ChenZheChina > 03-12-2018, 03:37 AM
(29-11-2018, 10:52 AM)VViews Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Oops!
The Grove comment was not from the interlinear file but from the old mailing list.
I can't link to posts from there, so here's a screenshot:
ReneZ > 03-12-2018, 08:05 AM
(03-12-2018, 03:37 AM)ChenZheChina Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If I’m not mistaking anything, it seems that the only evidence is the mis-placed gathering mark.
ChenZheChina > 03-12-2018, 09:03 AM
(03-12-2018, 08:05 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Indeed and I had almost forgotten about that point.
Whoever wrote the gathering marks clearly intended the binding to be in the place that is now the fold
in the middle of folio 67.
This writing of the gathering marks must have taken place before the binding and was probably the first preparatory step for this binding. The very presence of gathering marks means that the sheets were intended to be bound into a codex, stacked into quires (one way or another).
There are still unanswered questions. The early mix-up between herbal A and herbal B folios happened before the gathering marks were added. This is because, for example, the 5th quire mark is on a B folio.
There are several different possible explanations for this.
Wladimir D > 03-12-2018, 09:51 AM
-JKP- > 03-12-2018, 09:55 AM
(03-12-2018, 09:03 AM)ChenZheChina Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....
Does it mean that the one who wrote gathering marks (9n9 aka nonus) and the one who wrote page numbers (67, 68) might be different persons?
ChenZheChina > 03-12-2018, 10:14 AM
(03-12-2018, 08:05 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There are still unanswered questions. The early mix-up between herbal A and herbal B folios happened before the gathering marks were added. This is because, for example, the 5th quire mark is on a B folio.
There are several different possible explanations for this.
ChenZheChina > 03-12-2018, 10:23 AM
(03-12-2018, 09:55 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I've devoted quite a bit of time to researching this and I'm pretty confident that they were two different people. Not only did they use different styles for the numbers (old vs new style of numbers), but the handwriting is different.
VViews > 03-12-2018, 10:29 AM
(03-12-2018, 09:03 AM)ChenZheChina Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It is the first time I heard that gathering marks were written before the binding.
Does it mean that the one who wrote gathering marks (9n9 aka nonus) and the one who wrote page numbers (67, 68) might be different persons?
ReneZ > 03-12-2018, 11:51 AM
(03-12-2018, 10:14 AM)ChenZheChina Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(03-12-2018, 08:05 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There are still unanswered questions. The early mix-up between herbal A and herbal B folios happened before the gathering marks were added. This is because, for example, the 5th quire mark is on a B folio.
There are several different possible explanations for this.
Hi René,
I’m not sure about what do you mean by mix-up between Herbal A and Herbal B. For me, there are two understandings.