Once in a while, you will come across an old printed book in which the pages still need to be cut apart along the top before you can read them. It makes you realise that book pages are printed four (or eight or even sixteen) at a time, on each side of a quadrifolium, before it is folded and sewn or glued into a book and finally cut. This printing technique is called “imposition” and is commonly used for modern books. When the multiplication is mechanic, this takes some planning only once, but the rest of the process is much faster. To write a manuscript on quadrifolia takes utmost attention for each sheet. Text had to be imposed in such a way that, after folding and cutting, the pages were found in the right sequence.
Quadrifolium, uncut
A few uncut quadrifolia with Latin text have been found in European
codices (sometimes as scrap-material strengthening a cover for
instance), mostly from the 15th century. They prove that European codices were sometimes put together in the same way modern books are printed. But it is a matter of debate
whether imposition was ever common practice in manuscript culture.
It is not clear why or how imposition was done exactly. Did one fill
the eight spaces in the sequence of the sense of the text, or in the sense of
the sheet, writing first on side 1 and then on side 2 of the large sheet? The first method
is called “natural sequence” or “sense sequence”. Its disadvantage is
that the scribe has to flip a quadrifolium four times, and turn it four
times to fill spaces 1 to 8 in the right order. Each time he or she must
wait to let the ink dry.
The second method is called page sequence. Its disadvantage is that the distribution of the
text is even more prone to mistakes than in the first method, even if the scribe follows a model. Codicologists of European books tend
to believe that writing in the sense-sequence was the preferred method.
There is no almost no evidence of imposition in the Arabic tradition. A
Leiden manuscript from the Maghrib, however, has three quadrifolia with
writing on them that are still intact.
About this manuscript
Title: Riḥlat al-munā wa’l-minna.
Classmark: Or. 14.050
Subject: Riḥla, travelogue
Author: Aḥmad ibn Ṭwayr al-Janna
Copyist: Aḥmad ibn Ṭwayr al-Janna
Format: Unbound codex
Extent: 76 folios, leaf height 225 mm, width 175 mm
Date of creation: Monday, 12 Rabīʿ (=1552 H/1834 CE)
Language(s): Arabic
Script: Maghribi
Aḥmad ibn Ṭwayr (or Uṭwayr) al-Janna (ca 1787-1848/9) was born in
Wādān, in today’s Mauritania, and died there too. His fame is based on
the travelogue, The Journey of Hope and Blessings, for
which this manuscript seems to have been a draft version. Although a
large part corresponds with the full text of later versions, the end of
the text in this manuscript consists of notes. (See lesson "Mouvance", a fair draft.)
That Or. 14.050 is not a finished work is also clear from its physical
aspect. Considering the two together – the text and its carrier – brings
one close to Ibn Ṭwayr in the process of composing his book.
Most of the text is written on bifolia of paper produced in the
Islamic world (it has no watermark nor chain lines). Sheets of paper
were often sold folded and these particular ones may have been sold as
quadrifolia (height 450 mm, width 350 mm) that were folded twice. The
last three quadrifolia of this manuscript have been written on, but they have remained uncut.
f71v-74r
It strongly
suggests that the rest of the text was also written before the sheets
were cut into bifolia. That was not common practice in the Arabic
tradition. And in the Islamic bookmaking tradition in Africa books were
not bound at all, but single sheets were held together between covers of
leather or carton, which were tied with a leather string, or kept
inside a leather portfolio.
It is possible that he learned to write on undivided folios from European examples in North Africa. And he may have considered it a good way to reduce the risk of losing sheets of paper, especially while
travelling. But working this way, Ibn Ṭwayr made a few mistakes, writing text in a wrong section of the sheet, for instance on f 7v.
The bifolia and quadrifolia of Or. 14.050 have all been pierced with one hole in the middle of the fold. One hole would not have worked for binding. Apparently, the sheets were only strung together provisionally, for the time of the journey.
Further reading J.P. Gumbert, ‘Skins, Sheets and Quires’ in Derek Pearsall, New Directions in Later Medieval Manuscript Studies, York, 2000, pp 81-91. Avalaible online via Leiden University Libraries. And here is an incomplete version of the article. Margaret M. Smith, ‘Imposition in manuscripts: Evidence for the use of sense-sequence copying in a new fragment’ in Linda L. Brownrigg (ed.), Making the Medieval Book: Techniques of Production, Oxford 1992. pp 145-155. J.J. Witkam, Inventory of the Oriental Manuscripts of the Library of Leiden University, Vol 15.
Questions
Why did the scribe of this manuscript cut most pages, but not the last ones? What reason can you think of why the manuscript was left in this state?
Judging from the careful handwriting, the use of red, the use of the first folio as a fly-leaf as well as the content, Or. 14.050 looks and reads as if it was initially intended as a fair copy. But somewhere in Morocco, Ibn Ṭwayr seems to have decided that he would make a better copy after his return back home. Once home, he may have cut sheets into quadrifolia to facilitate copying. The text of the first part of this manuscript corresponds with that of no.89 in Rebstock's Sammlung (microfiche no. A. 1649 at Leiden University Libraries)and with the translation by H.T. Norris. The correspondence with these versions becomes much less around folio 58. Perhaps Ibn Ṭwayr did not need the notes on the last sheets when he made his fair copy, because his memory of the last leg of the route sufficed.
Make a model of a quadrifolium and number the eight sections as in the pictures above. Then go the manuscript in the viewer and consider the mistaken placement of text that should have been on f8verso in space number 4 of your model. Does this indicate that writing was done according to sense-sequence or page-sequence?
This mistake is an indication of the sense-sequence method: the text of folio’s 6recto, 6verso, 7r is placed where it should be, in space 1,2 and. The text of f7v was meant for space 4. By accident, however, the scribe continued on the same side of the quadrifolium and the text and probably placed the text in space 6. He did not notice this, until writing the text of f8v was finished, in space 4. Then the mistake was noticed. The text of f8v was crossed out, but the folium was not removed, because it had the text of 7r on the other side. But the folium with space 5 and 6 was cut from the quadrifolium. A folium with the text of f8r and f8v was inserted.
Assignments
Look at the catchwords (custodes, taʿ qibāt) written on the bottom of some of the folios. At what stage in producing the manuscript do you think they were written?
