VMs: RE: Quire 1 wear & tear

["GC" <glenclaston@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

John Grove wrote:

> 	I think the first two quires have been bound in the same
> order for quite
> some time - possibly these two quires survived any reshuffling
> while many of
> the others didn't. Nonetheless, the first quire certainly shows enough
> evidence
> that it was bound in the order it is presently bound for quite some time.
>
> 	All of the verso pages in the first half of the quire have
> a left edge
> imprint from folio 5's cut edge. 1v, 2v, 3v, and 4v (even in the lousy
> copyflo)
> show an exact match of the 'shape' of the cut that forms the 5r
> upper-right
> shape
> that would have faced them from the middle of the quire.
>
> 	One would assume the following recto pages would be
> affected in the same
> manner,
> but they don't (at least on the copyflo). So, If the quire is folded over
> and pressed
> down - the top few pages which extend beyond the 'cut' aren't supported by
> the underlying
> page and form a crease over time... while those below the cut
> (the 2nd half
> of the quire)
> aren't affected. I would expect that if the quire was flipped
> over and quire
> 1 was face
> down for some time that the 2nd half of the quire would have been
> affected.
>
> 	All this really means is that the VMS possibly sat in the
> order it is
> presently in,
> with the 1st quire on top for the few hundred years it was stored away.

Certainly a lot of damage has occurred over the countless years this thing
has been around, and your observations are very keen here. I guess a few
assumptions about how the VMS was put together and when might help.

We both believe for instance, that the book was not "quirized" as the
bifolios were completed.  Of course, there is the possibility that it was,
and that the 'reshuffling' took place later on during a rebinding session.
This would mean that the foliation occurred only *after* wear and tear
destroyed the binding, which doesn't make much sense.  It should have been
foliated rather early on, but only after it was quirized and then bound.
Assuming it was the original author that quirized and bound the book, it was
the author that 'reshuffled' many of the bifolios to suit some personal
sorting scheme.

The question is, how long before the first quirization occurred, and how
were the bifolios stored  during their "looseleaf" period?  I've suggested
"sitting on a shelf", which would not be the likely scenario.  Rather folded
and place in a cover or 'pouch' which was bound up with string.  This is the
most likely scenario, and one that has historical precedent.

My question is, can we look at the various 'damage spots' and deterine which
happened before quirization, which happened after the first binding, and
which may have occurred after another binding, if such an event took place?

GC





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