[Blog Post] New blogpost

[Wladimir D]

Lisa.

My opinion on q9. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the holes between pages 67v2 and 67v1 do not match the existing book block pillars. This gives grounds to consider the option that this quire was taken from another manuscript. There are two more arguments in support of this option. 
1. Only this QUIRE uses red ink.
2. Only here (on the title page) is the preliminary line ruling used.
Now an explanation of why the quire number is not in the right place. A separate person was responsible for the formation of the quire, quire marks. The master of the quire binding simply made a mistake.

During the continuous numbering of the manuscript, there was a stop on the page. The person doing the numbering noticed that the q9 mark was not in place. He washed off the number 67 and asked the binder to correct the stitching. This is a lot of work. The stitching correction was abandoned and number 67 was re-entered.
For a correct understanding of the page order (later?) additional numbering in Latin letters was entered.
Each bifolio/trifolio... at the top of the bend has an unused hole, through which (probably?) adjacent bifolios were stitched outward with stitches for the rigidity of the block (an additional "stand" was obtained). Many bifolios have the same unused holes at the bottom of the bend. On those bifolios where there are no holes, the pages were probably trimmed at the bottom.