[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: VMs: F66r

Hi John,

At 18:37 14/06/2004 -0400, John Grove wrote:
(1) We have a document which appears to have been bound out of order.
Evidence: the well-known plumbing mismatch in the balneo section, and from
the Currier A/B bifolio mixups throughout the herbal section - and there
are also indications that the balneo section is misordered in other ways.

        > Um... yeah. The 'plumbing' mismatch and A/B mixups are speculative
assumptions that lead one to believe things are out of order, but hardly
offer proof. Sure, I would love to say the plumbing mismatch is absolute
evidence of mis-order - but it could just be coincidence that they line up
so neatly.

If you print out the (double-sided) balneo bifolios, fold them as they are folded now, but then reorder them to match all the various features together, you'll find that there is only one correct order possible. I described this on-list ages ago, IIRC.

Sure, that's still a "speculative assumption" - but unlike most, it's one grounded in close observation and actual experimentation. Perhaps "speculative assumption" is an irregular noun:
(I have a) hypothesis
(You (sing.) have a) speculative assumption
(He has a) ridiculous idea
(We have a) scientific consensus
(You (pl.) have an) alternative [but faulty] viewpoint
(They have a) mass delusion

> There is no evidence here to suggest that the quiration wasn't done by
the original author (as you suggest the numbering system used is much older
those in the foliation), I agree that the foliation certainly wasn't.

Errrm... what about the mislaid quire signatures? As I mentioned, I think quire 9 was back to front (with its outermost bifolio wrapped around the others) when it had its quire signature added: I don't think it likely that the original author would have got that so wrong.

Similarly, quire 20 was signed back to front, and that doesn't even have any fold-out pages to confuse the quire signer.

Furthermore, the balneo quire (quire 13) is signed on an out of order page, IIRC - which would mean that the pages were already out of order when the quires were signed.

I conclude that the quires were almost certainly signed after the bifolios had been misordered, by someone who only superficially examined the quires - and that the folios were numbered yet later by someone who examined them more closely (and who turned the back-to-front quires round the right way etc). The rough dating of the various hands (as described) supports this view.

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

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