The Voynich Ninja

Hi, Wladimir (and everyone),

I had a very productive day with the VMS at Yale yesterday. I taught a class about the manuscript, and the recording has been posted here: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

I doubt there is anything in the video that this group does not already know, but you might enjoy hearing from curator Ray Clemens and Yale linguistics professor Claire Bowern, both of whom were there with me.

I took detailed images for Wladimir of the sewing in the middle of each quire (except for Q7, which I accidentally skipped, but the images of folio 58 and f. 65 on the Beinecke server show the sewing quite clearly). I also took images of the spaces between the quires where you can see the sewing stations. I was not able to image the sewing for the Rose, since it is too fragile to open, and some of the gaskets elsewhere in the manuscript are too tight to open. Please note that in the images of the spine, the front of the manuscript at the top. My images are here: 

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

You are welcome to download, use, or share them as you like, but please do credit me as the photographer if you share them.

Some observations, and answers to some of Wladimir's questions:

The gasket at f. 71v is the only one with any pigment. It does appear to be similar to the green pigment elsewhere in the manuscript, but without some kind of XRF or other material testing I could not say for certain that it is the same.

I was not able to see the "side" of the wormhole that goes through the "5" of f. "115". It MIGHT allign with the small hole at the upper corner of f. 116r, but because f. 116r is so cockled, it is very hard to tell. I could not illuminate the inside of the f. 115r wormhole enough to see if there is ink inside.

Most of your other questions cannot be answered because of the manuscript's fragility.

My observations:

In the center of each quire, I measured the distance from the top of the gutter to each sewing hole. There were no surprises - the sewing aligns with the current sewing stations as seen in the spine images. It is not possible to see beneath the thread in the gutters to look for unused holes, because the thread obscures the gutter.

F. 57 and f. 66 are currently conjoint and are held together by small strips of conservation-tissue. I cannot tell from the inside if the repair is the ONLY thing holding them together, but the spine image suggests that might be the case. If so, it is possible that these two leaves were not always conjoint.

It is very difficult to tell what exactly is happening with f. 73 and the gasket that is holding it in place. I cannot find a stub of the now-missing conjoint (f. 74), although there should be one on the far side of the gasket (i.e. between the gasket and f. 75r). It may have become inverted and tucked into the space behind the gasket.

I hope this is helpful!

- Lisa

(27-04-2021, 03:34 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.F. 57 and f. 66 are currently conjoint and are held together by small strips of conservation-tissue. I cannot tell from the inside if the repair is the ONLY thing holding them together, but the spine image suggests that might be the case. If so, it is possible that these two leaves were not always conjoint.

Well, there goes my idea that these two folios likely have some thematic connection. This idea rested primarily on the fact that they seemed to be next to each other on the same side of one bifolio. I mean, they still might be thematically connected. But if it's not at all clear that You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. were originally neighbors, then I have a lot less basis for making this claim.

Given that 58 and 65 are a bifolio, and the foliation predates modern conservation, chances remain very good that 57 and 66 were originally also a bifolio.

(27-04-2021, 05:39 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Given that 58 and 65 are a bifolio, and the foliation predates modern conservation, chances remain very good that 57 and 66 were originally also a bifolio.

I think so too, Rene

Continuation. Original text with pictures. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. 
 
The post uses new photographs of the manuscript taken by Lisa Fagin Davis.
What I in the first part called the main thread T4 (which attaches notebooks to the supports) must be divided into 3 (or even 4) types.
Thread T4r (r - right) with right twist of the thread. The thread is used at the beginning and at the end of the manuscript.
Subvariant T4r1 - with a weak twist of the thread. But it can be the same thread, if the top stitch was made with the rest of the thread loosely dangling when threading the needle into the eyelet.
Thread T4L (L - left) with left twist of the thread.
It is used in the middle of the book in notebooks that follow in a row (possibly in Q8, since the extended section of the thread may not be native in this notebook).
A special case of threads in notebooks Q10, Q11 (again in a row).
The yarns appear uneven in thickness with alternating fiber directions.
It looks like a thread - a pigtail, woven from 3 thin threads. (T4p - pigtail). The visual change in the thickness of the thread occurs due to the fact that the thread lies in a spiral, and where it is photographed in profile it becomes thinner (green rectangle).
The alternation of the types of T4 threads rather indicates a different repair time (or different craftsmen who had their own types of threads). It is unlikely that the master in Q5 ran out of threads, and he began to use the first threads he came across, and then went to the shop and continued to sew T4r.
In post 2, I demonstrated that Q9 is possible through a gasket, sewn to the bottom false and central supports with T3 thread.
Lisa's new photos confirm this. Thread T3 lies under thread T4L. The T4L thread pierces the spacer and sheet in the center of the support, while the T3 wraps around the support from above. As a result, T3 is on the surface in an area equal to half the width of the support.
Incomplete fastening with T3 thread was done earlier than T4L, since the firmware with T4L thread was made tightly and efficiently, and there is no need for additional fastening.
It is difficult to determine from the photograph, but I am inclined that there is a knot on the upper false support Q12 (Not Q11). The Q13 fastening twine is pierced through it.
It looks very strange that it is on Q11, Q10, Q9, Q8, Q6 that there are no nodes on the upper false support (stubs stick out), despite the fact that the upper ties of the notebook binding exist. But the binding thread of these notebooks is not a standard T4r, but either a pigtail or T4L.
Unfortunately, Lisa did not take (or did not post) photos with the details of fastening the node on the Q8.
I described one variant of its attachment in the first part.
Second option. The overgrown area is tied to a thread stub on the lower support (multi-colored twine in the figure). A broken short thread (black - white) sticking out of the support is fastened with a multicolored piece twine, using the third thread. You don't even need to open the cover for this, but an assistant is needed for tight tension.

Thank you for this new post, Wladimir. 

Are you at a point now where you can draw some conclusions from your observations? It would be very helpful for all of us if you could summarize your conclusions. What does this information tell us about the history of the conservation of the manuscript? 

I'm glad my photographs were helpful!

- Lisa

Lisa. Before I can do my resume, I have to finish a blog on numbering of manuscript pages. Since these two topics are cross-proof in reasoning.

The delay was due to new research that should precede the conclusions, as there are interesting observations there.
Findings from the new study.
1 / The Voynich Manuscript has been infected with worms at least 2 times.
2 / The ways of attaching the VMS cover are found in other Jesuit books with goatskin covers.
See the blog for details at You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. . Do not be lazy to use a translator.

Many thanks again, this is very interesting!

Please note that the MS Vat.Lat. 11504 has a cover that predates the time that it entered the Collegium Romanum library. It is part of a collection of Manuscripts that belonged to Pier Leoni, private physician of Lorenzo de Medici.
They all have a similar cover with number and title on the dorso.

References:
Dorez, Léon: Recherches sur la bibliothèque de Pier Leoni, médecin de Laurent de Médicis (2e article), in: Revue des Bibliothèques, VII, 1897, pp. 81-107.
Ruysschaert, Mgr. José: Nouvelles recherches au sujet de la bibliotheque de Pier Leoni, Médecin de Laurent le Magnifique. Bulletin de la Classe des Lettres et des Sciences morales et politiques de l’Académie Royale de Belgique, 46 (1960), pp. 37-65.

However, it is not impossible (?) that the binding was re-attached by the Jesuits.

(26-03-2021, 02:44 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(26-03-2021, 02:04 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Wow, Wladimir, this is wonderful! You've actually given me hope that the original sequence of bifolia in the herbal section CAN be reconstructed, not by looking at the offsets but by looking 

It's been a while since we've had such encouraging news!

Fascinating Lisa and Waldimir

Earlier, I already assumed that the Q9 material is from another batch (it was already infected with a worm, there are holes in the outer marginal margins).
It appears that bifolios 104-115, 105-114 already had worm holes before insertion into the Q20 cover.
Probably bifolios 104-115 and 105-114 belonged to another Quire before stitching, which goes well with the design of f105r.


[attachment=6579]