Re: VMs: Repeats and Blitherings

["GC" <gc-@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Barbara wrote:

> You're welcome ;-)
> I've a personal notion that the vms was composed directly into a pre-bound
> blank book. The author kept his sections seperate and there were naturally
> blank pages between the sections. Then, much later, whomever it was who
> rebound the mss tried to "tidy it up" by ommiting the unwritten upon
pages -
> that would mean reordering the bifolios into new quires - and thus
creating
> the impression there are missing folios.
> Just a notion ;-)
> Barbara

The fact that the bifolios are composed in [a] and [b] scripts, and no
single bifolio has them mixed, indicates that the book could not have been
bound at the time of composition.  If the book were pre-bound, we would have
a situation where the author used one statistical script to write two
folios, then change to another statistical script for a few folios, and then
back to the first script again, always getting the bifolio pages to
correspond to the correct statistical script.  On the other hand, if the
folios were once bound together properly but are now rebound incorrectly,
this argument would be partially resolved.  A few exceptions remain, such as
the same script on the same side of certain bifolios, that would be
difficult to do if the same side of the bifolio were not constructed
consecutively before it was bound, f57v and 66r come to mind, if memory
serves me correctly on the foliation.  Questions still remain, and the
answer may be that there is a mixture of things going on in the
construction.  If these two sections of the bifolio were intended originally
as facing pages in the middle of a quire, this would answer to your sense of
construction, but I'm not the expert on this topic Jon (without an h) Grove
is, so I'll leave it to him to answer these satisfactorily.  Jon?

GC

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