VMs: RE: RE: RE: Yet another page

["John Grove" <John@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

GC>> 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.

	Good point. It makes complete sense that the pages had to have been written
out as separate
pieces of work that were later bound together. Now, the question is still
out there - did the
author foresee the order - or was, as you've stated' order not important so
the originator
didn't plan out a page one first, then page two etc... So, by your
definition each folio contains
a complete context separate from the other 'three' or more folio's attached
to the same sheet of
vellum - or that each of those four folios are related and in fact should be
read as a parcel.

1r/1v/8r/8v make up one set of facts that are closely related to each other.
2r/2v/7r/7v make up another set and so on...

If 1r was the actual last page completed, was it completed before folio 2
was started?

	This is an interesting look at the pages in my view. If the author is
responsible for
the quire marking (which is still a big if - even though I lean that way
myself), then the
binding may have had something to do with categorization of similar context.
I'm still not
convinced though that B-tokened folios belong wrapped around a-tokened
folios in the same
quire -- I'm still game to believe that the B-tokened folios should have
been bound together
into a few B-quires, while the majority of herbals and pharma pages were
intended to be in
A-quires.

	The foliation doesn't make any sense to me - they were obviously written
after the book
was bound in a typical top-right corner of every 'recto' page. The ones that
don't line up are
perfectly in step with a fold-out that's been folded in and leaving what
would have been a verso
with a folio number on it. So, it is difficult to completely believe that
the B-tokened folios
with numbers like f26/f32 definitely fit in the 4th quire when the 4th quire
begins and ends
(and is all A except for f26r/v and its paired f32r/v). Add to the fact that
the next quire
begins and ends with a B-token page - leads to a possibility (far from fact,
I know) that the
5th quire should have all been B-tokened.

	The missing folio numbers also allude to the fact that quite a number of
folios are missing
if we assume that they numbered all the pages in the bound book when they
had it whole. This
'probably' means that f74 was just like f72 with a folio number 74 on the
f74v2 folio and a
quire mark on the f74v1 folio.

>>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.

	Actually, I think it has been discussed in a rather round about way -- the
dropped
sheets theory. In order for the order to be messed up, the sheets had to be
separate.
The fact that you are most certainly right (a limb that I'm willing to climb
out
with you on) that the pages were written before bound may not have been
stated outright
before, but the question as to whether the author had a plan to order the
pages as he
wrote them or left that order didn't matter has not.

	The possibility that order wasn't important to the author has to insinuate
that
the content on each folio or at least each sheet of vellum is independent of
its surroundings
because the neighbouring folios were not pre-determined.

	John.



______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list
---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.497 / Virus Database: 296 - Release Date: 04/07/2003

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.497 / Virus Database: 296 - Release Date: 04/07/2003


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