Re: Voynich MS not(?) in Rudolf's Kunstkammer inventory...

["John Grove" <4groves@xxxxxxxxx>]

    Rafal,
         In your earlier post, are you saying that the size of the vellum
sheet would decide whether a manuscript was quired 'in folio, in octavo'
etc? Do we know that the VMS was in Octavo when Rudolf would/could have
possessed it, or was it bound/re-bound since then? We've discussed the
possibility of page-order being incorrect before, thus suggesting the VMS
was either bound or rebound by someone that didn't know what pages went
where, except for the obvious zodiac folios.

    John.

----- Original Message -----
From: Rafal T. Prinke <rafalp@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <stolfi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <voynich@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 2:45 PM
Subject: Re: Voynich MS not(?) in Rudolf's Kunstkammer inventory...


>
>
> Jorge Stolfi wrote:
>
> >     >  2585.  In folio.  Ein _philosophisch_ alt geschriben buch mit
>
> > I suppose that the phrase "in folio" means that the book was made
> > from whole sheets of vellum, folded only once (the binding fold).
> > Can we draw any conclusion from this note about the size of item 2585?
> > Is the VMs "in folio", "in quarto", or what?
>
> These terms have double meanings: (1) the number of
> folding the original sheet of paper (or parchment) and thus
> the number of sheets in a quire; (2) the size of the book (codex)
> which is roughly related to the number of foldings, even though
> the sizes of original sheets from different paper mills differed
> considerably.
>
> As Rene mentioned that another book in the inventory is classified
> as "large folio" we may be sure that the author had the size
> rather than number of foldings in mind, as otherwise the "large"
> modifier would not make sense.
>
> But even if it were so, the VMS has quires of 8 sheets so
> it is "in octavo" also in this sense.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rafal
>