Читать книгу The Codex Mendoza: new insights онлайн

124 страница из 150

Conclusion

Reconstruction B is the more economical solution: it assumes that a late decision was made to remake the original second leaf with a leaf of “pilgrim” paper carrying a slightly different watermark. The present folio 2 with the frontispiece is the only leaf that breaks the regular pattern of mold/felt sides. This disturbance meant that special arrangements had to be made to keep folio 9 in place after the loss of its original mate.

In Reconstruction A, the regularity of the quire was disrupted from the start, for unexplained reasons: folios 1-2 formed a separate pair of leaves (perhaps a conjoint bifolium) and folios 9-10 were two singletons which could never have been conjoint. A factor in favor of this version is that the texture of folio 1, somewhat coarse and thick, seems to match that of folio 2 better than that of folio 10; however, this effect could have been caused by the additional wear and tear to the first two leaves.

Chart 7. Quire II

Chart 8. Quire III

Chart 9. Quire IV