Maybe this is an indication that the ones who rebound it were either careless or amateurs? It isn't exactly les tres riches heures... And since they most likely weren't able to read it, it is possible that they didn't care much for the Ms. At least not enough to check the trim page by page. Maybe they still had a cover that almost fit, if they just got rid of those pesky margins.
Another indication - almost proof - of careless rebinding is the fact that who knows how many pages are now out of their original order.
I don't know if anyone ever counted the number of trimmed pages before, so the extent of the trimming has always been unknown.I would look forward to some more quantitative estimate.
It may have had several reasons, not just to fit a new cover. It could be that the page heights were simply too irregular, or that there was considerable damage to the edges.
If it was to make the page heights more regular, this would more likely have been done at an earlier binding, not the last one at the Collegio Romano. The verdict is still out whether that rebinding only replaced the cover or also redid the stitching. Experts at Yale consider that only the cover was replaced.
I also would not equate it with particular carelessness. Nowadays it is a valuable old book. At the time it was just another book.
Anton. I have studied this issue in detail and am going to make a publication (as there will be free time).
Conclusions I have come to
1 / Pages have been cropped several times.
2 / One of the undercuts was made with scissors (namely by means of a pair of scissors!) When the manuscript had a wooden cover.
3 / It is highly likely that sheet f12 was removed simultaneously with (2).
4 / Another period (reason) for undercutting with a clerical knife, seen on page f90r2, when too much parchment has been removed.
The point is that this supposed "batch trimming" took place before the quire marks were placed. The quire marks being from XV century, the trimming must have been done not much later than the VMS creation, maybe several decades at most.
I'm not sure if parchment edges would have been much worn in a few decades, would they?
About height irregularity: if so, then the trimming did not reach its goal. See f24, its height is notably less than other folios in the quire - except for the folio 17, with which it comprises a single bifolio. This means that the trimming was made prior to the stitching (even the initial stitching), because otherwise all bifolios of the quire would have been roughly of the same height - unless, of course, this bifolio was erroneously mixed in the wrong quire and there's a better match for it elsewhere in terms of height.
Furthermore, folio 17 and folio 24 are trimmed more or less in the same fashion. Although not exactly symmetrically, but they are trimmed to the greater extent in the middle of the bifolio, and to the lesser extent to the left and right ot the bifolio. This means that this trimming was done when the bifolio was already folded.
So the tentative order of operations is as follows:
1) bifolios are filled with drawings and text
2) bifolios are folded
... <bifolios probably exist unstitched for an indefinite period of time, up to several decades>
3) bifolios are trimmed
4) bifolios are grouped, stitched and quire marks are put down
@Wladimir
That's interesting! Looking forward to read your findings.
Same thing for Q15 mark (f90v1), it protrudes to the folio beneath, which is f89v1. Interestingly, these later quire marks appear of another style (which suggests they were made by another person), but at the same time they both are made after trimming.
Anton, this is a bit confusing to me.
Do you have a specific example where one can see that a quire mark continues at a folio below, at a point that has been definitely trimmed before?
In the example of f8v, it rather seems to be the other way round:
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
The continuation leaves a gap, so there could have been trimming after the quire mark was written.
Or there could be other reasons.
I am not favouring any of the two options, just trying to understand the evidence / logic.
(26-09-2020, 04:38 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In the example of f8v, it rather seems to be the other way round:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
The continuation leaves a gap, so there could have been trimming after the quire mark was written.
Or there could be other reasons.
This example simply looks lifted to me, if you pressed it down flat, i think there would be no gap.
(26-09-2020, 07:36 PM)Linda Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This example simply looks lifted to me, if you pressed it down flat, i think there would be no gap.
I don't think so. It looks the same in the later scan at the Beinecke digital library, and the camera perspective is also working against this.
However, it could also be caused by a rebinding, and because of that uncertainty, one needs to be careful about drawing firm conclusions.
(26-09-2020, 04:38 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Do you have a specific example where one can see that a quire mark continues at a folio below, at a point that has been definitely trimmed before?
Yes, as I said, Q3 and Q15 marks. Both these folios appear trimmed.
(26-09-2020, 04:38 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In the example of f8v, it rather seems to be the other way round:
On the contrary, it's the same way. One more example.
(26-09-2020, 07:36 PM)Linda Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This example simply looks lifted to me, if you pressed it down flat, i think there would be no gap.
Exactly.
(26-09-2020, 08:21 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I don't think so. It looks the same in the later scan at the Beinecke digital library, and the camera perspective is also working against this.
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.
In addition regarding the proposed gap, it would not make sense for there to be extra long strokes, the portion on the top page, especially to the right, already seems pretty complete, seeing it as space between satisfies the perceived proportions. I agree that the darkness is shadow, indicating space between the two pages.