01-04-2016, 01:54 PM
If we suppose it was made (as separate bifolia)
then at some stage bound
then at some stage (as Rene posits might occur) disassembled, painted and re-bound
but the current binding is 15thC Italian (as per Alain Touwaide's opinion)
then all this activity would have happened within a short space of time, given the radiocarbon dating of the parchment to the first decades of the fifteenth century.
Plus, we have to consider the variations in the hands that wrote the quire-numbers, which to me suggests that it wasn't a case of one volume being disassembled and re-bound - else why wouldn't the quire numbers have been added in the same hand when it was first bound?
Is there anything about this manuscript which is normal?
then at some stage bound
then at some stage (as Rene posits might occur) disassembled, painted and re-bound
but the current binding is 15thC Italian (as per Alain Touwaide's opinion)
then all this activity would have happened within a short space of time, given the radiocarbon dating of the parchment to the first decades of the fifteenth century.
Plus, we have to consider the variations in the hands that wrote the quire-numbers, which to me suggests that it wasn't a case of one volume being disassembled and re-bound - else why wouldn't the quire numbers have been added in the same hand when it was first bound?
Is there anything about this manuscript which is normal?