07-05-2020, 10:45 AM
Related to the paper, but not its main topic (hand identification), I noted the collation of the MS.
The minor point is that quires have been numbered 1-18. That of course reflects the physical layout of the MS as we have it today. The quires 16-18 have quire marks that indicate different numbers, namely:
16 has "17th"
17 has "19th"
18 has "20th"
but this certainly reflects some earlier collation of the MS that we don't know.
What really triggered my interest was that the missing folios 91, 92, 97 and 98 were 'grouped with' quire 16.
I understand that this may be a conventional approach, since the collation does not count lost quires. There is no other place to account for them.
It could even work, in case there were two more bifolios outside what is now quire 16, namely 92/97 and 91/98.
However, that does not really work, because it puts the wrong quire mark (17 instead of 16) on a quire-internal folio.
The minor point is that quires have been numbered 1-18. That of course reflects the physical layout of the MS as we have it today. The quires 16-18 have quire marks that indicate different numbers, namely:
16 has "17th"
17 has "19th"
18 has "20th"
but this certainly reflects some earlier collation of the MS that we don't know.
What really triggered my interest was that the missing folios 91, 92, 97 and 98 were 'grouped with' quire 16.
I understand that this may be a conventional approach, since the collation does not count lost quires. There is no other place to account for them.
It could even work, in case there were two more bifolios outside what is now quire 16, namely 92/97 and 91/98.
However, that does not really work, because it puts the wrong quire mark (17 instead of 16) on a quire-internal folio.