It's a basic assumption
of mine that the quire numbers are accurate - while the page numbering was
the binding. It doesn't seem to make sense
to me that the quire number '9' begins a quire on folio 69, when
quire 8 signature is where it should be
(bottom right of the last 'verso' side of 16 pages).
I'm very much in agreement that the foliations were done later,
but the quire marks are original. The markings look to be in the
original style, and the Latin shorthand notation is appropriate for the time
As to shorthands, I've laughingly considered that the "Portas"
remark on the "Oladabas" page is some woud-be decipherer's reference to
Porta's discussion on shorthand as a method of secret writing. If this
note was written after 1568, it would be possible, and as edivenced in several
books before 1600, this particular discussion was quite popular. Take
Thomas Newton's dedicatorie letter to Peter Bale's "The Writing Schoolemaster"
as an example. Porta's shorthand is mentioned prominently, but Porta had
not yet been published in England, even illegally! (The first bootleg
edition came out the same year, but later than Bale's