Re: VMs: Repeats and Blitherings

["GC" <gc-@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Just one other thought along this line - if there were naturally blank pages
between the sections, and then the bifolios were reordered, wouldn't there
be blank pages showing up in places?  A single page is usually 1/4 of a
bifolio, and one would not assume that a section separated by blank pages
would always fill exactly a quire of bifolios, or that the blank pages would
exactly correspond to the placement of an entire bifolio.

I don't see this, but I do agree that the sections were probably composed
and maintained separately.  The fact that statistical scripts usually
correspond to individual sections agrees with the "separate composition"
theory.  I've held that these were composed at different times, not
differently but simultaneously.

GC


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "GC" <gc-@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 8:11 PM
Subject: Re: VMs: Repeats and Blitherings


> 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

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