[Article] [Article]: New article by Layfield & Davis

[LisaFaginDavis]

Here's my chart showing bifolia, quires, scribes, and sections. This will be published in our forthcoming book, but since that's still a year away from being published, I'm happy to share the diagram here. Those of you who are interested in following up on our findings may find it useful.

Thank you!  

But you have the missing folios 91,92 and 97,98 as two separate singulion quires (16 and 18) bracketing quire 17.  Why have you chosen that arrangement, rather than having 91+98 and 92+97 as the two outer bifolios of quire 17?

Because of the "17us" on f96v?  But could it be that those two bifolios were lost after the folio numbers were written, but before the quire numbers were written?  And whoever wrote the quire numbers misinterpreted the missing folio numbers as two missing singulion quires, rather than two missing bifolios of quire 17?

All the best, --stolfi

The folio numbers were written several hundred years later than the quire numbers. Since the quire numbers were written first, the missing leaves must have been singulion bifolios.