That is, assuming the painter and the author were different. Or the author,
painter, and illustrator were different. If I'm correct and the bifolios
were filled in when flat (I'm not saying there wasn't some plan to the later
bifolios, just the herbal section), then painting them while flat would be
the easiest way to go. You may be underestimating the toll almost 500 years
of weathering can have on a book, even in a box.
Because I see something in one section, it doesn't mean
the other sections are obliged to follow the same rules. What you guys are
doing with the later sections may be far more appropriate for those sections
that what I did with the herbal section, since they're not from the same
time in the author's life.
You've forced me to dig up some notes I made back when this was fresh in my
mind, so here's what I know.
Bifolios 10, 12, 20 and 24 are a set. I'd have to do some pretty fancy
figuring to tell you which came first, the chicken or the egg, but these are
an [a1] set. 11, 13, 24 and 27 are an [a1] set. 14, 18, 21 and 23 are a
[b1] set. Bifolio 17 as a misplaced [b1] sits in the midst of these, but
has no connection. 24 and 27 were my interest at the time, so I know these
were written consecutively in their order. Several others exhibit
connections between one side of the bifolio and a side of another bifolio,
as if they were in a stack of blank bifolios, illustrated, text added, all
on one side, then the stack was flipped over.
What caught my eye about these numbers is that they are groups of four, and
four bifolios form a quire. I also didn't miss the fact that the [a1]
groupings were even and odd in their present order, but I never attached a
meaning to this.