[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: "OT/Local" VMs: What's Missing or Different? What Conventions are There?
Hi John, Steve and all
Here is an excerpt of page 304 of the catalogue of medieval and renaissance manuscripts Beinecke library Yale vol.II (Mss 251-500) written by Barbara Shailor (MRTS, new York, 1987), about MS 408:
"Parchment. ff. 102 (foliation, s. xvi, Arabic numerals; not every leaf foliated) + i (paper), including 5 double-folio, 3 triple-folio, 1 quadruple-folio and 1 sextuple-folio folding leaves. 225x160mm."
"Collation is difficult, due to the number of fold-out leaves that are not always foliated consistently. I-VII8 (f.12 missing), VIII4 (leaves foliated 59 through 64 missing from center of quire), IX2 (double and triple fold-out leaves), X2 (1 triple fold-out), XI2 ( 1 quadruple fold-out), XII2 (f.74 missing, followed by stubs of conjugate leaves), XIII10, XIV1 (sextuple fold-out), XV4 ( 1 triple and 1 double fold-out), XV4
( 1 triple and 1 double fold-out), XVI4 ( 1 double fold-out; ff.91,92,97,98 missing, 2 stubs between 94 and 95), XVII4 ( 2 double fold-outs, XVIII12 (ff. 109-110, central bifolium, missing)."
Koontz John E <John.Koontz@xxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit:
On Thu, 26 May 2005, steve ekwall wrote:
> (NOTE: NOTHING IS MISSING [per your below](per folding)) ...
We may not be on the same wavelength here. I meant missing in the sense
of a practice or custom not followed that one might expect would have been
followed. The expressing "nothing is missing" suggests you interpreted me
to mean missing in the sense of taken away. I just meant conventions
omitted, not material.
Découvrez le nouveau Yahoo! Mail : 1 Go d'espace de stockage pour vos mails, photos et vidéos !
Créez votre Yahoo! Mail