(Consider this thread as a bit of a brainstorming space.)
I have noticed that there are some problems with the way we refer to certain sections. There seems to be a tension between sticking to older names like "biological section" on the one hand, and moving towards more neutral terminology on the other. I have given this some thought, and, in my opinion, these are the pros and cons:
Old names: pros- many of them have become conventions already
- they are used in quite a number of publications already
Old names: cons- Even within the conventions, there is variation (biological section = bathing section)
- Some (new) people might confuse convention with consensus
- Objectively speaking, some of these names include an assumption
- The terms and their meaning are not known to everybody. For example, I've seen a number of people use "recipe section" to refer to not only the final section, but also the small plants.
All in all, I think that the current situation causes confusion quite often, and is not the best for those who use the terminology. This is
especially the case on the forum, where communication is a bit more fluent and section names are used instead of folio numbers.
Let one thing be clear - and I put this in bold - we cannot and should not require people to change the terminology they like to use!
But, I also sense that a number of people (myself included) would like a more neutral, standard set of terms to refer to certain sections. If we could agree on these, I would happily use them. They could for example be called "forum standard". The idea would not be that everybody should use them, but rather that is clearly understood what is meant when somebody uses these terms.
We could of course also define a "traditional standard", basically listing the traditional name alongside a more neutral one.
Before proposing any particular terms or details, I would first like to hear your opinion on this matter.
I agree with pretty much everything you just said, Koen Gh.
As I see it there are three issues at play here: clarity, brevity and neutrality, and these can sometimes be at odds.
For example if I refer to the "zodiac" section, everybody will clearly understand what I am referring to, even though they may disagree that the section in question is a zodiac.
If I refer to it as the "central roundels with nude figures around them" section, that's more neutral, quite clear, but very cumbersome.
If I refer to it as "section 3" (or section III or section C) that is completely neutral and brief, but it may be confusing to newcomers, (actually, it also carries the assumption that the current order of sections reflects the manuscript's original intended order, which is uncertain).
I don't know if a perfect solution exists.
If enough members agree about the general principle, we could find names based on fact. For example, we could refer to the "zodiac section" as "calendar section" or "month roundels" because someone has written months on them. That's a neutral fact. The challenge will just be to find something people agree with.
i agree, however, that for some sections this is difficult. Especially the bathing section, I think. "Bathing" is an assumption and steers towards a balneis interpretation. On the other hand, it is very convenient.
Then again, it is not clear at all to me whether "bathing section" refers to the entire quire 13 or only to those folios where people are sitting in large pools of water! So even within the traditional terminology, I would love to have some forum standard we can refer to.
Personally, I don't like "calendar" for that section: I think it carries just as many assumptions as "zodiac". The month names were added later and we don't know by whom or whether this person could understand voynichese.
The fact that the section begins in a bifolio shared with the previous so-called "astronomical" section indicates a continuity in the theme, especially if Sam G's observation about bifolios and page order is valid (I increasingly think so).
The questions of foliation and of sections go hand in hand, it seems to me.
Regarding your remark about Q13: Yes, that is unclear also. Glen Claston believed Q13 was actually two sections, one balneological and the other medical (Galenic). His comments about that have been posted by Nick Pelling in a You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. he made last year about Q13 foliation. My own You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. on foliation in that quire also points to there being two sections in Q13.
I also think there are two sections and came to much the same conclusions as the ones you mention. However, I'm starting to doubt this recently and I am able to see them as one whole. Everything taken into account though, I do believe the bifolios are out of order, but this does not mean that they were really separate sections.
Still, something useful can be said about the distinction between the two types of bathing folios, and a standard term for them would be handy for me as well.
You are right about the word calendar bearing implications as well. Month roundels, then? They are roundels and month names have been written on them, that's a neutral observation.
Edit: by the way, I've gotten used to calling the bathing section "Quire 13" or Q13, that's quite easy to remember. I think a similar argument can be made for calling the last quire "Quire 20" or Q20.
I'd agree with using those two quire numbers as names for those sections.
I wonder what to do about the so-called small plants section: as I mentioned in my posts about counting things, it is dispersed across two quires, with large plants in between, and not one continuous section. Should we ignore the current folio order and consider it as one section?
What about the disparate things we find in quire 8? I'm really not inclined to file those under the previous "large plants" section, or whatever we end up calling it.
For Quire 13: in my paper I called them Quire 13A and Quire 13B when I wanted to differentiate. Q13A is where the more uniform nymphs are standing in pools, which would probably be considered the bathing section proper. That's just one option.
I would personally refer to all pages with rows of small plants as the small plants section. When you really want to talk about folio order and stuff, you will have to mention specific folio numbers anyway. The names small plants section and large plants section are being used by a number of members already (JKP comes to mind).
I agree about quire 8, though this is not something I have given much thought yet. I wonder what other members think.
13A/B is exactly what Claston called them. Although I called them differently, both he and I separately concluded that the folios featuring bathing in central pools (what you label as "A") actually comes after the marginal drawings section (what you label as "B"). So, it should probably be 13B for the baths and 13A for the rest. I would like to know Sam G's opinion on this, as his take on foliation may present the folio order in a different light.
Although it is real, the A/B distinction can be confusing for newcomers: I wonder if perhaps this should be shelved altogether, considering that the distinction between the two subsections is hardly ever used in discussions here anyway.
And yes, I too would like to hear what others think about this whole topic.
(16-11-2016, 09:00 PM)VViews Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Although it is real, the A/B distinction can be confusing for newcomers: I wonder if perhaps this should be shelved altogether, considering that the distinction between the two subsections is hardly ever used in discussions here anyway.
That is a very good point. When talking about these things, it will be necessary to provide some extra background anyways. I guess the same can be said about the small plants section. The "wandering" large plants may be a bit more problematic. Though here, again, I believe the writer would have to add specific folio numbers if he wanted to talk about, for example, a difference between the large plants in the proper section and ones found elsewhere.
Perhaps, keeping newcomers into account, we should restrict the purpose of this thread to agreeing on some general terms altogether.
(16-11-2016, 03:41 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If enough members agree about the general principle, we could find names based on fact. For example, we could refer to the "zodiac section" as "calendar section" or "month roundels" because someone has written months on them. That's a neutral fact. The challenge will just be to find something people agree with.
i agree, however, that for some sections this is difficult. Especially the bathing section, I think. "Bathing" is an assumption and steers towards a balneis interpretation. On the other hand, it is very convenient.
Then again, it is not clear at all to me whether "bathing section" refers to the entire quire 13 or only to those folios where people are sitting in large pools of water! So even within the traditional terminology, I would love to have some forum standard we can refer to.
Maybe we could say zodiac-symbols pages. They are certainly zodiac symbols, but we don't know if they are zodiacs/zodiac-related.
I've been calling the pages with water "pool pages" for my own reference. I don't know if that characterizes them any better than bathing.
For pages without images, I've been thinking of them as dense-text pages, dense-text with columns, and dense-text with stars. Works for me but might be a bit cumbersome for others.
And, as is already known, I refer to big-plant pages and small-plant pages with hopes that people understand I mean the size of the drawings, not the size of the plants.
I haven't looked very much at the "cosmology" pages, so I don't have any thoughts about whether something else is better.