+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: News (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-25.html)
+--- Thread: [Blog Post] Analysis of cover attachment and VMS binding. (/thread-3508.html)
RE: Analysis of cover attachment and VMS binding. - Wladimir D - 23-03-2021
I mean
RE: Analysis of cover attachment and VMS binding. - ReneZ - 23-03-2021
Thank you!
I do not have an answer to that, except for the outermost ones, like in your first figure.
Reading the comment from HLH on the inside of the end cover, these were added by him, and they also clearly look different.
RE: Analysis of cover attachment and VMS binding. - LisaFaginDavis - 25-03-2021
Wladimir, thank you for this blogpost! Your work is fascinating and important.
I will be spending some time with the VMS at the end of April and would be happy to take a close look at particular codicological features for you. Please feel free to send me a message with a list of features you would like me to examine or image. Please note that because the manuscript is very fragile, and readers are not allowed to open any of the foldouts. There's nothing I can do about that. But I am happy to do what I can to help you with your work.
The quireguards (what you have called "shims") are definitely modern vellum.
As for Herbal B, because so many leaves are missing from the Herbal section, I suspect it will not be possible to determine the original structure or sequence with absolute confidence. It's clear that the bifolia are out of order, but I don't think there is enough physical evidence to make a strong case about the original sequence of nested bifolia. The tables in my Manuscripta article lay out the current codicological structure and the relationships between scribes and bifolia. Shuffling the bifolia around so they're sorted by scribe seems like the right thing to do, but there's not enough evidence of offsetting to make a convincing argument.
It is worth remembering that the offsets in the Herbal section that are the result of the upper-outer margin waterstain reflect the current sequencing of bifolia, so most of the offsets are not going to help reconstruct the original sequence. A good example is the flower in the upper right corner of f. 26 (scribe 2/Herbal B) offsetting onto f. 25v (scribe 1/Herbal A). There is a nice green spot unrelated to the staining in the upper part of f. 25v that might provide some evidence of the original facing page, but I haven't been able to positively identify the leaf that provided the offset. It is likely one of the missing leaves.
The foliation was added after the spill took place, but before the missing leaves were removed. There may have been leaves missing before the misbinding and foliating, but there's no way to know for sure.
In other words:
1) VMS originally bound in correct order (early 15th c.)
2) rebound out of order (why? who knows) (must have happened early in the manuscript's history)
3) quire numbers added at the end of quires (these look mid- to late 15th-c. to me)
4) stain occurs in the Herbal section (this stain is catastrophic and would likely have led to conservation work, possibly rebinding)
5) foliation added (looks 17th-c. to me)
6) folios go missing
7) VMS rebound at least one more time
At some point after the quire numbers were added, foldout 67/68 was resewn so that the quire number was in the wrong place...other interventions may have occurred at that time.
Wladimir, I would be interested in hearing your observations about the attachment of the two singletons (ff. 13 and 73, both of which are singletons whose conjoint is missing). All of the other missing leaves are conjoint bifolia. F. 12 has left a stub, so the sewing goes through the gutter as expected. It's not entirely clear how f. 73 is attached.
Thank you!
RE: Analysis of cover attachment and VMS binding. - ReneZ - 25-03-2021
(25-03-2021, 02:02 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.At some point after the quire numbers were added, foldout 67/68 was resewn so that the quire number was in the wrong place...other interventions may have occurred at that time.
Dear Lisa,
this bifolio is a bit of a mystery. Indeed, it should have been sewn in differently, in order to put the quire number in the right place, and even there are tiny holes in the corresponding fold, but these holes were looked at closely in 2014, and it could be concluded that these holes were never 'used'.
That meas that the (presumably) incorrect insertion of this bifolio has been there from the first assembly of the MS.
RE: Analysis of cover attachment and VMS binding. - Wladimir D - 26-03-2021
The promised continuation of the analysis.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
RE: Analysis of cover attachment and VMS binding. - LisaFaginDavis - 26-03-2021
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 "behind the scenes" at the spine and sewing holes. I was particularly intrigued by this observation (translation by Google): "I get the impression that bifolios 50-55 and 51-54 were previously central biolios in other notebooks. There was dust from ancient stitching on them. They are now deliberately placed in one notebook."
Since bifolium 50-55 is Scribe 2/Herbal B and bifolium 51-54 is Scribe 1/Herbal A, this observation supports the idea that the quires were originally organized by scribe, which would be in keeping with the general practice of medieval book production.
RE: Analysis of cover attachment and VMS binding. - Anton - 26-03-2021
Very insteresting forensic analysis, Wladimir.
RE: Analysis of cover attachment and VMS binding. - LisaFaginDavis - 26-03-2021
I'll add that one of the things I'm planning to do when I see the manuscript next month is to take detailed, precise measurements of the placement of sewing holes for each bifolium, when they are visible in the gutter. These measurements may be helpful to everyone working on the structure of the manuscript, so I will be sure to post them here.
RE: Analysis of cover attachment and VMS binding. - Koen G - 26-03-2021
(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!
RE: Analysis of cover attachment and VMS binding. - MarcoP - 26-03-2021
It's great to see researchers from different countries and with different backgrounds working together: internet at its best!
I am also grateful to the Ninja admins for contributing to make this possible.