Читать книгу The Codex Mendoza: new insights онлайн

120 страница из 150

3.Stub (c) was moved back one leaf from its position before folio 1 to a new position before folio ii, to prevent damage to folio 1 from its stiffened edge.

4.To prevent further pleating, two new flyleaves were added between folios i and ii:

Folio i was added between stub (a) and stub (b).

Folio ii was added between stub (b) and the relocated stub (c).

5.New repairing tissue had to be added across several gutters, e.g. between the front pastedown and folio i. These new joints do not imply that the adjoining leaves thus connected by the new tissue were necessarily originally conjoint.

Collation charts in reverse chronological order

Chart 1. State after the repairs of 1986: visible evidence only.

Chart 2. State before the repairs of 1986: visible evidence only

Chart 3. State before the repairs of 1986: hypothetical reconstruction (i.e. essentially as left by the seventeenth-century binder)

Notes on the stubs

1.Stub (a) and its mate (still firmly pasted to folio i verso), stub (c), and stub (d) and its mate (still pasted to folio 10v) are all of similar or perhaps the same laid paper. It seems slightly thicker than the papers of the main manuscript or of folios i-ii. Stubs (a) and (c) do not share the holes apparent at the gutters of folio i, stub (b), and folio ii (see below), and therefore were presumably added later. They may date from the time of the seventeenth-century rebinding.