05-03-2024, 01:23 PM
I have expressed a similar opinion more than once on this forum and with Nick. For example
Q 9 is alien to the manuscript for 4 reasons. Two of which are worm holes in the outer margins (for marginalia), which are nowhere else on the inner notebooks. There are no holes at the top of the sheets for additional fastening of bifolios. Even ROS has such holes.
If you look at the root of the book block with the cover removed, you can clearly see that Q13 has an independent vertical dimension.
This also includes pre-stitching Q20
Nick supported my idea, not all holes from bifoio worms are -116, they correspond to -115.
Additional holes in some initial spreads that are not used in the current binding.
Another suggestion is that some of the long clamshells were previously scrolls. I gave two examples on the forum of how when cutting a scroll in a modern version of the manuscript, parts of the missing drawings were left behind. But I found a third case (I want to write a post about it, but I don’t have free time).
Q 9 is alien to the manuscript for 4 reasons. Two of which are worm holes in the outer margins (for marginalia), which are nowhere else on the inner notebooks. There are no holes at the top of the sheets for additional fastening of bifolios. Even ROS has such holes.
If you look at the root of the book block with the cover removed, you can clearly see that Q13 has an independent vertical dimension.
This also includes pre-stitching Q20
Nick supported my idea, not all holes from bifoio worms are -116, they correspond to -115.
Additional holes in some initial spreads that are not used in the current binding.
Another suggestion is that some of the long clamshells were previously scrolls. I gave two examples on the forum of how when cutting a scroll in a modern version of the manuscript, parts of the missing drawings were left behind. But I found a third case (I want to write a post about it, but I don’t have free time).