+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: Physical material (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-42.html)
+--- Thread: Trimming of final folio (/thread-62.html)
Trimming of final folio - david - 23-08-2015
I have written You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. about the repair carried out to the final folio of the VM.
In short, we decided that the top right tear in the final folio was repaired by the parchment maker whilst it was still on its frame (note oval needle holes, a clue that the string used to stitch the parchment was under pressure).
But there is a further consideration to make from this which I am only just starting to think about.
Namely, the wormhole in the top corner (see attachment). If the folio is spread out to be the same size as the preceding one, then the hole corresponds exactly with the wormhole on the previous folio, as is to be expected. So that suggests that at some point, both folios extended out to the same length, ie, their corners corresponded.
Which logically means the stitch in the repair had been removed at this point, allowing the page to come out. Probably the string broke.
Now, there is evidence of this repair being again repaired - if you look at the recto side of the folio you can see smaller needle holes amongst the oval ones, holes that weren't subjected to the same pressure. It's possible that the hair in the folio was thus stuffed back inside its hole and the stitch replaced at some point in its history.
Now this leads us to the question of the trimming. On this page we see writing that extends quite naturally to the very edge of the page. It has always been my contention that the writing was made on a full size folio, which was later trimmed to the very edge of the text (see my You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. for more).
The trimming is carried out to correspond with the new corner of the page when the stitch is in place. We can postulate that the trimming is not original but carried out by a later owner of the book, one who also repaired the stitch with a quick job.
I'm suggesting that originally that the final folio was the same size as the preceding one, with the top outermost corner being pulled in by the stitch, but the bottom outside corner still corresponding with the folio below. At some point the stitch came undone and the corner drifted back to its original position, at which point the wormhole was made. Now, if the lefthand margin was cut to its current point before that moment, the tops of both folios would not correspond, the top of f116 would be dragged downwards because there is not enough give in the parchment to allow it to correspond with f115 and the wormhole would not be where it is. So we can say both folios were originally the same size, with the top outermost corner being dragged in.
So it seems that when the stitch was repaired - after the inscription on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. was made - the sewer decided it looked a mess and trimmed this folio to its current size, corresponding with the new location of the corners of the folios. When we look at the preceding folio we see a number of wormholes on the outermost margin that don't exist in the folio in question, they were most probably the reason it was all cut away - the whole outermost margin was damaged anyway. Other wormholes inside the content of the folio do correspond with holes below, showing the rest of the page lay in its current position quite happily.
Re: Trimming of final folio - Anton - 23-08-2015
There has been an interesting discussion recently on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. which, among other things, touches holes and re-binding.
RE: Trimming of final folio - ReneZ - 23-01-2016
The tear with the small holes left and right of it are the result of stitching during the parchment preparation process. The tear must have been there, and was stitched to prevent it from becoming larger during the stretching. It's not clear when the thread was removed - could have been anytime really.
The round hole next to it is also from that time. It is best seen from the recto side. When the parchment was scraped during its preparation, this apparently thinner spot just opened up. I read somewhere that this could even be just an insect bite during the life of the calf.
The MS was rebound by the Jesuits, probably in the late 18th or early 19th Century though probably without replacing the stitching. From reports in the Collegium Romanum catalogues it seems that it was already under the attack by woodworms before that. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. shows the damage clearly. On You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. one sees that the insects ate through the text, and in the first folios also that they ate through the line drawings.
Some pages were clipped. I presume that this could have happened at the same time, when the cover was replaced. This is however not certain. One can see it (for example) at the bottom of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. . The edge is lighter, and the clipping cuts through the drawing. It may also have happened even earlier than this.
Voynich almost certainly took off the Jesuit cover again, and damaged it (e.g. removing the paper pastdowns). He had a habit of searching for treasures inside the bindings. We can still see what it used to look like from some similar manuscripts now in the Vatican:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Kraus made some repairs in 1967, but these are mostly visible when looking at the stitching. There are also additional guards, e.g. around quire 1. (The protective strip sewn in with f67 and f68 is older, and probably dates from the latest old binding).
Finally, and what is probably little know, the MS was stabilised by Yale conservation in 2009 in Yale's Sterling lab, across the street from the Beinecke. As is modern practice, such repairs are clearly visible (to be able to clearly disinguish original from modern). At least the following was done:
- the large tear in f86 (between bottom right circles of the rosettes diagram) was fixed
- the rolled up folios of Cancer and Leo were flattened
It seems that also the upper right corner of f116 was treated but I am not aware of the details.
The images at the Jason Davies (voyager) site are from the 2004 digitisation, and those in the Beinecke site from the 2014 digitisation, so those interested can make the comparisons.
RE: Trimming of final folio - Diane - 08-05-2016
So that I can quote the information, I wonder if David and Rene can provide some details:
David explains how he reached the conclusion that the tear occurred while the parchment was being stretched - so it reads as an original observation, with conclusions drawn.
However, Rene then repeats that, if it were something already well known, but not referring to any earlier source, saying: " the tear with the small holes left and right of it are the result of stitching during the parchment preparation process"
- so is it something that has been previously noted before, and if so by whom? Is David's observation the first? Perhaps Rene means just to nod, and show that he accepts David opinion?
I don't want to get the footnote wrong, so would be glad of clarification.
Further, Rene says that "The MS was rebound by the Jesuits, probably in the late 18th or early 19th Century.." Is this deduced from the pencilled numbers, or have we a document as record of the re-binding. And if we do:
1. I'd like to properly cite that document, or credit the person who informed Voynich studies of it;
2. I'd like to know (if there is documentary evidence for the date/s of that rebinding) how the manuscript is identified in that evidence: is it listed by the same code written in the pencilled J+numbers, or by some book title, or .. how?
It seems there must be some objective record of the way the Jesuit library had described the manuscript, because Rene says further
"From reports in the Collegium Romanum catalogues it seems that it was already under the attack by woodworms before that.."
So for those reports to tell us, specifically, that Beinecke 408 was affected by woodworms ('woodworms'? not 'bookworms?), there must be some way that it was specified: is this by an accession number, shelf-number, title or something else?
How do we know that the Voynich manuscript is included, particularly, in a record of treatment? - How do I cite that?
and then:
"Some pages were clipped" but Rene says "this could have happened at the same time...it may have happened earlier..not certain.." Is there any of the scientific descriptions which includes a list of folios clipped/trimmed? Is it perhaps in McCrone's unpublished data? How should one cite the original source, and explain the vacillation over when that happened?
about Rene's saying..
"Voynich almost certainly took off the Jesuit cover .." How do we know this? Is the doubt about the removal, or about who did the removal? Again, what original sources should I cite for this idea?
About the linked Jesuit manuscript - is the cover is of goatskin? What is that manuscript's title and date - I don't see a catalogue description on the Uni of Heidelberg site, though I expect this is my oversight, not theirs.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
"Kraus made some repairs in 1967..."
- what citation should I give for this information? Is Kraus' report or memorandum of repairs anywhere online - at the Beinecke library, perhapsr?
Finally - am I correct in crediting Ellie Velinska with having first noticed these wormholes and drawn others' attention to them? Perhaps that is a question I should ask on Ellie's own blog.
Thanks in anticipation to David and Rene. In Voynich studies, writing accurate footnotes is more of a struggle than any other area I've researched in the past forty years. Like archaeology, the original source seems often sunk under layers and layers of dust.
RE: Trimming of final folio - ReneZ - 08-05-2016
(08-05-2016, 04:22 AM)Diane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.- so is it something that has been previously noted before, and if so by whom? Is David's observation the first?
But how can we ever know this? Hundreds of people have seen the MS. Anyone with basic book knowledge would draw the same conclusion. For me, this is a trivial observation, not worthy of a citation, and the process can be found in any book about parchment preparation. At my web site I refer to this page:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(and ff.) which I find very clear.
For the rest, everything related to the history of the MS after it was received by Kircher, until Voynich presented it to the world, is my own research which is documented at my web site,
here: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
and here: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
and here: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
A short summary of it is presently being printed, and I can't give a citation of that yet.
The historical archives of the Gregorian University in Rome asked me to write a blog entry about it, which is also just a short summary and can be found here:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
RE: Trimming of final folio - Diane - 08-05-2016
Rene,
I think we can comfortably assume that thousands of people had observed apples dropping to the earth, and some may have conceived the idea of gravity, but we still cite Newton, because he brought it first to public attention, and wrote about it.
The same principle applies. In scholarship, we attempt to refer readers to the original instance - not only to credit the person concerned, but equally so that our own readers can see for themselves how the original source used their data, and reached their conclusions.
So I shall cite David, since you mention no-one earlier and it is clear just how he came to that opinion.
Thank you.
Your web-page, as you say, records your own research, but (as it also says) is a re-presentation, and in a number of cases in the past I have found that undocumented statements, or ones documented by the papers you choose to cite, happen to omit the name of the first person to reach that conclusion from their work. In many cases, therefore, I have cited persons from the first mailing list as having precedence over those you choose to acknowledge, most of which seem to come from hard-copy sources, often ones supporting your 'central European' theory - though that may be happenstance.
I'm sorry not to have a reply to the other questions, but understand that your time is limited.
RE: Trimming of final folio - ReneZ - 08-05-2016
Well I am glad that has been settled :-)
RE: Trimming of final folio - Diane - 08-05-2016
Rene,
My questions remain unanswered, and thus my citations require still more labour than would have been necessary if you'd had time to answer them, so from my point of view it remains unsettled.
I read your short post to the Gregorian blog.
I see everywhere a mention of the document: Vatican Library, Arch.Bibl. 109
but nowhere any mention of where it can be seen. I'm less interested Mgr. J. Ruysschaert's list, not least because it was made so much later than when Wilfrid obtained our manuscript.
I wonder if, with your personal contacts, you might arrange for Vatican Library, Arch.Bibl. 109 to be published online? I realise it's not exactly a public collection, but it would be handy, and one wouldn't want the thing grabbed by anyone wanting then to assert copyright over it.
This is happening so often with medieval texts that it's becoming a bit of an issue for historians and other scholars.( I do hope the Beineke has read the fine print in the agreement made with a Spanish company making a facsimile edition. The British Library has lost rights to publish online one or two important manuscripts for that reason, or so I'm told).