Re: [GTh] Two Improbabilities in the GJW Fragment
bound?> Bruce: That works out, but isnt the sense rather recto = front,> verso = back, even in a bit of papyrus that was never
verso> Then the recto would be the first side written, and the> would be the second. Text would be assumed to be continuous> from recto to verso.Assuming that the relevant meaning of the Latin words rectusand versus was 'right' and 'turned' (or 'opposing', but not 'left'),I suppose that the OAD definition could be improved by sayingthat the recto is the page on the right (in an open book), while theverso is the back of that (i.e., the opposite side of the leaf, or thenext thing you come to when you "turn the page"). I agree thatthe equivalent formulation 'front/back' is better, though, becauseit has the virtue of being easier to remember, and is applicable alsoto non-book-related fragments, as you say. The GJW fragment isa case, however, where both sides are inscribed, but we can't tellwhich side was the "front" (assuming authenticity, of course). SoI figure that the powers that be must have followed some specialrule for cases like this, say "best side = front = recto"?Mike
Here’s something I wrote here https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/Home/what-did-p46-originally-contain re. P46:
“The extant portion of P46 is in the form of a single quire, i.e. it was created by laying sheets of papyrus on top of each other and then folding them in the middle, much like a modern magazine. The outer (verso) sides of the sheets have vertical fibers, and the inner (recto) sides have horizontal ones. The text also flows as in a magazine, from verso to recto, until at the center (which consists of two recto pages from the same sheet of papyrus) it switches to flowing from recto to verso. The edges of the leaves were trimmed so that they were aligned, thus making the inner leaves smaller than the outer ones.”
So, as I understand it, recto and verso have nothing to do with left and right.
David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA
- [from David Inglis]:
nothing to do with left and right.> ... as I understand it, recto and verso haveWell, I think you'll find that the dictionary definitions of 'recto' and'verso' indicate otherwise. This, for example, from the AHD:recto: "The right-hand page of a book or front side of a leaf ...[Latin recto ... ablative of rectus, right, straight.]"verso: "The left-hand page of a book or the reverse side of a leaf ...[Latin verso ... ablative of versus, turned.]"'Inner/outer' will do as well if we understand 'inner' as 'facing themiddle' and if we're talking about a fragment from a book.Mike G.
- At 11:41 PM 10/2/2012, Mike Grondin wrote:
...Anyone doubting this should do or imagine the following: Take a few sheets
of typing paper, place them in a pile long-side vertical, label the front side of
each sheet "HF" (for 'horizontal fibres'), then fold the pile of sheets in half
vertically (to form a "quire"). You'll see that in the very middle of the quire,
both verso and recto sides are "HF", resulting in the above reversal.
It follows, then, that even if every scribe followed exactly the same
practice in handling papyrus sheets, we still wouldn't be able to determine
recto/verso from the papyrus fibres alone, because we wouldn't know
whether an orphan fragment was from the first half of a book (assuming
it was from a codex) or the second half. ...
and then he wrote
recto: "The right-hand page of a book or front side of a leaf ...
[Latin recto ... ablative of rectus, right, straight.]"
verso: "The left-hand page of a book or the reverse side of a leaf ...
[Latin verso ... ablative of versus, turned.]"
Your middle paragraph above is the best. However, I suspect that other considerations may be involved.
I've always thought of recto/verso simply as front/back but, as you point out, if all you have is a fragment, you don't really know which is which. I suspect that the matter is settled by the first publisher of the fragment. If s/he calls one side recto and the other verso, then that's the way it gets cited in the literature, even if it is "wrong."
BTW, this is all ethnocentric, isn't it? Consider what would be "recto" or "verso" in a book written in Chinese.
Northern Arizona University
- [from David Inglis]:
of a single quire, i.e. it was created> The extant portion of P46 is in the form
and then folding them in the> by laying sheets of papyrus on top of each other
(verso) sides of the sheets> middle, much like a modern magazine. The outer
sides have horizontal ones. The text> have vertical fibers, and the inner (recto)
recto, until at the center (which> also flows as in a magazine, from verso to
of papyrus) it switches to> consists of two recto pages from the same sheet> flowing from recto to verso."I should have mulled this over longer before posting a response. It nowappears to me that the above is wrong with respect to recto/verso. Thoseterms don't apply to sheets, but to the two leaves of a sheet after it's beenfolded in half. At the center of a magazine (which is a great example, BTW),you don't have two recto pages, but verso and recto, just like at any otherlocation to which the magazine is opened. Thus, as I said earlier, and contrathe above, verso/recto aren't related to the direction of fibres (in papyrus).Mike
- Mike, I'm still not happy with this recto-verso thing. I think it's clear (to me anyway) that in the case of single papyrus sheets, the recto is the 'front' and the verso is the 'back,' as defined by the direction of the fibres, and there is no issue of left or right. The question then is whether this definition carries over to sheets that are folded in half. I strongly suspect that, at least in papyrus codices (where there was still a physical difference between the two sides of a sheet) it did.
Here I enlist the help of Comfort & Barrett, who on pp 270-271 of 'The Text of the Earliest Greek Manuscripts' (2001 edition) give the text of "leaf 52 recto" of P46, immediately followed by "leaf 53 recto" (this is the middle of the codex). How and when the meaning changed, I don't know, but I suspect the publishing industry had something to do with it. Note that the definition of recto and verso currently depends on whether the text is read from left to right, or from right to left. Also, I believe that in single printed sheets it STILL refers to front and back.
David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Mike Grondin" <mwgrondin@...> wrote:
> [from David Inglis]:
> > "The extant portion of P46 is in the form of a single quire, i.e. it was created
> > by laying sheets of papyrus on top of each other and then folding them in the
> > middle, much like a modern magazine. The outer (verso) sides of the sheets
> > have vertical fibers, and the inner (recto) sides have horizontal ones. The text
> > also flows as in a magazine, from verso to recto, until at the center (which
> > consists of two recto pages from the same sheet of papyrus) it switches to
> > flowing from recto to verso."
> I should have mulled this over longer before posting a response. It now
> appears to me that the above is wrong with respect to recto/verso. Those
> terms don't apply to sheets, but to the two leaves of a sheet after it's been
> folded in half. At the center of a magazine (which is a great example, BTW),
> you don't have two recto pages, but verso and recto, just like at any other
> location to which the magazine is opened. Thus, as I said earlier, and contra
> the above, verso/recto aren't related to the direction of fibres (in papyrus).
- > Mike, I'm still not happy with this recto-verso thing.Me either, David, but I think I see a way through the confusion.Based on a couple things I've read this afternoon, it now seems to methat papyrologists have a special meaning for these terms that doesn'tcarry over into - indeed contradicts in some situations - the use of thesame terms in, say, printing or codicology in general. First, from theUniversity of Michigan Papyrus Glossary:
Generally, recto> The term recto denotes the 'front' side of a papyrus.> refers to the side of a papyrus roll which would be written on first, where
writing. This can also be> the papyrus fibers ran horizontally, parallel to the
when rolled up.> thought of as the side of the papyrus that would be insideThen from Larry Hurtado, The Earliest Christian Artifacts, p.44, fn.4:
writing> In many cases, what survives is as little as a single piece of
portion of> material. But papyrologists can often judge whether it is a
part> a larger manuscript ... If the writing on one side appears to be
leaf> of the same text as that on the other side, we probably have a
with> from a codex. If there is writing only on the "recto" (the side
part of a roll.> the papyrus fibres running horizontally), then it is likelySo, yes, papyrologists evidently use the terms with respect to both sheetsand leaves, and the (horizontal) direction of fibres on the best side of theGJW fragment is evidently why it was called the 'recto'. One can't, as I did,appeal to dictionary definitions of 'recto/verso', since they're apparentlynot only inapplicable to papyrology, but actually contradict its judgementsupon occasion. (Ex: what we might intuitively think of as the "front side" -hence the recto - of a papyrus leaf may have vertical fibration, hence wouldbe verso to the papyrologist. That's because they think in terms of the"front side" of papyrus in general, not of individual leaves in a codex.So they take a couple of perfectly good words and turn 'em inside out, eh?)Mike Grondin