19-08-2019, 09:26 AM
I presented my reconstruction of what happened with these missing bifolios at Frascati in 2012, building on what the late Glen Claston had described previously.
My conclusion was that the nine-rosette page had originally been stitched in there, but ended up being ripped out along the fold it had been stitched along. It was then restitched along a different fold and bound many pages later.
When (later still) the foliator came to add the folio numbers, the original remnants of the ripped bifolio were still visible: so made the inference that a number of pages must originally have been there (which would indeed have been the case): and hence numbered the folios either side with a defensively large numbering gap in case those bifolios turned up again.
And then (even later still) the remnants of that page were removed (or fell out), and so we are left with numbers but no pages. Simples.
My conclusion was that the nine-rosette page had originally been stitched in there, but ended up being ripped out along the fold it had been stitched along. It was then restitched along a different fold and bound many pages later.
When (later still) the foliator came to add the folio numbers, the original remnants of the ripped bifolio were still visible: so made the inference that a number of pages must originally have been there (which would indeed have been the case): and hence numbered the folios either side with a defensively large numbering gap in case those bifolios turned up again.
And then (even later still) the remnants of that page were removed (or fell out), and so we are left with numbers but no pages. Simples.