[split] Implications of multiple scribes

[RobGea]

One aspect of Lisa Fagin Davis's recent article about multiple scribes and her identification of scribes per folio,
is that Quires 9,10,11,12 are all by Scribe4, that is the entirety of the 'Astro.Zodiac.Cosmo' section.

Now we consider bifolios f57, f58, f65, f66.

f57:  f57r( Herbal ) by scribe5 and f57v( text/drawing ) by scribe1
f58: scribe3  - all-text
f65: scribe3  - Herbal
f66: scribe5  - f66r( all text), f66v( Herbal)

we can see a mixture of Herbal and all-text folios either by scribe f58( all-text ) ,f65( Herbal ) by scribe 3
or by bifolio with bifolio f66 being both Herbal and all-text.

Therefore the hypothesis that (granted that there are some folios missing here)--

The text folios f57v,f58r,f58v,f66r are an addendum / epilogue to the 'Herbal' section

as opposed to being an introduction to (or included within) the 'Astro.Zodiac.Cosmo' section.

And via similar logic,
As all 'Astro.Zodiac.Cosmo' are by scribe 4  and all 'Balneo' are by scribe 2,
therefore the all-text folios You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and v76v,
should be considered an Introduction to the 'Balneo' section
as opposed to an ending of the 'Astro.Zodiac.Cosmo' section.

--is strengthened.

NB I fully realize this has been said before
but here i'm illustrating that now theres some evidence to back up this hypothesis.
PS Apologies for not writing clearly, as said elsewhere its hard to put ideas into words.