The Voynich Ninja

I am continuing with my investigations but have decided to share this post in order to get feedback, as I think it's a very interesting observation.

I have been closely looking at Quire 13 (the balneological section) and something occured to me. 
As part of the foliation task, I was examining You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and f81r. These two folios are part of the same sheet of parchment (a bifolio), but have other sheets sewn in above them. Just like a newspaper.

It You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. that the bifolio was drawn as one complete page, and as such it should have been the centrepiece of the bifolio. So that when you open the quire, you see both pages together in all their glory.

I'm going to take this one step further and say:

All the bifolios in this quire have been drawn as complete entities.

In other words, each bifolio seems to have been drawn without taking into consideration that they would be sewn into a quire - each bifolio has unique graphic elements that aren't seen on other bifolios. They're independent of each other, as if each bifolio were telling a story, albeit all on the same general theme.

To see this, I printed them all off as bifolios. In fact, that's how I noticed this. So one sheet of A4 had 78v & 81r on one side, 81v and 78r on the back. Just like the real manuscript. If you don't have the printed copies to hand, use the Voynich Ninja page comparision tool You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

What you will notice when browsing is that each bifolio contain the same graphic imagery unique to that bifolio.

Remember, these bifoloios are two pages on one sheet of parchment. Just like a newspaper. You have your left hand side and your right hand side - the sheets of newspaper are laid on top of one another and stapled in the middle. So whilst one side of the sheet might have domestic news, the other side will be in a different section, say cooking.

Here's a layout of Quire 13, courtesy of ReneZ's website:

Let's take it from the bottom. After each analysis I add a brief summary of the unique features which link the individual pages of each bifolio.

f75 and f84 (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). Both folios share the same types of bathing pools. These pools have no walls or borders around them, making them visually distinct from 78-81, the only other bifolio where bathing pools appear. Furthermore, the nymps on these four pages are active, painted in different positions and facing one another. The 78-87 bifolio nymphs are all static, mainly facing in long rows and holding hands, the very antithesis to the nymphs on this bifolio. And here we have larger nymphs in these pools who seem to be some sort of central matriachal figure, unlike the 78-87 bifolio where all are the same sized. All the pools of water are connected downwards, and all four top pools have different decorations above the pools of water.
- The types of pool, the graphical imagery depicting the flow of water, the types of nymphs and their positions are unique to these four pages.

f76 and f83 (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is the only text only page. The other three folios share common graphical traits. The nymphs appear alone, always standing in the mouth of a pipe (with two exceptions, at the top of 84r), sometimes holding objects. All of these pipes have a layered inverted pyramid underneath, and there is a strong motif of water "droplets" being You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.from pipes which occurs nowhere else (the water droplets sprayed on 77v/r are draw in a different fashion as rows of dots and lines -You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). The pipes are not connected to one another. The rainbow on 83r and bulbs on 83v are unique in this section. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. does depict three nymphs putting their hands into tubs in a similar fashion to that of 82.
-Nymphs stand in pipes, sometimes holding objects. All stands have inverted layered pyramids with a strong motif of water droplets being sprayed.

f77 & f82 (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). Three of the pages are unique in having "pipes"  connecting nymphs as headers. The fourth, f82r, continues with nymphs. Whilst there are pools of water on 82r/v, these are very different beasts from those on 78-87 or 75-84, in asmuch as they have no defined borders, and the nymphs are either scattered around the sides or standing on pipes. Around all four pages are individual nymphs standing not in pipes but in bowls. All individual nymphs have their hands inside pipes with one exception (82r centre right, lying down). f82 has a rip in the bottom which was originally sewn up and has since lost its thread - from the way the paint covers the rip (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.) I wonder if the rip happened after the original painting was done? Further study required here.
- This bifolio has unique individual stands for the nymphs, and all (excepting one) individual nymphs have their hands in pipes. Three of the headers are of pipes connecting nymphs.

78 & 81 (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). there is a clear connection between You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and 81r - the built up swimming pool on 78v connects to the two baths on 81r. But there is an additional link - the bath on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. has a link to the bath on f81v. Note the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. which logically connects on the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. And we can connect this with the master bath on 78r - note the bottom bath has an You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.and the bath opposite has an inlet which starts in the middle of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. All six baths are linked, albeit in a reverse order to the logical reading of the page (top right to bottom left, then left to right on the reverse). All the nymphs in the baths are also unique - there is no clear matriach, and they are all linked in groups, holding hands in groups of 3,4,5,6,7. All of the baths appear to be elevated swimming pools with the exception of the two on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. which have no walls - but they do have the same stylised border running around the water which would indicate the top of wall. Maybe space limitations? (the page is very text heavy).
- All the pools on this bifolio are linked, from top left to right, the to the reverse left to right. The style of the pools is unique to this bifolio, as are the positions of the nymphs.

79 & 80 (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). Again we have a unique imagery theme which links all the folios. There are individual (or small groupings) of nymphs in basins who drip water onto the basins below, until eventually the water reaches irregular pools (no attempts at depicting walls) in which nymphs and animals frolic. Most of the pools are green, but two pools include duos of nymphs touching each other (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.) and the water is blue in these examples, which may be medical in nature. There are duality of nymphs interacting on all of the pages. Top right of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. there appears to be a man chasing a woman. Animals appear in one of the folios.
- The pipes and basins connecting nymphs are unique to this bifolio. There are duos of nymphs interacting in an assertive/submissive fashion and when they appear in pools the water is a unique colour of blue. There appears to be a hierarchy of flowing water.


------------------------------------
I think it is clear that each bifolio is to be taken as whole, instead of individual pages to be read in order. It is too early to draw any conclusions from this, but one possibility is that the scribe wanted to draw more foldout pages, but instead continued with the bifolio model.

Hi David,
this is very interesting indeed, but why put it here instead of adding it to the foliation task Q13 thread?

Because I don't yet know how it fits into the foliation task.
Indeed, if accepted by consensus, this would make the proposed reordering of Q13 moot, as it turns the 78-81 from being a centerfold to just being the most obvious of them all.

(30-03-2016, 08:20 PM)david Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Indeed, if accepted by consensus, this would make the proposed reordering of Q13 moot, as it turns the 78-81 from being a centerfold to just being the most obvious of them all.

Not really.
I should start by saying that I am entirely open to the possibility that your proposition about each bifolio having internal coherence and telling a sort of mini-story within the balneo section, may be correct.
However this in itself is a reordering, as it is different from the order in which the folios presently appear.
Furthermore, even in the scenario you describe, there must be a first bifolio to the "balneo section", and therefore ordering is not moot at all. 
Which bifolio was placed first?  76-83 makes the most sense to me, because 76r is the only text-only page. It would appear as a good intro to the section, whichever way we believe the rest of it is organized.
Or are you suggesting that these were never meant to be bound together with the rest of the manuscript, but that each bifolio was meant as an entirely standalone sort of pamphlet?

I've noticed this too, and if you think about it some more it's clear that it's not just the Bio section that is like this, but the entire manuscript.  The bifolios were never intended to be nested within one another.  Each one was intended to stand alone as its own "quire".

I don't know whether that was a normal practice for medieval books or not.  I imagine that it would be more difficult to bind such a book, which is probably the main reason why the VMS pages are not bound in the correct order.

(31-03-2016, 09:20 AM)Sam G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I've noticed this too, and if you think about it some more it's clear that it's not just the Bio section that is like this, but the entire manuscript.  The bifolios were never intended to be nested within one another.  Each one was intended to stand alone as its own "quire".

However not for the three pharma bifolios, judging from the containers.
The two nested bifolios 99-102 and 100-101 seem to be organised correctly. The only minor inconsistency is, that the first one on 99v has been drawn a bit more elaborately and could have been meant to be the first one, but there is no way to reorganise thefolios to make this work.

Most importantly, the transition from one style (2 or 3 cylindrical segments with diameters reducing from bottom to top) to another one (including narrow and tapered sections) occurs in the course of folio 102 (from recto to verso).
It continues that way on 88 recto, and here immediately (after the first one) another common change happens: from the second one onwards, all containers have lids. Before that, none of them has.

One other feature, whether they have feet or not, is alternating, though there are no feet on fols 100 and 101.
(Maybe someone is interested in doing some folding experiments and figure out the most logical total arrangement).

The main points is, however, that there is a continuous progression and the main changes do not happen on bifolio boundaries.

Thank you David!
I greatly appreciate your clear exposition and the visual support for what you discuss.
I hope you will find the time to make experiments with the pharma section too, as proposed by Rene.

(31-03-2016, 09:20 AM)Sam G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I've noticed this too, and if you think about it some more it's clear that it's not just the Bio section that is like this, but the entire manuscript.  The bifolios were never intended to be nested within one another.  Each one was intended to stand alone as its own "quire".

I am of the same opinion. I think to accept the fact that the ms. started life as a pile of notes and was at some time bound together  for the same reason we put documents into a filing folder or ring binder would explain a lot of phenomena and make our life much easier.

Like Rene and Marco I'd also be very interested to see what the "pharma" section would have looked like in its original order. Like many others suggested, I wouldn't be surprised if it works as a pile of foldouts + bifolios rather than a real "book format".

Quote:Furthermore, even in the scenario you describe, there must be a first bifolio to the "balneo section", and therefore ordering is not moot at all. 

I did not meant that the original ordering is not moot - our proposed reordering may be.
If you accept that all of these bifolios work as standalone sheets, then unfortunately the argument that 78-81 "must" be the centrefold because of the connecting baths no longer holds water (ah hem), because all of the bifolios are like that.
There may very well be an original order the bifolios are supposed to go in, but it is no longer apparant from the visual clues, which actually lead down a different trail.

(31-03-2016, 09:20 AM)Sam G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I don't know whether that was a normal practice for medieval books or not.  I imagine that it would be more difficult to bind such a book, which is probably the main reason why the VMS pages are not bound in the correct order.

No it isn't. Scribes were aware of how bifolios fitted together and would write accordingly, in the same way today's newspaper editors are.

Rene: Yes, there is at first glance (haven't really looked that hard at it) a logical progression of folios as you mention. But that logical procession is lacking in Q13.

(30-03-2016, 10:39 PM)VViews Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[quote pid='2811' dateline='1459365625']
Which bifolio was placed first?  76-83 makes the most sense to me, because 76r is the only text-only page. It would appear as a good intro to the section, whichever way we believe the rest of it is organized.
Or are you suggesting that these were never meant to be bound together with the rest of the manuscript, but that each bifolio was meant as an entirely standalone sort of pamphlet?

[/quote]
Or, we swop the bifolio around the 76r becomes the final page with all the notes. We just can't tell, we can only guess.
Frankly, I'm almost at the point where I would suggest that the folios were "standalone". They're like a collection of... I don't know, wall charts on the same topic that someone has gathered up and bound together. Imagine an Englishman had a collection of classic car posters, and an African tribesman found them, not understanding them but liking them, bound them together into a book.......