote entirely (e.g. ‘secundus liber’) and sometimes with a shorthand (e.g. ’29 lib~’).  So, while it is not abbreviation-only, the ones he used do match very closely the VM, here they are (taken from several folios, and with two variants of ‘pm9’) for comparison:

So what we notice is an extra ‘t’ in ‘quartus’ compared to the VM. Otherwise that’s pretty much it. And yet, note that in Ms384 the word ‘decimus’ is never abbreviated with an ‘9’ for ‘us’, but simply as ’10’. Similarly, ‘undecimus’ is abbreviated by ’11’.

But if you thought that this is still a unique case of close similarity, then read on.

A second manuscript

The same library contains also several manuscripts from the Carthusian monastery of Žiče (middle of Slovenia, about 150km south of Seckau, and about the same latitute as northen Italy). Back in the middle-ages, it had a renowned pharmacy and also a very rich and famous library of 2000 manuscripts  (sadly, only about 200 survive today, including fragments ; they were given to the library of Graz in mid-16th century).

The one manuscript that has great similarities with the VM regarding quire numbers is Ms972 (catalog record). It has a precise date, 1436, and its very quire numbers are written as follows:

Here are the actual folio numbers if you want to check for yourself: primus on f18v, secundus on f19r and f30v, tertius on f42v, quartus on f54v, quintus on f66v, sextus on f78v, then several are missing, then decimus on f126v, quartadecimus on f180v and quintadecimus on f196v.

So, while some of the tricky ones are missing (septimus, octavus, nonus), those that are there are exact matches, except primus.  But note that in the margin of f73r there’s a septima in red ink abbreviated as in the VM, and similarly there’s a nice ‘pm9’ on f142v. Therefore, it could easily have been even closer.

I’ve looked at the other manuscripts from Žiče held at Graz, to get some more information. Now, Ms1474 is dating from 1423, and that date is written in similar numerals on f195v.  But there’s an extra page inserted in this Ms, f175r/f175v, which dates from 1416 and where the date is written with roman numerals.  I infer that the transition to such numeral in Žiče happened around 1420.  At the other extreme, Ms262 is dating from 1468, and this type of numerals was clearly still in use then (e.g. see f319r and 320r which contain chapter numbers 14 and 15 in that style). In fact Ms910 dating from 1501 still does (see date on f1r, and chapter number 4 on f85r), while Ms988 from 1511 finally uses the new type of 5 (see f1r).

So there’s at least a span of 80 years, as far as Žiče is concerned, where that type of abbreviation was probably in use.

Conclusions

I am not at all implying that the VM travelled, or originated, to or from either Seckau or Žiče, of course. On the contrary, all this is showing is that this type of handwriting and abbreviations was quite widespread geographically and temporally. So quire numbers alone are probably not able to provide an extremely precise location nor dating.

In facts, I’d like next to check manuscripts from the north of Italy (Bolzano, Udine…) to see whether or not such abbreviations were used there too. Given that numerals evolved quicker towards modern ones there, it could happen that no such examples exist, pointing to that north-east-of-the-Alps area, we shall see…

To conclude, of course the clues coming from the VM illustrations themselves (for instance the zodiac ones pointing to the area of Lake Constance) are more fundamental. The discussion above doesn’t rule out that hypothesis, it’s just that I haven’t looked at many Bavarian manuscripts yet..

A note on f116r

Studies of punctuation in manuscripts is difficult and nothing too definite can be said apparently.

Still, I’d like to record the following small observation (possibly made earlier elsewhere, but I couldn’t find it then):

there are two points on the last cross of the two-line “prayer” on f116r, that’s the one after the word ‘maria’ and the points are top right and bottom right corner.

It looks to be original, not a later emendation.  So, it could act like a final ‘full stop’ punctuation.

Now, the link mentionned above says colon punctuation appeared “in the late 14th century to mark either a full or a medial pause”. So at least nothing anachronistic here, since the VM was made after that.

It perhaps doesn’t help much to identify who wrote that text (the peculiarities of the letters, like the funny shape of the ‘a’, are probably a much better lead).

But, perhaps, if we’re lucky, this kind of final-cross-with-punctuation is something a bit wider, let’s say something specific to a certain region, or religious order, rather than just a particular scribe.  If I ever find another instance somewhere, I’ll mention it here.

A reference similar to f116v

The marginalia of f116v are of course very interesting.   Some believe they are pen trials, but several others see the line 3 and 4 as a kind of latin prayer involving Holy Mary (see this message by Gregor Damschen and follow-ups, and this page by Nick Pelling).

Here I would simply like to report on a part of a page from a manuscript written around 1460-1480, by Gall Kemli, who was a wandering monk near St-Gall.   (The manuscript itself is entertaining, with lots of different ink types (see e.g. f128r), possibly different handwritings here and there, and many curious passages.  For instance, on f77r there is a Sator-Arepo square, around f156r some music sheets, possibly some games on f165v — hidden behind another page, and on f98av possibly some cypher text.)

The page I want to mention, due to its similarity with the VM’s f116v, is f91r where one finds these lines:

(Zürich, Zentralbibliothek, Ms. C 101)

The crosses could mean “make a prayer sign”. Indeed, they definitely mean that on another later page, f106r, where one sees at some point “amen+ Gaspard + Melchior + Balthazar”.

But on f91r the actual text is difficult to understand.  In fact, the first three words “daimana + Hathagiata + Dyodecamene” seem to be pure invention.  So could it be some non-intelligible spell then? At least the notice of the manuscript does mention exorcism.

If so, that might explain why the VM’s f116v is so difficult to read (beyond the emendations): maybe not all words are meant to be meaningful, that’s a possibility.

—————-

And just to touch upon other topics mentionned before on this blog that do occur in this manuscript too, let me mention the following.

First, if you’re wondering how that monk Kemli wrote “primus” well it varies a lot in the manuscript. It is clear he didn’t write the VM quire numbers, given the lower part of f104v (a very different primus, no ‘t’ in quintus nor sextus, no ‘m’ in septimus…),  but some instances are fairly similar to the VM, e.g. lots nearly fine ‘primus’, ‘prima’, ‘primum’ on f92r.

As for the Zodiac aspects, while his calendar starts in january on f18r, it is interesting to note that he attributed Capricorn to it, so that march is Pisces and so on like in the VM (and unlike most manuscripts I’ve seen, where Pisces tends to be february and Aries is march).  So now we know which was the custom around St-Gall at the time.

So, if indeed the VM comes from around Lake Constance, then perhaps whoever added the month names knew it had to be the Pisces=march way rather than the Pisces=february.

Note also how, on some early woodcuts pasted in the manuscript (all of which are surrounded by nice convoluted Volkenbanden!), the Cancer sign does look like a crayfish on f14v  just like in the VM , while the scales on f12r  are very similar to those in the VM. Unfortunately, Scorpio on f10v looks more realistic than the the lizard-like of the VM. Finally, there’s a crossbowman on f9v, but not as a sign for Saggitarius who has a standard bow.

Some comments on quire numbers

As is well-known, the quire numbers of the VM (which in all probability have been added later) do exhibit some handwriting peculiarities which could provide a good clue as to who wrote them, or at least where they were added.

Here they are:

These are typical 15th century numerals.  One of the peculiarities is that ‘quartus’ doesn’t have a ‘t’ while ‘quintus’ and ‘sextus’ both have one.

Another peculiarity is the precise way ‘primus’ is written.  The abbreviation for ‘-ri’ is not made with a neat ‘i’ above the ‘p’ as in tidy scripts (here is a 1419 example of that kind, from the Czech region of Bohemia: it is at the end of the first line in red, where moreover the ‘9’ abbreviation for ‘-us’ is not used).  Indeed, in the VM it is made with some kind of round accent above a not fully closed ‘p’ and also uses ‘9’ for ‘-us’.  Here it is in close-up:

Now you may remember that I have already mentionned (at the end of this post) that a certain 1459 manuscript, named Cod. Sang. 839, which has belonged to the St-Gallen Stiftsbibliothek for a very long time (in fact since before 1712 at the very least, most probably since the end of the 15th century)  does have a very similar mark at the top of its f176r.  So it is an interesting case to study.

What I’ve worked out since last time, is that it is not an isolated mark there, but in fact f176r to f177r are the table of contents of the book, added by a different hand than the scribe of the main text.  That table of content was started with black ink, then resumed with light brown ink and a smaller quill pen.  Since the main text has four parts, one finds that person’s abbreviations for primus, secundus, tertius and quartus.  Here is how they look like:

(St. Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. Sang. 839, from f176r, f176v and f177r.)

So it is quite clear to me that is is not the same person as in the VM:  most prominently because the quartus is not abbreviated in the same way, but also because the loopy part of the p in primus is not done in one part as in the VM.   One can further tell the two manuscripts apart by looking at those Cod. Sang. 839 pages again: the table of contents also contains page numbers, for instance here are some:

St. Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. Sang. 839, from f176r, f176v and f177r.

It is clear that 4, 6 and 8 are done very differently from those in the VM where they have different shapes and orientations. So, definitely not the same person.

Still, the shape of the primus is fine, so one can wonder whether this is typical of some region.  The answer seems to be: yes, it is typical from the area around Lake Constance around mid-15th century, so that’s a german-speaking region.  Here is my thinking.

First of all,  this Cod. Sang. 839 together with Cod. Sang. 840 and Cod. Sang. 841 were written by the same scribe, on the same type of paper, the first two in 1459 the third in 1462, according to Scherrer’s catalogue entry for 841.    So far, only Cod. Sang. 839 is available in digital form.

But one very interesting clue about the identity of the person who wrote the table of contents is that, according to this book, the owner of Cod. Sang. 841 was a certain Johannes Lippis, and that he also called himself “hanns lippis”. Now, according to the list of St-Gall charters mentionning the name Lippis,  there was indeed a Hans Lippis living at St-Gall in 1426 who was a tanner (=Gerber), and also one in 1441 who in one instance served as a lawyer (=Fürsprech).

Since Lippis is not a common name and since the town itself had around 3000 inhabitants at the time, there’s a fair chance that all are the same person.  Assuming that Lippis also owned Cod. Sang. 839 due to their identical scribe and topics, then he wrote that table of contents, implying that at least one person in St-Gall wrote primus that way around 1459-1462. (To confirm this, one should check the Lippis handwriting in Cod. Sang. 841 against the TOC of Cod. Sang. 839.) Presumably the library then acquired them from Lippis, perhaps when he died.

Now, I haven’t found other examples of similarly written primus as quire number or section titles.   But within lines of text I have some.  For instance,  the bottom of f35v of this nice Latin-Mittelalemannisch dictionnary (mittelalemannisch was a continuum of dialects spoken in northen Switzerland and south Germany) written mid-15th century from the area of Lake Constance looks like this:

Primus (indeed erste in germanic languages) is written without abbreviating the ‘-ri’.  That’s a miss then, you might think.  And yet, on the next page one finds:

where ‘mat. primus’ has the ‘primus’ part abbreviated just as in the VM and St-Gall.  So it did occur in that region it seems.

For comparison, here is a 1466 text from Tossignano near Bologna in Italy, where in the second column of f3r one can see that “primus” is not exactly like in the VM, and more importantly the numerals in the text show that modern-looking 5 and 6 were already in use in that region, unlike what’s in either the VM or Cod. Sang. 839.

So to conclude, we might have this St-Gall/Lake Constance region lead concerning the stage when someone wrote the quire numbers.  Is that exciting? Well, one nice coïncidence is that the only 15th century Zodiac that I know of where the Sagittarius is depicted as a crossbow wielding warrior (and I’ve gone through dozens online), is precisely one from Konstanz…

One might even say: wait a minute, if this is correct, here you have this Hans Lippis who:

1) was a tanner — so someone who had easy access to velum ;

2) lived in an area where the abbreviation for primus is similar to that of the VM (so people after his death could have sorted his stuff, for example strange manuscripts, with month names added later in french near Geneva some time later) ;

3) lived in an area where people sometimes used a crossbowman for Saggitarius ;

4) read about Aristotle’s cosmology and metaphysics — that’s what Cod. Sang. 839 and 840 are about ;

5) was afraid of witches — so says a sentence written by him on f200 of Cod. Sang. 841

6) and lived near one of the largest libraries of the middle-ages (which was full of older Carolingian manuscripts containing decorative gallows and illustrations).

So could he, or a family member, have written the VM as a kind of self-made treatise ?  That’s far-fetched certainly, and very probably wrong, but at least not as far-fetched as other things I’ve seen.

Extra letters on f75v

This is something that has already been noticed, but doesn’t appear to have been discussed thoroughly:

Fact: there are extra letters at the end of the first five lines.

Interpretation: it seems to me they have been written vertically, because there are 6 letters for 5 lines. So it could have a particuler meaning (signature, or cypher key,… well something).

And one more thing I notice is that it is clear there have been a second layer of ink (emendations) from time to time on that page.

But what I can’t quite figure out is if these vertical letters, which do appear darker like other emendations, were there originally, or have been purely and simply added out of the blue (I would think they were there too).    Here is a zoom: