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

Re: Page/quire order, was RE: VMs: F66r



Hi Rene,

At 06:21 15/06/2004 -0700, Rene Zandbergen wrote:
--- Nick Pelling <incoming@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.

This "one correct order possible" statement is
interesting enough to test it out. Could you find it
back?

I couldn't find it trivially (sorry), but will try again later - though, actually, it wasn't particularly hard to work out... once you try it out, it becomes clear what's going on quite quickly.


Another interesting statement you made, which
deserves closer examination, is that there is more
colour imprinting onto adjacent pages in
one direction than the other. If true, it is another
useful piece of the puzzle.

I only noticed this a few days ago, when looking at my marked-up CopyFlo: however, I really need to ditch all that and instead go through the sid-files looking for bleed-across.


Thinking out loud a second... if anyone industrious (and with a complete set of sidfiles) is looking for a useful VMs-related job to do, might I suggest volunteering to produce a definitive list of "bleed-across page pairs"? If we have multiple volunteers, perhaps they can split the VMs between them? (Note that most I found were in the herbal section).

This is what I did: I compared every page in the CopyFlo with its following page and its preceding page. The first stage is to eliminate those colours that had bled *through* the page: I then compared every unexplained mark / stain / blot with the facing page, looking for a symmetrically placed feature which might have caused it.

Though this sounds quite straightforward, you can end up with some very subtle matches. For example, I marked up a tiny match between f2v and f3r: a thin branch springing from the right-hand side of the stem of the water-lily-like-plant on f2v, which also appears (reflected) on the facing page (f3r). However, when you look at the same feature in the new scans, it seems as though this was not done by the heavy painter, but instead by the original author (apparently in the original line ink!) - evidence that these two pages (at least) are in the originally intended order.

Sometimes you can even see a little bleed-across from missing pages, like from the page facing f58v. :-)

Any volunteers for this arduous task?

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

You can't refold that bifolio to put the quire mark
in the "right" place.

So what other sensible theories are there for why quire 20's signature is in the wrong place?


> Furthermore, the balneo quire (quire 13) is signed
> on an out of order page,

No, it's in the "right" place.

Erm... if the pages are out of order, then it's in the wrong place. :-)


Finally, what are these extra herbal pages doing
towards the end of the MS? For me, another
good argument that the current page order in
the MS is not correct.

On this occasion, my crystal ball is cloudy, sorry. :-)


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

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