Re: VMs: Repeats and Blitherings

["GC" <gc-@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

One last thought (I promise) on this topic, but it keeps slipping my mind -
shuffling through the folios, it appears that there may be some relative
correspondence between some bifolios and the repaired damage.  I haven't had
time to compare them, but if this is so, this might serve as a tool in
answering some of these lingering questions.  Keep it in the back of your
mind, but don't keep losing it as I did?

GC

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "GC" <gc-@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 9:07 PM
Subject: Re: VMs: Repeats and Blitherings


> 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

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