Re: VMs: Re: Important

["GC" <gc-@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

John, I simply numbered the bifolios one up as they currently exist in the
VMS.  Quire 1 consists of bifolios 1, 2, 3, and 4, quire 2 has 5, 6, 7, 8,
etc., in order.  I had no previous numbering scheme to work with.

GC


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Grove" <John@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2004 6:41 PM
Subject: RE: VMs: Re: Important


>
> GC, I hate to ask but how are you numbering your bifolios? Is f1r/f8v
> bifolio One, f2r/f7v bifolio Two etc...? Then do you count the reverse
sides
> so that f8r/f1v is bifolio Five followed by f7r/f2v? I'd like to know
> which folios you're talking about below.
>
> John.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx]On
> Behalf Of GC
> Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2004 8:16 PM
> To: vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: VMs: Re: Important
>
>
> NIck wrote:
>
> > I suspect you're underestimating the importance of reverting the
bifolios
> > back to their original order (and to their original binding positions,
in
> > the case of quire 9) here, as well as the importance of seeing the VMs'
> > images without an additional layer of misleading paint.
>
> That is, assuming the painter and the author were different.  Or the
author,
> painter, and illustrator were different.  If I'm correct and the bifolios
> were filled in when flat (I'm not saying there wasn't some plan to the
later
> bifolios, just the herbal section), then painting them while flat would be
> the easiest way to go.  You may be underestimating the toll almost 500
years
> of weathering can have on a book, even in a box.
>
> > What we're looking at - even in the sidfiles - is still a secondary
> > document obscured by these accreted layers: for example, your
> > interpretation of the pharma pages is acutely dependent on who coloured
> > what and when. Did the original author only draw the herbal plants'
> > outlines? Did the original author paint the cosmology section? And so
on.
>
> Not my interpretation, I think.  Without color many of the plants are
> recognizable as copies of those found in the herbal section.  Remember, we
> made a lot of these connections in black and white.  Color adds a layer of
> interest and intrigue to be sure, but we have some experience in viewing
the
> information without regard to color.  What I'm looking for here is any
> evidence that there was more than one party involved in VMS construction.
> The VMS has features that speak against the old "one guy printed text and
> left space for drawings, the next guy drew and the next colored".   Many
> things about this book say it was a low-budget personal production,
"Attack
> of the Killer Tomatoes" versus "Star Wars", something on that level.  That
> it was constructed over a period of time, something akin to a personal
> journal, and not a scribal shop copy made for resale or commissioned by a
> rich patron.
>
> Go through and count all the damage to the vellum that existed previous to
> the writing or drawings.  Look at the ragged edges on short pages, and the
> trimmed edges on long pages, trimming sometimes cutting into words.  The
> vellum was damaged and repaired before use, the edges were ragged and
> non-conforming.  A scribal shop would have discarded this or found another
> use for it, like binding filler, etc., but would not have included such
> material in anything they sold as a copy.  If you think so, point out one
> book known to be a commissioned copy that incorporates this low-quality
> vellum.
>
> I've been through this on the handwriting before, but to say it again, I
did
> thousands of overlays of words and glyphs, trying to identify one hand
from
> the other.  Because I can't find it doesn't mean it isn't there, but my
> distinct impression is that we're dealing with the same author over a
period
> of time, when the handwriting changes to a degree.  There's other evidence
> as well.  Some sections start out nice and ruled, but as the paragraphs
> progress, they're slanted, cramped, and no longer neat and straight.
> There's a lot more to look at, but how much time are we talking?  My
> impression is that we're looking at a period of years, not hours or days.
>
> > By reconstructing the original order and structure of even a handful of
> > quires, we can start to build up the page-by-page context of the VMs: in
> > the herbal section, that might allow us to develop an understanding of
the
> > visual themes of quires far beyond what we can currently see.
>
> I agree with the premise.
>
> > >   All I needed to know is whether the thing was
> > >written folio by folio as it is bound, or by flat bifolio.  I do
remember
> > >getting a little laugh out of myself when I realized that the back
sides
> of
> > >the bifolios weren't necessarily written directly after the front
sides.
> >
> > Are you asserting here that all bifolios were usually written one side
at
> a
> > time, as opposed to both sides at a time? Do you remember roughly which
> > bifolios you were looking at that supported this view?
>
> No, that's not my assertion at all.  I have limited my comments
specifically
> to the herbal section, where each folio is a unit of thought, so order is
> not paramount.  These were written bifolio-flat, one side at a time.  I
> haven't delved into the other sections as deeply, but there is some
evidence
> that bifolios were written one side at a time on other occasions as well,
> primarily on bifolios that exhibit volvelles or thematic drawings.  This
> doesn't mean there was no overall plan or scheme for a quire, only that
the
> author had the book disassembled when he filled in the folios.  The last
> quire would be the one I'd question in regard to my hypothesis, but we
don't
> know yet if the stars section is in the right order, or that it even
> requires an order to be read.   I haven't run any tests on the text in
this
> section.  I've said before though, that I don't think the book started out
> with any real outline or plan - this was something that developed as the
> writing went on.  Because I see something in one section, it doesn't mean
> the other sections are obliged to follow the same rules.  What you guys
are
> doing with the later sections may be far more appropriate for those
sections
> that what I did with the herbal section, since they're not from the same
> time in the author's life.
>
> You've forced me to dig up some notes I made back when this was fresh in
my
> mind, so here's what I know.
>
> Bifolios 10, 12, 20 and 24 are a set.  I'd have to do some pretty fancy
> figuring to tell you which came first, the chicken or the egg, but these
are
> an [a1] set.  11, 13, 24 and 27 are an [a1] set.  14, 18, 21 and 23 are a
> [b1] set.  Bifolio 17 as a misplaced [b1] sits in the midst of these, but
> has no connection.   24 and 27 were my interest at the time, so I know
these
> were written consecutively in their order.  Several others exhibit
> connections between one side of the bifolio and a side of another bifolio,
> as if they were in a stack of blank bifolios, illustrated, text added, all
> on one side, then the stack was flipped over.
>
> What caught my eye about these numbers is that they are groups of four,
and
> four bifolios form a quire. I also didn't miss the fact that the [a1]
> groupings were even and odd in their present order, but I never attached a
> meaning to this.
>
> Remember, this was back when I'd just finished my tedious transcription of
> the herbal section, and started playing with the data to see what came up
> that was missed before.  You may have enough encoded detail in EVA to do
the
> same analysis, and extend it to the remainder of the VMS.  You get strange
> words occurring, them go several pages and find them again.  The same with
> variants and wierdoes, separated by several pages.  Then you go back and
say
> aha, they may be separated by many pages, but they're on the same side of
> the same bifolio.  That wouldn't be normal if the herbal folios were
written
> as bound pages.
>
> > FWIW, to my eyes, the thematic groupings from page to page (ie between
> > bifolios, such as in the balneo section) and this idea (of text's being
> > written one bifolio side at a time) seem fairly incompatible in a
primary
> > document - that is, the content is inter-bifolio, yet the writing is
> > intra-bifolio, which I think supports the idea of the document's having
> > been copied in some way.
>
> I think I've covered that, at least to my satisfaction.  Simply because
> somthing is happening in the herbal section doesn't mean it is elsewhere,
> even when we see the author picking up visual cues from the left side of a
> bifolio to the right.  He may have had the bifolios loose in a quire, and
> took them out to write upon consecutively, folio by folio, in other
> sections.  The real test would be to see if the text demonstrates any
> connection to the other half of the bifolio.  I've never made the "copy"
> connection, and I don't think what I've been saying points to it.  I
always
> thought I was saying that the VMS started out an herbal, but became
> something different, more comprehensive, as the author's knowledge grew.
>
> GC
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Nick Pelling" <incoming@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2004 3:48 AM
> Subject: Re: VMs: Re: Important
>
>
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > At 22:28 25/06/2004 -0600, GC wrote:
> > >There are even some clues in this presentation that lean toward certain
> > >herbal bifolios, both in [a] and in [b], being closely associated, but
> not
> > >in the right order or sequence of writing.  I don't remember if I put
> this
> > >list of folios on the VMS-list, or simply jotted it down on some now
lost
> > >personal page, but I know I ran some numbers that argued very strongly
> for a
> > >different ordering of herbal bifolios than what is presented in the VMS
> as
> > >it currently stands.  I do know I walked away from the excursion
> reasonably
> > >certain that the VMS herbal section was written bifolio flat, one side
at
> a
> > >time.  There are more definitive ways of looking at this that would
help
> > >clear up some of these questions, but I never followed through because
> the
> > >exact order of individual herbal bifolios has little bearing (to me) on
> > >what's encoded in the text.
> >
> > I suspect you're underestimating the importance of reverting the
bifolios
> > back to their original order (and to their original binding positions,
in
> > the case of quire 9) here, as well as the importance of seeing the VMs'
> > images without an additional layer of misleading paint.
> >
> > What we're looking at - even in the sidfiles - is still a secondary
> > document obscured by these accreted layers: for example, your
> > interpretation of the pharma pages is acutely dependent on who coloured
> > what and when. Did the original author only draw the herbal plants'
> > outlines? Did the original author paint the cosmology section? And so
on.
> >
> > By reconstructing the original order and structure of even a handful of
> > quires, we can start to build up the page-by-page context of the VMs: in
> > the herbal section, that might allow us to develop an understanding of
the
> > visual themes of quires far beyond what we can currently see.
> >
> > >   All I needed to know is whether the thing was
> > >written folio by folio as it is bound, or by flat bifolio.  I do
remember
> > >getting a little laugh out of myself when I realized that the back
sides
> of
> > >the bifolios weren't necessarily written directly after the front
sides.
> >
> > Are you asserting here that all bifolios were usually written one side
at
> a
> > time, as opposed to both sides at a time? Do you remember roughly which
> > bifolios you were looking at that supported this view?
> >
> > FWIW, to my eyes, the thematic groupings from page to page (ie between
> > bifolios, such as in the balneo section) and this idea (of text's being
> > written one bifolio side at a time) seem fairly incompatible in a
primary
> > document - that is, the content is inter-bifolio, yet the writing is
> > intra-bifolio, which I think supports the idea of the document's having
> > been copied in some way.
> >
> > 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
> ---
> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.711 / Virus Database: 467 - Release Date: 25/06/2004
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.711 / Virus Database: 467 - Release Date: 25/06/2004
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 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