TRTR 2, 1 - nit picky stuff about an evocative sentence

[Michael Bailey]

page 323, poor Stanley:

His work, always unfinished, was like the commission from a prince in
the Middle Ages, the prince who ordered his tomb, and then busied the
artist continually with a succession of fireplaces and doorways, the
litter of this life, while the tomb remained unfinished.

so far, so good, right?  but I'm having trouble parsing the next one:

Nor for Stanley, was this massive piece of music which he worked at
when he could, building the tomb he knew it to be, as every piece of
created work is the tomb of its creator: thus he could not leave it
finished haphazard as he saw work left on all sides of him.

---
attempting to make sense of that.

Nor for Stanley --- **nor** for Stanley?  where can you go from a
"nor"?  not into "was this massive piece of music", can you? -- ie,
this mpom wasn't for him either --what was the other thing that wasn't
for him?
not into "building the tomb" -- ie, Nor for Stanley building this tomb
... something?

I guess the nor bothers me.  I'm expecting some kind of neither/nor
balance or opposition, or some other thing it's the "nor" of...and I
don't find it!

it's not for him, like the medieval craftsman's tomb wasn't for the
medieval craftsman...
but the other stuff the MC did was also for the same patron; not for himself
whereas the other stuff Stanley is doing is what? and for whom?

with Pynchon, it's usually me missing it and I search and get it
eventually.  But here, where is the "nor" going?