- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
Dimensions and trimming of the MS
- Dimensions and trimming of the MS
-
RE: Dimensions and trimming of the MS
ReneZ > 27-09-2020, 04:35 AM
(26-09-2020, 08:34 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In both old and new scans, the edge of folio 8 throws shadow upon the underlying folio, which means they are not pressed to each other. If they were, there would have been no shadow.
There would have been no shadow, but the gap between the ink marks would not become smaller.
If anything, through the camera perspective, it could become marginally bigger. -
RE: Dimensions and trimming of the MS
Anton > 27-09-2020, 01:32 PM
I made some experiments creating my own bifolios and mimicking the process that I suggested. It appears that this is all a bit complicated.
Supposing that the quire marks are left after the quire binding (stitching) was done, three things lead to the shift of the written part in the upper folio in respect of the part in the lower folio:
1) The binding loosens (or the quire is rebound), leading to the inner bifolio shifting sidewards from the outer bifolio.
2) The binding loosens (or the quire is rebound), leading to the inner bifolio shifting downwards from the outer bifolio.
3) The upper folio gets excessively contorted (e.g. due to the aging)
If all three factors act at once, their effect is accumulating to the same direction.
Clause 2) will additionally leave an y-axis gap between the two parts (we observe the y-axis gap in Q1 and Q3 marks (but not in Q15)).
However, in all three cases the upper part will shift towards the binding. This is what we see in Q3 and Q15. In Q1 the shift is in the opposite direction - outwards from the binding. I was not able to explain this so far. Maybe there's a local downward curvature of f8 in this place. -
RE: Dimensions and trimming of the MS
Wladimir D > 02-10-2020, 09:53 AM
-
RE: Dimensions and trimming of the MS
Linda > 02-10-2020, 03:02 PM
I suppose it is possible to have lain the flower folio over the other one and gone over the top edge. Funny how the creases line up, but otherwise is a random place, if it is the same crease, the folios were not cut vertically in the same places. Maybe they caught on each other. Doesnt have to be the same crease for that to occur. So my guess is that it is two pieces from a larger skin, but they were already cut when that happened, and then there was further trimming, as the flower has even less of a top now. The bit to the right has a different opacity, does seem to extend nearer to the edge, but doesnt correspond with the flower, so not sure what is going on there, maybe it is from the bottom of another, laid directly on top?
By the way did anyone ever contact the biocodicology people that are working on the dna database for vellum from eraser crumbs? Seems to me this case would be interesting to test to see if it is the same skin. Plus if enough pages were tested i think we would gain other answers (possibly to questions not yet asked) -
RE: Dimensions and trimming of the MS
Wladimir D > 25-10-2020, 05:06 PM
The promised blog on the use of scissors and a pocket knife. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Conclusion.
Sheets 12, 74, bifolio 109 - 110, Quire 12 are specially cut. This happened simultaneously for a unified purpose (apparently for the presentation of samples). These four examples are united by the fact that the central pages of the notebooks were removed. This is the easiest way to preserve the safety of both the book and the deleted sheets. -
RE: Dimensions and trimming of the MS
Jorge_Stolfi > 29-12-2025, 07:50 PM
(26-09-2020, 06:26 AM)Wladimir D Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Conclusions I have come to
4 / Another period (reason) for undercutting with a clerical knife, seen on page f90r2, when too much parchment has been removed.
Detailing Wladimir's remark about f90r2/f90v2:
Description: On the BL 2014 images the panel f90r2 is 3496 pixels tall next to the W edge (a bit less than panel f90r1) and 3284 pixels near the E edge. Assuming the scale of 235/2534 = 0.0927 mm/pixel, that means ~235 mm and ~221 mm, respectively. Some of the difference may be due to parallax, as the folio seems to be bent convexly and sloping away from the camera for lack of support. However the ~14 mm difference may be real,due to the top and bottom edges having been cut away; see below.
With the bend and slope caveat, the panel is 2268 pixels wide near the N edge, and 2321 near the S edge; which would be ~152 mm and ~156 mm, respectively.
The vellum near the N and S edges is clean, unlike that of f90r1 which has a dark "dirty old" halo, ~2 mm wide or more, along those edges. The top edge of the f90r2 panel is slanted and looks like a sliver was cut out of it with 7 sharp cuts. Each cut, except the last one at the E end, is practically straight for most of the length, but in the last ~3 mm it bends up by ~1.5 mm and meets the next cut, forming a sharp corner with obtuse or traight angle. The first cut starts at ~10 mm from the west edge (the fold that separates this panel from f90r1); that part of the N edge has the "dirty old" halo. The lengths of the cuts (from end to end, including the final bend) are ~18 mm, ~18 mm, ~22 mm, ~24 mm, ~23 mm, ~24 mm, and ~15 mm. The portion that was cut away from the top may be a triangular sliver ~145 mm wide and ~10 mm tall at the E end.
The S edge of the f90r2 panel too seems to have been cut. There seem to have been one smooth cut from the W edge, ~115 mm wide, that ends abruptly, then a second cut that starts ~0.5 mm lower and continues to the E edge. The cuts are slightly curved, but that may be due to vellum curvature. The part that was cut away may have been another triangular sliver ~150 mm wide and ~4 mm tall at the E end.
The E edge is somewhat irregular and has a broad "dirty old" halo, ~5 mm wide.
Interpretation: The regularity of shape and relative straightness of the cuts along the N and S edges suggest that they were done with a scissor, rather than with a razor or pen-knife over a solid support. The lack of the "dirty old" halo suggests that the cuts were not contemporaneous with the writing of the manuscript but were relatively recent.
The "dirty old" band along the E edge is a bit too broad. Could it be that folio f90 had a third flap, f90.3, that was cut away along the fold, or broke off from much folding?
All the best, --stolfi -
RE: Dimensions and trimming of the MS
Jorge_Stolfi > 3 hours ago
(27-09-2016, 09:31 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I include the figure here:
Maybe someone already did this plot, but anyway here it goes again:
The sizes are in pixels of Rene's GIF image.
It seems that the sizes cluster close to the aspect ratio heigh/width = sqrt(2) ≈ 1.414 (the straight diagonal line).
That is the ratio of the ISO "A"-series paper sizes. It has the property that f you divide a sheet with that aspect ratio in half, each half again has the same aspect ratio.
Moreover, there seems to be some clustering just below certain sizes. With my superior pareidolia, I can see two series of book sizes, the blue rectangles and the green rectangles. Could these be two regional sizes? Or maybe one is for vellum, the other for parchment?
In each series the dimensions are related by powers of sqrt(2), as if the bifolios were obtained from a standard raw sheet size, with the "A" aspect ratio, by zero or more halvings and rotations. Each book would be eventually trimmed to get even folio edges, so the final size would be a few mm less than the ideal dimension predicted by this theory.
The two series seem to be offset by a factor close to sqrt(sqrt(2)). That is, the size of each blue rectangle is the geometric mean of the two nearest green rectangles, and vice-versa. (I may note that computing sqrt(2) and the geometric mean of two lengths are basic exercises of Euclidean geometry.)
All the best, --stolfi
Quote:A = Med.Gr.1, ONB, Vienna
B = Voss.Lat. Q.9, Leiden
C = Graecus 1, Napoli
D = MS Grec 2179, BN Paris
E = MS Plut. 73.41, Bibl. Medicea Laurenziana, Florence
F = CLM 337, Munich
G = Ms M 652, Pierpont Morgan library
H = MS Bodley 130
J = MS Harley 1585
K = Cod. Vind. 93, ONB, Vienna
L = MS or. Arabe 4947, BN Paris
M = MS Plut. 73.16, Bibl. Medicea Laurenziana, Florence
N = Egerton 747
O = MS Lat. 6823, BN Paris
P = Ms.Canon Misc.408, Bodleian, Oxford
Q = MS 459, Bibl. Casanatense, Roma
R = MS Aldini 211, Pavia
S = Egerton 2020
T = Chigi F. VII 159, BA Vaticana
U = MS 106, Bibl. Dip. Di Botanica dell'Universita, Florence
V = MS Lat 17844, BN Paris
W = MS Hebr. 1199, BN Paris
Z = Voynich MS.