Loading...
Codex Berinensis, a Florentine copy of an ancient Roman medical treatise , is undated but contains clues to when it was produced. Its first 80 pages are by a single copyist, but the remaining 20 pages are by three different copyists, which indicates some significant disruption. Since a letter in handwriting identified as that of the fourth copyist mentions a plague that killed many people in Florence in 1148, Codex Berinensis was probably produced in that year.
Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the hypothesis that Codex Berinensis was produced in 1148?
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| Codex Berinensis, a Florentine copy of an ancient Roman medical treatise, is undated but contains clues to when it was produced. |
|
| Its first 80 pages are by a single copyist, but the remaining 20 pages are by three different copyists, which indicates some significant disruption. |
|
| Since a letter in handwriting identified as that of the fourth copyist mentions a plague that killed many people in Florence in 1148, Codex Berinensis was probably produced in that year. |
|
The argument starts by establishing that we have an undated manuscript with clues. It then presents evidence of disruption (multiple copyists taking over), and finally connects this disruption to a specific historical event (the 1148 plague) through a letter written by one of the copyists.
Codex Berinensis was probably produced in 1148.
The argument links the disruption in copying (evidence of some crisis) with the plague mentioned in the copyist's letter to conclude that the manuscript was created during the 1148 plague year. The logic assumes the disruption and the plague are connected events.
Strengthen - We need to find information that makes the conclusion (Codex Berinensis was produced in 1148) more believable
The conclusion is specific about timing (1148) and causation (plague disruption led to copyist changes). The evidence connects disruption in copying with a plague mentioned by one of the later copyists.
Look for information that strengthens the connection between the copying disruption and the 1148 plague. We want evidence that makes it more likely the disruption happened specifically in 1148, or that confirms the timeline linking the copyist changes to that plague year.
This tells us that we have no other samples of the first three copyists' handwriting. This doesn't help strengthen the 1148 timeline at all. Whether or not we have other samples of their handwriting doesn't make it more likely that the disruption happened in 1148 or that the manuscript was produced that year. This is irrelevant to the timing argument.
Knowing that the plague lasted 10 months doesn't strengthen the connection between the copying disruption and the 1148 date. The duration of the plague doesn't make it more likely that this specific manuscript was being copied during that plague. This adds detail about the plague but doesn't strengthen the timing argument.
Information about how quickly a scribe could copy pages doesn't help us determine when the manuscript was produced. Even if we knew the copying speed, this doesn't strengthen the connection between the disruption and the 1148 plague. This is about copying efficiency, not timing.
This is powerful because it eliminates alternative explanations. If there was only one plague outbreak in Florence during the entire 1100s, and we know the fourth copyist mentioned a plague in 1148, then any plague-related disruption in that century must have occurred in 1148. This makes the connection between the copying disruption and the 1148 date much more reliable and strengthens the conclusion significantly.
The pattern of decreasing pages per copyist might tell us about the progression of the disruption, but it doesn't strengthen the 1148 timing. Whether each successive copyist wrote fewer pages doesn't make it more likely that this disruption happened specifically in 1148. This describes the disruption pattern but doesn't strengthen the date connection.