Re: VMs: F66r

["Jeff" <jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

When and if you get the pizza you guys will be having a food fight with it.

Jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: "Nick Pelling" <incoming@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 15 June 2004 10:40
Subject: 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
> >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

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