31-03-2016, 05:50 PM
MarcoP,
Yes, that is the one I mean.
Now that you point them out I do see some similarity in structure of the text & side nymphs (but even then we have to ignore the guy in the small tub in the middle of the paragraph), however the illustrations on 83r are much more similar to the ones on 82v: "rainbow" tubes, and the trefoil-like lower points of those cone shaped things some nymphs stand in near the binding on both, as well as the squiggly-tube ended small tubs that are featured on either side (this is all hard to accurately describe with words, I hope that was clear-ish).
And when we move on to the "recto" of this bifolio, the structural elements you describe, which give some similarity to 76v and 83r, are totally absent in 76r (obviously) but also in 83v, which has a completely different structure.
Again, although I understand the elements that lead david to his proposition this particular bifolio still poses the most obvious problems for me, which is what I've tried to express here.
Yes, that is the one I mean.
Now that you point them out I do see some similarity in structure of the text & side nymphs (but even then we have to ignore the guy in the small tub in the middle of the paragraph), however the illustrations on 83r are much more similar to the ones on 82v: "rainbow" tubes, and the trefoil-like lower points of those cone shaped things some nymphs stand in near the binding on both, as well as the squiggly-tube ended small tubs that are featured on either side (this is all hard to accurately describe with words, I hope that was clear-ish).
And when we move on to the "recto" of this bifolio, the structural elements you describe, which give some similarity to 76v and 83r, are totally absent in 76r (obviously) but also in 83v, which has a completely different structure.
Again, although I understand the elements that lead david to his proposition this particular bifolio still poses the most obvious problems for me, which is what I've tried to express here.