(10-12-2025, 09:02 PM)RenegadeHealer wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Evidence that the manuscript’s creators ever intended for their creation to become a codex is wanting.
It was possible to do the binding in a way that nowhere (?) in the manuscript the text crosses the vertical central line of a bifolio. While the Rosettes and 101r show clear examples of writing across a fold. To me this looks like the designer of the manuscript specifically reserved folds on each bifolio for binding purposes.
I haven't seen any strong evidence to the contrary, that it was not intended as a codex. As far as I understand, there is some evidence that it was kept as separate leaves for a while, which could just as well mean the production took a long time. Evidence from the statistics of the text may point to the order or writing, which may be naturally bifolio by bifolio, and not the intended order of reading. For example, if auto citation was used in the process of writing a meaningful text (by reusing recent codes in a one-to-many encoding scheme), it's natural the auto citation patterns would evolve in the order of writing and not in the order of reading.