 |
 |
medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture Another thought: has the initial S been cut and pasted from somewhere else? An entirely different manuscript? If it were a forgery, why not produce one with the proper initial E, and not change the first line of the text? Bonnie Blackburn + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Bonnie Blackburn 67 St Bernard's Road Oxford OX2 6EJ tel. +44 (0)1865 552808 fax +44 (0)1865 512237 [log in to unmask] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Laura Jacobus" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 4:30 PM Subject: [M-R] ]Re: [M-R] Recent forgeries part I.2 (and I.1) > medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Laura Jacobus" <[log in to unmask]> > To: "medieval-religion - Scholarly discussions of medieval religious culture" > <[log in to unmask]> > Sent: 22 April 2009 16:05 > Subject: Re: [SPAM]Re: [M-R] Recent forgeries part I.2 (and I.1) > > >> medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture >> >> Just to add (out of concern for Christopher's eyesight) that the images come >> up larger if you scroll down this site, confirming Robert's valuable points. >> >> http://cgi.ebay.de/ANTIPHONAR-IMPERIALFOLIO-PERGAMENT-MINIATUR-1400-8_W0QQitemZ200266810815QQcmdZViewItemQQptZAntiquarische_B%C3%BCcher?hash=item200266810815&_trksid=p3911.c0.m14&_trkparms=66%3A2|65%3A1|39%3A1|240%3A1318 >> >> I'm still intrigued by the comparison with the S.Stephen miniature (part I.2) >> and the Baptist one (part I.1 >> http://www.reiss-sohn.de/auktion/bilder/923.jpg ), or does everyone just >> accept that the Baptist is a forgery? My sense is that most correspondents >> don't think that the S.Stephen page is forged, but that the text does show >> signs of alteration for reasons that are not necessarily connected with >> forgery. To my eye, the Baptist remains problematic: among other things the >> figure style seems later than the initial, but I'm not a MSS person and the >> image is too small to determine whether this is due to a Renaissance updating >> of an earlier initial, or a modern interpolation. I incline to agree with >> Erik that its a forgery, but it would be nice to hear more informed views. >> The discussion on the S. Stephen MS has been fascinating (if at times not as >> courteous as one might wish) and I'd like to know whether Erik has changed >> his views about one or both MSS. >> >> Laura >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Christopher Crockett" <[log in to unmask]> >> To: <[log in to unmask]> >> Sent: 22 April 2009 15:27 >> Subject: [SPAM]Re: [M-R] Recent forgeries part I.2 >> >> >> medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture >> >> From: Robert Kraft <[log in to unmask]> >> >>> Sometimes I wonder if we are all looking at the same images. >> >> that's a reasonable explanation. >> >> though there is only one leaf here, with only two sides, a recto and a verso. >> >> i'll try and insert links to the precise ones, as i go along. >> >>>While it may be true that nothing has been changed on the second side (the >> side with the unadorned blue large S in Solue) >> >> http://www.neumann-walter.de/NW/November2007/27.11.07/37.jpg >> >> detail: >> >> http://www.neumann-walter.de/NW/November2007/27.11.07/38.jpg >> >> given the location of the sewing holes, we might call that the "verso" of the >> leaf, mightn't we not? >> >>> where bleed-through is indeed evident, >> >> bleed-through is evident on both sides, is it not? >> >>>it is also clear that on the first side (with the decorated red S), >> >> http://www.neumann-walter.de/NW/November2007/27.11.07/33.jpg >> >> detail: >> >> http://www.neumann-walter.de/NW/November2007/27.11.07/35.jpg >> >> by default (if nothing else, accepting the premise re the other side), we >> could style that one as the "verso." >> >>>that entire line which now reads Sede(runt) has been modified, >> >> ? >> >> how is that "clear"? >> >>>and the underwriting is still decipherable (Et enim sede). >> >> sorry. >> >> you lost me entirely there. >> >> perhaps we are not looking at the same image. >> >> but i'll be jiggered if i can see an "Et enim sede" anywhere on this page >> >> http://www.neumann-walter.de/NW/November2007/27.11.07/33.jpg >> >> and i can see no "underwriting" below the main text of the chant, anywhere, >> either. >> >> you Manuscript guys sure do have sharp eyes. >> >> clearly, i should stick to Monumental Sculpture. >> >> or go for Architecture. >> >> or, morebetter, City Planning. >> >> or change my glasses prescription. >> >> or, perhaps, All of the Above. >> >>>And it doesn't take much paleographical skill >> >> now your talking my language. >> >>>to observe that the newly written "d" in that line >> >> the "Se*d*e" line... >> >> http://www.neumann-walter.de/NW/November2007/27.11.07/33.jpg >> >>>is not appropriate to the original hand -- see the final line on that page >> (domine deus) or the Solue line on the next page ending with "de." >> >> or the "d" in "aduersu[m]" just below the "Sede". >> >> yes, even i can see that. >> >>>The ink of that "new style" "d" also created more obvious >> bleed-through on the other side of the page (in the Solue line). >> >> yes. >> >> http://www.neumann-walter.de/NW/November2007/27.11.07/37.jpg >> >> reading as a light "b" between "Sol" and "ue". >> >> good point. >> >> the "d" on the first line of the recto is a definite "insertion," most likely >> by a different (and more archaic??) hand, but not *necessarily* a modern one. >> >>>Also the left side curvature of the two "e" letters in the rewritten line >> >> "S...e...de..." here: >> >> http://www.neumann-walter.de/NW/November2007/27.11.07/33.jpg >> >>>is too smooth/regular when compared to the original "e" letters. >> >> i would say that those first "e"s are much more rounded and "fat" (to use the >> technical jargon) than the "original" ones elsewhere on both sides. >> >>>When and why the changes were made is another matter, >> >> yes. >> >> quite. >> >>>but changes there were, at least on that decorated line. >> >> taking Erik's original point about the "shadow" letters in that line being >> "erasures" (and discarding my previous suggestion that they are >> bleed-throughs >> from a facing page), we would simply have some mistaken text in that line >> which was replaced (whenever) by a correct (and much shorter) one. >> >> but, that Dog won't Hunt: *what* text could have been there? >> >> starting with the "original" ornamented (but not illuminated), white-on-blue >> "E", a word (or syllable) or two, a phrase which ends in the "ru[n]t" in the >> next line.... >> >> doesn't make much sense. >> >> seems to me (unencumbered by any actual knowledge of the subject) that a page >> like this would have been "built" up in stages. >> >> first pricked and ruled (not visible in these .jpgs), then >> the box for the initial initial and the musical lining traced out, then the >> text and the music itself (which of those came first??)... >> >> i just don't see how a "mistake" like we see in that first line could have >> been made. >> >> nor do i see how the "e...de" could have been a modern insertion. >> >> >> the nice thing about a complex problem like this is that, more often than >> not, >> there is only one way the pieces to the jig-saw puzzle can go together. >> >> all that has to be done is to find that one, good, solution which satisfies >> all the necessary parameters. >> >> simple. >> >> c >> >> ********************************************************************** >> To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME >> to: [log in to unmask] >> To send a message to the list, address it to: >> [log in to unmask] >> To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion >> to: [log in to unmask] >> In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to: >> [log in to unmask] >> For further information, visit our web site: >> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html >> ********************************************************************** >> To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME >> to: [log in to unmask] >> To send a message to the list, address it to: >> [log in to unmask] >> To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion >> to: [log in to unmask] >> In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to: >> [log in to unmask] >> For further information, visit our web site: >> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html >> > > ********************************************************************** > To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME > to: [log in to unmask] > To send a message to the list, address it to: > [log in to unmask] > To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion > to: [log in to unmask] > In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to: > [log in to unmask] > For further information, visit our web site: > http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html ********************************************************************** To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME to: [log in to unmask] To send a message to the list, address it to: [log in to unmask] To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion to: [log in to unmask] In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to: [log in to unmask] For further information, visit our web site: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html