The Voynich Ninja
Quire 13 - Printable Version

+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: Imagery (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-43.html)
+--- Thread: Quire 13 (/thread-146.html)



Quire 13 - VViews - 22-01-2016

Hello everyone,

A few months ago I made a wordpress to share my views of Quire 13.
It's just one page, but here's a link in case anyone is interested:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
As I explain on that page, it may be that Glen Claston or Nick Pelling had come to some of the same conclusions before, but I never read any explanation of what their exact reordering was or the exact reasons they gave for it beyond the connected tubs on two of the folios.

I don't have the courage to trawl through old VMS list archives in search of their exchanges on the subject, if they're even on there. If someone has a link to them I'd love to read them.
If my observations have been made by others before, I'll be happy to edit and give credit as necessary, or even delete the whole thing if its entirely redundant.

I'm not really sure whether to post this here or in some other section. I put it here because my views are based on illustrations. Admins, feel free to move it, or tell me how to do it.


RE: Quire 13 - Anton - 22-01-2016

Hi VViews,

The subject of your thread is in between imagery and binding, so let it stay here. Cool

I think that the major objection to the order that you propose would be that if we arrange folios in that order then we would have two quires instead of one single quire. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.'s the scheme of how the quire is currently binded. If spatial aptitude does not fail me, it seems to me that your proposed order cannot be binded in one quire, can it?


RE: Quire 13 - VViews - 22-01-2016

Hello Anton!
Indeed that is exactly what is being claimed, both in Nick Pelling's book, his original posts and in my discussion.
The evidence, shown by Nick Pelling, about the connecting tubs between 78v and 81r leaves little doubt that the binding we see in this quire is not the binding that there was originally.
The idea that quire 13 was originally two quires is apparently Glen Claston's.
I came to the same conclusion, as I explain in the page I linked, and further grouped and ordered the folios based on the reasons I have presented there.
For all these reasons, I strongly do believe that there were originally two quires in what is now Quire 13.


RE: Quire 13 - Anton - 22-01-2016

OK, did not understand that by parts you mean two actually different quires.


RE: Quire 13 - VViews - 23-01-2016

(22-01-2016, 11:16 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.OK, did not understand that by parts you mean two actually different quires.
 
Thank you Anton, your comment shows me that I need to reword that page a bit. Will edit it so that it will be clearer!