VMs: RE: Quires, folios, numbers

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

Rene wrote: "On the whole, it is clear that the page numbers
were written either after the book was bound,
or immediately before it."

	Actually, the page numbers had to have been
written after the book was bound for the inward
folds to be on the outer-recto when thumbing through
the manuscript...

Jorge wrote:   "The purpose of folio (or page) numbers is to quickly jump to
a
specific place in the book; for that purpose, the numbers are best
placed where they can be seen while leafing or thumbing through the
book, *with the fold-outs closed*."

	Great argument for the book already being bound. In order for
the numbers to be in the top right recto for quick reference on every page -
the folded in ones were marked as they should have been -- my apologies for
labelling the foliator an oaf!

Jorge wrote: "I think it is quite possible that the quire-numberer and the
folio-numberer were the same person;"

	I don't think so because he would know that quire 9 would have been
annotated
at the end of the quire like all the others. The two were most certainly
done separately
without the quire author checking the order of the foliation... The quires
would
have been for the purpose of binding the loose folios together in the right
order and this
was probably done immediately after the quires were marked and were probably
checked by
the author for proper order (if not the author who bound the book in the
first place);
however, the manuscripts binding must have come loose and a number of the
pages fell out.
The new owner put them back together as best he could - and numbered the top
right of
every page after binding the book.

Perhaps, later another new owner cut the pieces out - to forward to various
scholars along with
losing a few center folios due to natural wear and tear to end up with what
Yale has today.

I think we'll find that the quire numbers and folio numbers were written by
different people -
likely quite a few years apart... If we can ever find a way to prove that!

Glen wrote: "It occurs to me that repeated use of traditional terminology
causes us to readily accept outdated concepts, and as long as
these terms are used without challenge the inaccuracies of these
concepts directly affect our perception of the problem."

	Rightly so. We can not be biased by statistics brought forward and repeated
frequently as
though they were fact; however, we do have to keep ourselves open to the
possibility that
all the previous enthusiasts were completely lost either. It is a difficult
balance to set between
keeping an eye on what has been 'observed' and what may have been 'observed
due to the eye of the
beholder wanting to see something'. (Like me for instance!)

John.