Re: VMs: Repeats and Blitherings

[Nick Pelling <incoming@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 15:43 24/06/2004 +0100, I wrote:
> So, perhaps the original ms was made in the way you describe - that would 
> make sense. However, that wouldn't be consistent with what we know about 
> the folio layout and structure of the VMs as it stands.

To be more precise: perhaps the precedent (?) manuscript (from which, as 
Philip Neal suggests, the VMs was likely copied) was written in a pre-bound 
booklet in the way that you describe - that would be quite sensible. 
However, there seems to be no evidence supporting the idea that the VMs 
itself was physically constructed in this way - what evidence there is 
suggests otherwise.

Regardless, it would still be revealing to test the idea of whether the VMs 
was written page-by-page or one-bifolio-at-a-time. Why not compare the 
<f2v-was-followed-by-f3r> hypothesis with the <f2v-was-followed-by-f7r> 
hypothesis? Only one is likely to be true... 


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