RE: VMs: F66r

[Nick Pelling <incoming@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi everyone,

At 06:09 14/06/2004 -0700, John Grove wrote:
> > Quire 9 is the best proof of that. The whole
> > bifolio was shifted one 'page' too far to the
> > left when bound putting the final verso
> > page with the quire number as the first page
> > of the quire instead of the last...
At 06:09 14/06/2004 -0700, Rene Zandbergen wrote:
> Now I see what you mean. That would certainly
> explain one of the 'mislaid' quire markings!

Surely the simplest explanation would be that when the quires had quire 
signatures added, the quires were loose and f67r (the first two-panel 
fold-out in quire 9) was folded around the remainder of the quire. From 
that, I infer that the whole quire was not only loose at that time, but 
also *back to front*. Think about it - a quire containing double fold-out 
panels folded over would superficially look more "complete" when reversed.

However, between the times when the quire signatures were added and when 
the foliation was added, quire 9 got reversed once again, to its current 
"proper" orientation. To my eyes, this points to the foliation and 
quiration being done at separate times.

All in all, I conclude that quire 9's misplaced quire signature suggests 
that the quiration was added at a time when the quires were loose (or 
perhaps individually bound), by someone who only superficially examined the 
whole ms - and that the foliation was added later, probably after the VMs 
had been bound into its current form.

At 06:09 14/06/2004 -0700, Rene Zandbergen wrote:
> It leaves the mystery of quire 8: were there really
> three more bifolios, once?

Is there any reason not to to take the foliation at good faith? Perhaps 
these are some of the fabled "missing pages" from the 1920s... :-)

Cheers, .....Nick Pelling..... 

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