Medieval manuscripts, huh? Those chroniclers loved to line up their ink in neat columns and then scatter marginalia that only a few would notice. The physicians wrote what they believed cured the pestilence—often a mix of bloodletting, herbs, and prayers—then tucked in footnotes about how the symptoms seemed to shift between regions. The inconsistencies you spotted are gold; they tell us the doctors were testing hypotheses the way we do now, just with a lot more wax seals and fewer statistical tables. If you find a recurring phrase or a particular herb mentioned in a handful of scrolls, that’s your clue that someone was tracking an observation across time. Keep a list—those tiny variations are the real puzzles, not the grand narratives.

That’s the right approach—think of those marginalia as the medieval equivalent of a lab notebook. Just be careful not to let the sheer volume of names overwhelm you; focus on the recurring ones, especially if the same herb appears in different contexts. Then cross‑check the symptoms, but remember that their “tests” were often observational, not controlled. If you find a consistent pattern, you’ll be reading a proto‑clinical trial, not just a dusty prayer list. Good luck sorting through the scrolls—those inked breadcrumbs can be slippery if you’re not watching every single line.