VMs: RE: RE: Yet another page

["GC" <glenclaston@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

John Grove wrote:

> If the folio's were written one side first, the other second in Token-A
> and the page ordering in the quire not foreseen, why was the other side
> of the folio always Token-A?

Limiting my comments only to the section fully identified as the Herbal
section, f1r-56v for purposes of foliation - both sides of the A and B folio
leaves are in the same "language", which when bound places them out of order
when it is a B page.  As with many "personal" herbals, there is usually no
distinct order, alphabetical, categorical or otherwise, at least not at
first.  This is another indication (to me at least) that this was
constructed over a period of time, and as time went on (say around f26r),
the writer started to develop something on the order of a logical system.
In the herbal section, this was still not necessary, as he/she probably
could identify the info he/she was seeking by looking at the pictures.
Later on, when discussing things astronomical, astrological, etc., more
order is necessary and a logical plan had to be worked out.

Thumb through the library catalogues on the net (don't have the url's at
present) and read the descriptions of some of the "personal" herbals.  Order
was not critical, and most often not present, especially in the beginning.
The reason for this most probably was that 1) they were informal writings,
not something meant for others to view, and 2) they were started at a very
early age - many entered college around 15 - and logical order was not yet
well thought out.  If someone is still writing in the book when they're 30,
a plan has developed.


> When there is a quire mark on a Token-B page - both sides of that sheet
> on all four pages are Token-B. It doesn't seem to me that if someone
> writing with Token-B on all four sides of one sheet would wrap that
> around a group of Token-A pages on all four faces.

See above for my argument on this point.  It also doesn't seem logical to
write both sides of a folio in a bound book in B, the next six in A, and
then the last two in B again.  It's much easier to assume that the folio
leaf was laying flat, and the pages were filled in on both sides before
being bound in quires.  This also makes the artwork much easier to produce.
Let's also not forget just how small a book this really is in terms of
physical size, 225 x 160 mm, (according to Beinecke) roughly 6-1/4 by 8-3/4
inches.  Much more difficult to write in after binding into quires.

> Also, if the content was written on separate sheets of vellum before
> being bound (which I agree it probably was), then the question as to
> whether the author foresaw the quire ordering and made the opening
> page distinct from the closing pages. Page one is the introduction to
> a subject, but page 8 (on the same sheet) would be the conclusion -
> unless the text is supposed to be read on separate sheets - Read page
> one, then page 8, then page 2 - then page 7?

The only page the writer would have left blank would have been page 1, f1r,
for title or description, etc.  My point is however, that even though we
don't know what *exact* order things were written in, the totally B folios
infer that both sides of a folio were filled out before binding, so our
search order when we're looking for detail or transition should be in the
order of the folio leaves.  Once this is done, it may be possible to discern
statistically a transition between one folio leaf and another, and hence get
a rough picture of "creation order".

What I'm seeing points to something possibly considered but rarely
discussed - that the folio leaves sat as leaves somewhere for a great deal
of time (herbal section only, mind you), before the decision was made to
bind them into quires.  The order they were place in was not the order they
were written, and even the "blank" page for f1r may have been an
afterthought.  Certainly this page was not all written in one sitting, and
may have only begun once the writer decided to bind quires and form some
logical structure and progression to the writing.  (as I hinted much
earlier, it is possible that the VMS existed as a "mere working herbal" for
some time.)  By the time we get to q8 (quire 8) we see a logical structure
and progression established.  This is a "visual" observation of general
structure beyond the Herbal section, but the Herbal section's internal stats
point to folios better grouped as leaves, and the order of the leaves
reshuffled a bit to account for progression in writing, the use of glyph
structured words, "mutants" and wierdos.

I'm trying very hard to find a good way of presenting this as professionally
as Rene has presented his material.  As Rene has pointed out, not in these
words, but with the same understood meaning, is that the lower you go, the
harder it is to analyze.  The biggest deterent is the large number of
"unique" words, which I have given much attention.  Applying what we know
about [ha]/[hb], as well as Currier's "hand-1" and "hand-2", plus a wealth
of information provided by Rene, a good portion of these "unique" words
aren't all that unique, and can be *reasonably* classified.

Any comments or criticisms are not only solicited, but pleasantly received.

GC




______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list