[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: VMs: F66r
--- Nick Pelling <incoming@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> I'm a little disappointed by the quality of this
> thread - ISTM that we
> should be more advanced in our reasoning on this
Well, we're risking to drop in quality even further,
if we're not careful ;-)
> (1) We have a document which appears to have been
> bound out of order.
> Evidence: the well-known plumbing mismatch in the
> balneo section,
... as mentioned before, and the strongest single
piece of evidence. Still, it could just be a little
practical joke by the author....
> .... and from
> the Currier A/B bifolio mixups throughout the herbal
> section -
Before jumping to conclusions: they may just have
been written/composed out of order - another valid
> ... and there
> are also indications that the balneo section is
> misordered in other ways.
I like to think that the second folio should have
been the first (it is text-only). Then the nine
'bullets' could refer to the nine following
illustrated pages (an as yet unexplored possiblity).
Again, there is counter-evidence against this
proposals namely the quire number on
the outer bifolio. (I see now that my original
E-mail was a bit too "condensed").
> (2) The crude "heavy painting" (ie not fine details,
> like the nymphs'
> mouths and cheeks) was done once the current binding
> was in place.
> Evidence: all the bleed-across between pages, the
> observation that we see
> bleed-across between Currier A bifolios and Currier
> B bifolios, and the
> fact that we only see bleed-across in places where
> we would expect from the
> current binding.
I'm not so sure that this is necessarily any
evidence. Bleed-through only started after the
book was bound and the pages pressed together.
Much more cannot be concluded I think.
> (3) The VMs' alphabet is strongly influenced by
> Tironian notae, and not
> influenced by Arabic numerals at all. Evidence: the
> word-initial and
> word-final EVA <y> seems a direct steal, and EVA
> <d>, <q>, <o> and <y> were
> plainly not conceived as numbers.
Pure speculation, in my humble opinion.
> (5) The foliation is in a mid-Renaissance schooled
> hand, the Latinised
> quiration is in a hasty early Renaissance academic
> or monastic hand.
> Evidence: just look at them.
There is no doubt that the foliation was done after
all the pages were in the current order, and folded.
There is also little doubt that the quire marks
are earlier. But why write quire marks when the
pages are already out of order?
Note that this is the question I raised in the
earlier mail, for which I have no answer.
> (A) Pre-1500, a document is constructed. Only a
> little colour is used
> (though perhaps some colours faded, but might still
> be detectable by different scanning techniques?)
It may have been incomplete and not yet bound.
evidence for the separate stages in colouring
is not that clear to me.
> (B) The document is rebound
Or bound for the first time.
> (D) Post-1500, the document has quire signatures
Adding quire marks after binding is odd. And in that
case it would have made far more sense that they
were all in the same place (lower corner of last
folio in quire), which they are not.
> (E) Post-1550 (say), the document has foliation
The scenario you present is largely plausible,
but it is not the only plausible one, I would
Best wishes, Rene
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying: