RE: VMs: F66r

[Nick Pelling <incoming@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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
> than
> 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