If it's 15 (which seems every bit as possible as "h"), then there is some unaccounted-for dark blob above where the stem of the "1" would end.
Now, if it is 15, then there might be an explanation for the blob... Scribes quite frequently put a dot above the number 1, but I can't tell from the scan... the "dot" might be a wormhole or other parchment anomaly.
.
If it is 15, it's an atypical style, a little too long (I'm not saying it can't be 15, it's possible, even "5" is possible, but the stem is longer and straighter than the more common styles and doesn't have as long of a top-bar as the other VMS foliation numbers). It's pretty messy. I really can't tell, but if it is "h", then it's a calligraphic "h" and if it is "5" then it is likely added in the 15th to 17th centuries (it's the later form, not the earlier form).
My numerals database isn't as extensive as my letters database, but the closest one I could that was similar to the shape (if it is "5") is from c. 1470, with the foliation probably added in the 16th or maybe the early 17th century. Origin unknown. If I find any better examples, I'll post.
I guess the very short top-bar could be explained as well, if it is the same foliator... if the person wrote 5 with the vertical part first, and then added the top-bar, I suppose it's possible they started to add it and then stopped because they realized it was the wrong number. Erased it and wrote 16 instead.
No that explanation won't do.
The foliator is surely the same (why would it be another foliator for this specific folio?!), but the fact is that pagination is systematically in the margin. I inspected the first three quires to ascertain that, and with the exception of You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. and You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. all page numbers are in the margin (although sometimes quite marginally). In the cases of You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. and You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. they are not in the margin overall, but they are strictly in the margin in respect of the first paragraph - and asymmetry of the respective vellum sheets would explain these two cases away.
There's actually something strange in You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. as well. To the right from the folio number 15 there is, quite near to where the sheet is cut, some piece of writing resembling the letter "b" or, if only the left portion thereof is considered, resembling exactly the shape of the digit "1" as in "15". In the new Beinecke scan, the band is right over this place making it harder to inspect. In the old scan the band is shifted to the left, exposing this place. This is seen in Wladimir's title post, second image.
This is something observed by Wladimir, I post figures for better understanding.
f15r:
[
attachment=3930]
f16r:
[
attachment=3931]
So what's going on here?
Wladimir suggests that after You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. was initially pagenumbered, the user trimmed its right margin (or, which is the same thing, the left margin of f15v) to conceal something that was written in that margin. Insofar the digit "5" from the page number got trimmed, he placed the new numbering to the left.
But then why You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. was initially labeled "15"?
Interesting. This '5' on folio 16 was discussed here before, I think.
In any case, I would prefer to separate the 'what we see' from 'what we think that happened'. It is useful to look at the 2014 scans:
[
attachment=3932]
What I posted is the same 2014 scan, I just cropped it to the folio edge, so that You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. would not interfere.
(26-01-2020, 12:42 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Interesting. This '5' on folio 16 was discussed here before, I think.
Ah yes, indeed, with myself partiipating very actively in the discussion. I totally forgot about that.
I will merge the two threads.
All page numbers are placed in the upper right corner. But this does not follow the number 15. The initial number 1 is no doubt present on f15r. So where did 5 go?
I even considered the possibility that sheets 15 and 16 were glued together, and with the initial numbering, the number 1 remained at 15r, and 5 turned out to be 16r. But a 2-digit number is washed away at 16r and for me (unlike Nick P), this most of all looks like 13.
Another argument for trimming a sheet is that the corners parchment of page 15r do not have wear (turning a corner into a sector), which we see on the surrounding pages.
[attachment=3936]
The absence of wear as such does not yet manifest trimming. Were the folio initially of lesser width than others, the effect would have been the same. What speaks of trimming is the "1" left by the very edge.