(Yesterday, 11:25 AM)gerrydelasel Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Why would you assume the author intended it to be bound?
For the same reason that practically all books were (and are) bound: because a bound codex is infinitely more convenient to handle than a stack of loose bifolios.
If the Author's intent was to keep it as loose sheets, why would he fold the normal bifolios in half? If he kept them unfolded, he would save the ~5x20 cm area of vellum that is wasted with the inside margins. He could have drawn 3 plants per side per bifolio, instead of just 2
If he intended to fold the bifolios anyway, but did not plan to nest them into quires, the inside margins, next to the fold, could be much narrower -- say, 5 mm. Inside margins of 20-25 mm only make sense if one expect the bifolios to be bound, which would often make that area (next to the "gutter") hard to read because of curvature.
I would also expect more figures spanning two pages, like f78v+f81r, because every bifolio would have two "centerfold" pages.
And if he intended to keep the bifolios unbound, but fold and nest them into quires, he would have all the disadvantages of binding, without any of the benefits. Including the need to write the pages of Bio in a non-trivial order, jumping back and forth between the bifolios of that quire.
All the best, --stolfi