Hands in the Libro. Old and new methods of scribal identification in Hernando Colón’s Libro de los Epítomes
Abstract. This paper attempts to tackle the challenges posed by the distinction of the several scribes intervening in manuscript Copenhagen, Arnamagnæan Institute, AM 377 fol., achieved through a traditional study of its palaeographical features, by performing the same examination with the help of automated tools for handwriting identification.
A preliminary study of the palaeographical features of the manuscript Copenhagen, Arnamagnæan Institute, AM 377 fol., the fair copy of the Libro de los Epítomes, one of the catalogues produced in the library of Hernando Colón (1488-1539), has highlighted, among other things:
- At least seven hands involved in the copying of the nearly 1000 leaves of the manuscript, in unitary or separate sections, four of which also contributing to its revision and correction, plus four others with revision and correction tasks only;
- Structured hierarchies of writing and strategies of material production in the different phases of the copying process;
- The potential identity between one of the secondary hands and the writer of most of the rough copy of the Epítomes, still owned by the Biblioteca Colombina in Seville;
- The possible identification of some hands with known figures of Colón’s circle;
- Clues to the backgrounds of the writers and, in some cases, their involvement in the production of material beyond the Libro and other catalogues of Colón’s library, with specific reference to the extensive documentary corpus of the so-called ‘pleito colombino’.
Until now, my analysis of the extent and the nature of the contributions of the different scribes has relied solely on autoptic examination of the structural and stylistic features of their writings, and on their comparison with internal and external samples, such as the rough copy, other Colón’s catalogues, and documents from the ‘pleito’. This approach was combined with an assessment of the different tasks performed by each hand, and of their authority in the final redaction of the text.
The palaeographical work has not been free of challenges: while several graphic and extra-graphic elements suggest an empirical effort towards uniformity in the production of this book, the execution of some hands changes significantly throughout the same section. Furthermore, virtually identical hands appear in different parts of the manuscript with small, but meaningful and consistent, morphological modifications. All this, especially for certain portions of the manuscript, considerably complicates the definition of clear-cut partitions between the work of the different hands.
In the hope of testing the outcomes and overcoming the uncertainties of my analysis, my paper proposes to compare these results with those obtained attempting the same kind of exploration with computer–assisted methodologies. In preparation for the paper, and in collaboration with the scholars who have developed it, I will examine the Copenhagen manuscript and the relevant comparison material using ICRPad M-Evo, an automated tool for handwriting identification that employs a pattern recognition system utilizing a graphic matching algorithm based on shape-contour recognition functions. As it is not my aim to advocate for the superiority of one tool over the others, I will also investigate additional possibile automated options to cross-verify my findings.
The main objective of my paper is to exemplify the actual contribution (if any) that procedures rooted in digital humanities and artificial intelligence currently available to scholars can offer in tackling those palaeographical challenges that remain unsolvable through traditional examination.