The Voynich Ninja

I checked René Zandbergen’s website about quire schemata, and found that all foldouts are bound in a way that their left is shorter while their right is longer.

Images are downloaded from René’s website.

[attachment=2525]
Quire 9: 2-page wide to the left, 3.5-page wide to the right

[attachment=2526]
Quire 10: 1-page wide to the left, 2.5-page wide to the right

[attachment=2527]
Quire 11: 1-page wide to the left, 3.5-page wide to the right

[attachment=2528]
Quire 14: 1-page wide to the left, 2-page wide to the right

[attachment=2529]
Quire 15: 1-page wide to the left, 2.5-page or 2-page wide to the right

[attachment=2530]
Quire 17: 1-page wide to the left, 2-page wide to the right

[attachment=2531]
Quire 19: 1-page wide to the left, 2-page or 2.5-page wide to the right

So here’s my question: Is this phenomenon just a coincidence, or a common practice at that time? In other words, is it possible for the original author to design pages that to be bound in a way where left foldout is longer than right foldout?

I want to ask this question, because I am trying to review and re-order Herbal-B pages. When I was examining the foldout f94-f95, I wondered that if I could bind between what is now referred as f95v1 and f95v2, a.k.a. f95r1 and f95r2, like this:

[attachment=2532]

Hi ChenZheChina,
indeed it appears that the Voynich  foldouts were designed to always have one folio to the left and the rest to the right.
In the case of Q9, it appears to have been misbound in the current binding, and was designed to have 67r2 as its first page (you can see notes regarding this in the transcription file for this section; I believe the observation was originally made by John Grove).
So, like this:

The binding you propose is possible if the bifolio is flipped:
In this case, that would make the current 95r2 the first page of the foldout.

(29-11-2018, 08:56 AM)VViews Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.indeed it appears that the Voynich foldouts were designed to always have one folio to the left and the rest to the right.
In the case of Q9, it appears to have been misbound in the current binding, and was designed to have 67r2 as its first page (you can see notes regarding this in the transcription file for this section; I believe the observation was originally made by John Grove).

Hi VViews, thanks for pointing out that the Quire 9 might has been misbound.

By “the transcription file for this section”, do you mean You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. ? I tried to search keywords like “mis”, “bind”, “bound” or “Grove”, but did not find things related to the misbound.

I could understand that, the gathering mark is usually on the last page, so f67r1 might be the last page, which caused the original binding to be probably between f67r1 and f67r2 . However, I am not sure that if this is really a design of Voynich Manuscript, or just a hurry conclusion from most quires having gathering marks on their last page.

As far as I know, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. of Quire 20 is also unusually having the gathering mark, even though You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. has well-enough blank for the mark. But You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. could never be the last page.

It would be great if we could have more evidences, such as how contemporary manuscripts treat foldouts.

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:

(29-11-2018, 10:52 AM)VViews Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I can't link to posts from there

Why not?
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(29-11-2018, 08:33 AM)ChenZheChina Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....

So here’s my question: Is this phenomenon just a coincidence, or a common practice at that time? In other words, is it possible for the original author to design pages that to be bound in a way where left foldout is longer than right foldout?
...

I don't know if it is coincidence or common practice because I don't see many manuscripts with foldouts, but having a longer right-side foldout might be more convenient for a right-handed person.

Most of the famous foldouts formats which are quoted as Voynich forebears (the medic's almanacs) were never bound in book form. Instead they tended to be folded up in the same fashion as maps are today. See, ie, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. or You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
A very interesting investigation into one of the extant exemplars can be found on the website of the Royal Society, journal of the history of science, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..

If we look at the same sort of content produced professionally for (what is assumed to be) the same market (medics), we see a return to the normal book format (ie You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.).

Foldouts do exist in some books, but I can't find my reference file on that right now, much to my annoyance!

I want to repeat the idea I have previously expressed.
On page f99v, to the left of the top of the can is an unrecorded plant (yellow rectangle).
From this we can assume that in Q19 there were pages 99v2, 99r2, which are cut off, and which are not included in the existing configuration of VMS.
Another option is that the Q19 was a monolithic long clamshell, which was cut into two pieces. As a result, the last plant from the top recipe You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. appeared on page f99v.
This can be indirectly confirmed if DNA analysis of these pages is done, regarding their belonging to one individual animal.
[attachment=2533]

(30-11-2018, 07:28 AM)Wladimir D Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I want to repeat the idea I have previously expressed.
On page f99v, to the left of the top of the can is an unrecorded plant (yellow rectangle).
From this we can assume that in Q19 there were pages 99v2, 99r2, which are cut off, and which are not included in the existing configuration of VMS.
Another option is that the Q19 was a monolithic long clamshell, which was cut into two pieces. As a result, the last plant from the top recipe You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. appeared on page f99v.
This can be indirectly confirmed if DNA analysis of these pages is done, regarding their belonging to one individual animal.

Hi Wladimir,

Your idea is very interesting! I’ve never noticed that there were something in the top-left corner of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. . Though I’m not sure whether it is a plant, or something else. It may indicates that there was an extra page that got cut.

However, for your second option, the theory that Q19 was a monolithic long clamshell, I have a question. In the bottom-right corner of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , there is a pea-like something expanding over the border, but I cannot see anything similar on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. .

[attachment=2534]