VMs: VMS FINITE PAGE RENUMBERING

[steve ekwall <ekwall2@xxxxxxxx>]

-=se=->

yes, walking on egg shells here (gulp!) 


WHILE 'WE ALL' agree that the folios seem to be "OUT OF ORDER" in some
way or another, ~yet~, we SEE the "copyFLOW" from YALE Univ. that sits
physically in front of many of us, is there no way(?) that "WE" could
come to a minimal page count/order/page agreement??? (less missing
pages - unknown (as observed)) like this is copy flow #1 (turn) this
is copy flow #2 etc.. etc.. etc.. ?

ie: by/as of 21st century, vms study concensus dictates pages as...

or e.g.

The VMS is currently `Studied todate' in the following MODERN 
pagation! etc..

or 

as NOTE: in 2002 studies "Using YALE COPYFLOW VMS Hardcopies"
RENUMBERED the _ENTIRETY_ such & such... AS such & such!.. SEE YALE
COPYFLOW of the _only copy known to exist_ (so there) reasoning! :-)


Voted on 2002 AND YALE Approved (?)
VMS 2002 RENUMBERED (group concensus TODATE!!)
Majority rules?


Just a ~Simple~ Thought??
Best to ALL
-=se=-
steve (so ALL are talking ON the SAME page(s) etc.) ekwall

(after the ~smoke clears~ in this battle - YALE should be asked to
include this (2002 addendum/pageation) in it's FUTURE COPYFLOWS - "For
REFERENCE USE") via rubber stamp? auth'd by cryptogram.org whatever.)

IF we all can't FOLD it, surely we can agree on a common COUNT!

(the above above reference's Yale COPYflow HARDCOPY only)

Thoughts??

<-=se=-




 A real problem is posed by the foldouts.
 Why are they there in the first place?
 Did the author only have some leftover pieces of
 vellum that could not be cut to the proper size?
 
 	No, I don't think these are leftovers -- they were meant to
 be long complete sheets by the author and were folded into the book.
 The foldout pages are quite interesting in their context compared
 to the rest of the manuscript and probably were a quick reference
 to technical details.
 
 	First fold-out (quire 9) is the cosmo one that is messed up in its
 order with the quire number starting the quire instead of ending it.
 f67r1 should be the last verso page of this foldout.
 
 	Quire 10 - is the first of three zodiac quires that are all fold-outs.
 	Quire 11 - next one
 	Quire 12 - last of the zodiacs -- most of it is missing, but I (maybe just
 me)
 		strongly believe that f74 is a continuation of the zodiac fold-out style.
 
 	*Quire 13 is the bio and returns to *standard format.
 
 	Quire 14 is the large map fold-out.
 	Quire 15 should in my opinion be a Herbal A quire with the Pharma removed;
 however
 		if the pages do all belong together - It is a combination of large Herbal
 A
 		& pharma pages that could be used as a quick reference.
 
 	*Quire 16 is probably a very large foldout but is completely missing.
 	Quire 17 is a mixture of large Herbal A & B
 	*Quire 18 is either missing or 19 is misnumbered.
 	*Quire 19 is an all pharma fold-out that should probably include the pharma
 from 15.
 	Quire20 returns to standard format.
 
 	It seems to be that these large fold-out pages all have a rather
 significant 'content'
 that the author wanted to be able to see 'in a glance'.
 
 This first 7 quires in the book are normal. The
 next one is abnormal, in that it has 5 bifolia,
 not 4. BUT:
 - 3 of the 5 are missing. We're only relying
   on the foliator here.
 
 	I'm beginning to thank that oaf for fouling up the numbering. It gives us
 some hard
 evidence that the pages were there despite the overall order, and that the
 pages were bound
 when he numbered them because he didn't bother to unfold them from the
 book - he just merrily
 went on numbering the top right corner of every recto page as he flipped the
 corners to mark
 them.  85 & 86 along with the odd place on the v2 pages are proof of this.
 He was consistent
 in his task through-out which means that quire 16 might be another huge
 fold-out with a quire
 number and two page numbers.
 
 In the following quires the situation only
 gets worse... Is this evidence of different people
 being involved???
 
 	I don't think so. I think the pages weren't necessarily in the right order
 when the
 foliator did his job which makes it difficult to measure where the
 transition in language
 sets may have actually taken place. I think we have evidence of one author
 (okay I'll give
 a little on that), one quire-maker (possibly the author), and one foliator
 that couldn't read
 the thing he was marking - and wasn't working under the supervision of
 anyone that could read
 the book either.
 
 John.