The hole in folio 107 suggested by Aga looks perfectly like a mosquito hole, and it is not the hole that Nick was referring to.
I am also extremely skeptical about the hypothesis that the hole in the lower part of folio 34 (the hole that Nick is interested in) was created deliberately by the author.
It has clearly been taken into account in the design of both sides of the folio.
This suggests that the hole was there from the beginning. The folios of the Voynich MS have plenty such holes.
Sergio Toresella was convinced that the hole had been rubbed through, as you know. And you can clearly see the different quality of the edge of the specific hole in the scans. So the evidence would seem to be not with you on this occasion. ;-)
The fact that the hole is located well on both sides shows that there was some planning involved. But they did choose to integrate it into the drawing while they could have put it besides it as well. This is why I believe that they wanted such a hole there, and indeed it was made on purpose (but either before both drawings or in between the first and the second.
I don't see why it can't have been copied, it's an interesting idea. Holes rubbed into vellum were not unseen. It happened for example with certain devotional images which were rubbed over and over for their power. It's the same principle as the way some statues shine in spots where people rub them for good luck.
hello Nick
Important information for cut holes ? I'll give you one.
Calf, goats and sheep are mammals. Parchment is tanned animal skin. Where are the nipples? I have seen many books with a hole, but none with tanned nipples.
That seems to me to be an important reason.
(21-12-2019, 05:50 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I am also extremely skeptical about the hypothesis that the hole in the lower part of folio 34 (the hole that Nick is interested in) was created deliberately by the author.
It has clearly been taken into account in the design of both sides of the folio.
This suggests that the hole was there from the beginning. The folios of the Voynich MS have plenty such holes.
I read it the same way. Looks incorporated into the design.
Stephen, Rene and I are not disagreeing about the order (the drawing was clearly arranged around the hole, so the hole came first). The issue is whether the hole was naturally in the vellum or whether it was forcibly added to the vellum.
If you look at that hole in the high res scan and compare it to the other holes 'popped' in the vellum, you'll see that it is quite different. Sergio Toresella noticed this when he examined it first hand.
(22-12-2019, 11:47 AM)nickpelling Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Stephen, Rene and I are not disagreeing about the order (the drawing was clearly arranged around the hole, so the hole came first). The issue is whether the hole was naturally in the vellum or whether it was forcibly added to the vellum.
If you look at that hole in the high res scan and compare it to the other holes 'popped' in the vellum, you'll see that it is quite different. Sergio Toresella noticed this when he examined it first hand.
It does look different, but I can't tell whether it was intentional (or just abraded differently) or, more importantly, whether it was to mimic its source.
Stephen: misguided bookworms aside (they don't like vellum), holes in vellum aren't abraded, they happen in manufacture when the sheet is under tension and a tiny flaw in the skin goes 'pop'.
It is the fact that this specific hole is abraded that is the challenge here. That's exactly how vellum doesn't work.
(23-12-2019, 12:15 AM)nickpelling Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Stephen: misguided bookworms aside (they don't like vellum), holes in vellum aren't abraded, they happen in manufacture when the sheet is under tension and a tiny flaw in the skin goes 'pop'.
It is the fact that this specific hole is abraded that is the challenge here. That's exactly how vellum doesn't work.
Maybe it was to enlarge a pre-existing hole?
I suppose one question I have for this scenario is why would a scribe think that such a feature would be worth copying? How often are defects in the medium copied as defects? (I'm aware of marginal comments about defects in the physical exemplar.)
In my opinion, any scenario where the hole is made on purpose needs a good explanation.
One possibility is that the hole belongs with the plant image. It's part of the plant's supposed appearance or symbolical meaning. Instead of drawing a hole there, they made a real one. There are examples of meaningful holes in manuscripts. I'm replying from my phone so can't look well, but this looks like a good example: You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
Another possibility specific to copying is this. Scribes would often draw images around existing holes (for example a grotesque face where the hole is the mouth). If there was an exemplar, an existing hole may have been incorporated in this way. The VM scribe, not understanding his exemplare completely, thought he had to reproduce the hole as well.