RE: VMs: RE: Yet another page

["John Grove" <John@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Perhaps you've got something there.... bleed-through may have happened
not only over its entire history, but even to a lesser extent at
intermittent times in its history - a couple of wet pages here or there
over time, the refolding of the fold-outs by different handlers etc...

It would be interesting if you could glean some visual data from the
bleed-through of folios that are missing their original neighbours (or
their neighbours for a while anyway).

	John.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx]On
Behalf Of DANA SCOTT
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 1:29 AM
To: vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: VMs: RE: Yet another page


It strikes me that evidence of bleed-through, whether present or not, from
"missing" folios/quires would add further insight into the purported
structure and order of the manuscript.

Regards,
Dana Scott


----- Original Message -----
From: "GC" <glenclaston@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 5:38 PM
Subject: RE: VMs: RE: Yet another page


> Nick wrote:
>
> > I'm quite sure (from all the subtle bleed-across) that the folios in the
> > first quire are in the same order that they were in when it was
> > painted up
> > - from that, I infer that they're probably in the correct order.
>
> These are watercolored inks you're talking about, but not the same
> chemical
> makeup or consistency as modern inks.  Some questions we don't readily
> know
> the answers to - thickness of vellum, consistent or not?  (My guess is
> not).
> Vellum density/porosity, consistent or not?  (My guess is not).  Same ink
> from beginning to end?  Not like buying Parker's colors, anyway.  Each has
> a
> factor in "bleed-through", and each is an unknown.
>
> In addition, we must also consider that the majority of the
> "bleed-through"
> was a factor of time and repeated changes of seasons, i.e, some damp
> involved.  At least 200 years on a shelf or in a box, never opened, may
> account for transfers seen in this mss that are not visible in "better
> read"
> manuscripts of the same age.  In fact, the "bleed-through" in the VMS is
> rare as manuscripts go, even at an age of 500 years, give or take.
>
> IF we consider this a factor of age, not something that occurred
> relatively
> early, as you appear to consider it - then we must also consider that the
> VMS was not a standing book on a shelf, where it was occasionally opened.
> It was a book laying flat in some "vault", untouched for many a year
> before
> finally opened.  "Bleed-through" is affected by gravity, and the
> "gravitational influence" on this manuscript is "straight down, not
> vertical.  Look at the pages that exhibit "bleed-through" and you might
> even
> meet my sense of what side the book lay on when it was placed in its
> "coffin".  Front cover facing up or down?  The evidence is there, you
> decide.
>
> GC
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx]On
> > Behalf Of Nick Pelling
> > Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 6:45 AM
> > To: vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: VMs: RE: Yet another page
> >
> >
> > Hi John,
> >
> > At 05:50 24/07/2003 -0400, John Grove wrote:
> > >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?
> >
> > I'm quite sure (from all the subtle bleed-across) that the folios in the
> > first quire are in the same order that they were in when it was
> > painted up
> > - from that, I infer that they're probably in the correct order.
> >
> > Quick aside: could you infer that some (or perhaps all?) of the painting
> > was done *after* it had been bound into quires? Is there evidence
> > to prove
> > or disprove this hypothesis?
> >
> > The only pages in the original quire 1, then, with right-justified
> > titles
> > are f1r (which has 4) and f8r (which has 3 or 4, depending on how
> > you view
> > line 2), on the same bifolio. But however you fold that bifolio, one
> > will
> > be on the inside & one will be on the outside - what explanation could
> > there be for that?
> >
> > That this might be a genuine phenomenon would seem to be
> > confirmed by quire
> > 2: the only title-like strings there are on pages f9r (bottom line) and
> > f16r (fourth line) - which are also on alternate sides of the same
> > outermost bifolio of the quire.
> >
> > This pattern doesn't seem to hold elsewhere (though I haven't checked
> > exhaustively), but it's interesting all the same... :-o
> >
> > Cheers, .....Nick Pelling.....
> >
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> > To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
> > unsubscribe vms-list
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
> unsubscribe vms-list
>
______________________________________________________________________
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