[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: VMs: Possible explanation for Quire 20...

Hi Rene,

At 23:26 27/06/2004 -0700, Rene Zandbergen wrote:
--- Nick Pelling <incoming@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Yet Quire 20 doesn't apparently fit this pattern:-
> (3) the quire signature's handwriting is different
> from the majority of  quire signatures

Are you sure? This is the first time that this has
been suggested. Which particular features give
this impression to you?

John Grove first mentioned this: apart from 19 & 20, quire signatures are written in Latinised Arabic numerals in a 15th century hand, probably monastic:
pm9, 29, 39, 49 (the "l"-shaped four is typical), etc

19 and 20 are signed in a Renaissance hand similar in style to (but quite different in detail from) the foliation hand. The 0, 1, 2, and (especially) the 9 shapes are different. Barbara, what do you think?

> (6) (also) the quire's central bifolio (f109/f110)
> is missing.

Also not a unique feature.

If the bifolios in quire 8 were lost in the 20th century, actually it is a unique feature. :-)

This fails to explain the _very_ thing that you
find surprising: the location of the quire signature.
It is still in the wrong place.

No, it explains:
(a) where the original quire signature was placed (in the correct place)
(b) where it ended up (on the innermost bifolio after being rebound inside out)
(c) why the new quire signature was added (the outside of the quire was unsigned)
(d) why the new quire signature was in a different hand (it was written later)

Also, if Baresch included this bifolio in the bundle he sent to Kircher, then we also have an explanation for why it's missing and where it ended up (even if we don't have a copy). :-)

Cheers, .....Nick Pelling.....

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