The Voynich Ninja

(29-11-2018, 10:52 AM)VViews Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Oops!
The Grove comment was not from the interlinear file but from the old mailing list.
I can't link to posts from there, so here's a screenshot:

Thanks, VViews.

If I’m not mistaking anything, it seems that the only evidence is the mis-placed gathering mark.

(03-12-2018, 03:37 AM)ChenZheChina Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If I’m not mistaking anything, it seems that the only evidence is the mis-placed gathering mark.

Indeed and I had almost forgotten about that point.
Whoever wrote he gathering marks clearly intended the binding to be in the place that is now the fold
in the middle of folio 67.

This writing of the gathering marks must have taken place before the binding and was probably the first preparatory step for this binding. The very presence of gathering marks means that the sheets were intended to be bound into a codex, stacked into quires (one way or another).

There are still unanswered questions. The early mix-up between herbal A and herbal B folios happened before the gathering marks were added. This is because, for example, the 5th quire mark is on a B folio.
There are several different possible explanations for this.

(03-12-2018, 08:05 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Indeed and I had almost forgotten about that point.
Whoever wrote the gathering marks clearly intended the binding to be in the place that is now the fold
in the middle of folio 67.

This writing of the gathering marks must have taken place before the binding and was probably the first preparatory step for this binding. The very presence of gathering marks means that the sheets were intended to be bound into a codex, stacked into quires (one way or another).

There are still unanswered questions. The early mix-up between herbal A and herbal B folios happened before the gathering marks were added. This is because, for example, the 5th quire mark is on a B folio.
There are several different possible explanations for this.

Hi René,

Thanks for the information. It is the first time I heard that gathering marks were written before the binding.

Does it mean that the one who wrote gathering marks (9n9 aka nonus) and the one who wrote page numbers (67, 68) might be different persons?

It seems that the page number writer usually write page numbers on recto pages, while the gathering mark writer usually write gathering marks on verso side of the last page of each quire.

If they were the same person, I think such inconsistency might be avoided.

Hi CHEN!
 Yes, there is no continuation of the leaf on the page. But this is not the main reason for the objection, since sheet 99 could be re-cropped (3-5 mm) to align the page profile.
The following arguments are  stronger. 1 / On the cutting line 99r there are no traces of crease from the manufacture of parchment. See f101v2. 2 / There are remnants of the stalk (branch), which does not correspond to 99r.
This means that there were not only pages, 99v2, 99r2, but there were also pages f101r3, f101v3, which are missing in the existing configuration of VMS.
[attachment=2535]

(03-12-2018, 09:03 AM)ChenZheChina Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....

Does it mean that the one who wrote gathering marks (9n9 aka nonus) and the one who wrote page numbers (67, 68) might be different persons?

I've devoted quite a bit of time to researching this and I'm pretty confident that they were two different people. Not only did they use different styles for the numbers (old vs new style of numbers), but the handwriting is different.

(03-12-2018, 08:05 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There are still unanswered questions. The early mix-up between herbal A and herbal B folios happened before the gathering marks were added. This is because, for example, the 5th quire mark is on a B folio.
There are several different possible explanations for this.

Hi René,

I’m not sure about what do you mean by mix-up between Herbal A and Herbal B. For me, there are two understandings.

1. Folios were split into piles. Some piles contain only Herbal A pages, while other piles contain only Herbal B pages. The binder did not know which piles are Herbal A or which piles are Herbal B, so they assigned gathering marks arbitrarily. The mix-up between Herbal A and Herbal B folios happened here, at quire-level. By doing so, gathering marks of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 7th, 15th and 17th are given to Herbal A piles, while gathering marks of 5th and 6th are given to Herbal B piles. Pages were re-ordered later, so there are quires mixing Herbal A and Herbal B pages.
   
2. The pages were completely out-of-order. The binder knew nothing about page contents, so they decided to bind folios into quires arbitrarily. The mix-up between Herbal A and Herbal B folios happened here, at folio-level. By doing so, gathering marks of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 7th, 15th and 17th are given to Herbal A pages coincidentally, while gathering marks of 5th and 6th are given to Herbal B pages coincidentally.
   

(03-12-2018, 09:55 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I've devoted quite a bit of time to researching this and I'm pretty confident that they were two different people. Not only did they use different styles for the numbers (old vs new style of numbers), but the handwriting is different.

Hi JKP,

Thanks for the information.

So, which one is using old-style numbers, which one is using new-style numbers?

Moreover, does it mean that the new-style numbers were written after old-style numbers?

(03-12-2018, 09:03 AM)ChenZheChina Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It is the first time I heard that gathering marks were written before the binding.

Does it mean that the one who wrote gathering marks (9n9 aka nonus) and the one who wrote page numbers (67, 68) might be different persons?

Hi ChenZheChina,
The purpose of the gathering marks (quire numbers) was to group the quires together, serving as an indication for their arrangement during binding.  Quire numbers are typically placed on the final verso of the quire, not just in the Voynich, but in medieval manuscripts in general.
The quire numbers were added before the binding process: afterwards, they are no longer useful.
As for the page numbers, I agree with JKP that they were done by a different person and at a later date.
Page numbers serve a different purpose: they are there more for the reader than for the binder.

My opinion is here  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. .

(03-12-2018, 10:14 AM)ChenZheChina Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(03-12-2018, 08:05 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There are still unanswered questions. The early mix-up between herbal A and herbal B folios happened before the gathering marks were added. This is because, for example, the 5th quire mark is on a B folio.
There are several different possible explanations for this.

Hi René,

I’m not sure about what do you mean by mix-up between Herbal A and Herbal B. For me, there are two understandings.

Hello Zhe,

indeed, mix-up is not a very clear expression. I meant that B-language bifolios start to become interleaved among the A-language folios. The start of the book only has A language.
These pages are different in three respects:
- different handwriting (Currier hand)
- different text statistics (Currier language)
- much more verbose (more lines, and more characters per line - both on average)

Either this was the intended order of the book, or it became disorganised at some point in time. The fact that there are additional herbal pages towards the end of the book could be one of several signs that the page order was disturbed.

For the person writing the quire numbers there are also two possibilities: either he knew what should be the right order, or he did not. 

The folio numbers could have been added at a much later time, even late 16th century.
However, there is no easy way how everything can be explained.