02-08-2018, 07:55 PM
I have a very clear source for the statements about the earlier binding of the Voynich MS, and these observations have also been included in the 2016 Yale issue of the Voynich MS (essay by Zyats et al.).
Now it may seem somehow reasonable that smaller books would not have been bound in leather-covered wood, but is that really the case? It is very easy to find counter-examples in the net.
For example:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
but I won't argue that this is representative, because it is just one example from another age.
Books with a binding of beech wood were also much lighter than those bound in oak.
It would be helpful if any reputable source could be found for the statement that smaller books were rarely bound in wooden boards (covered with leather).
Now it may seem somehow reasonable that smaller books would not have been bound in leather-covered wood, but is that really the case? It is very easy to find counter-examples in the net.
For example:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
but I won't argue that this is representative, because it is just one example from another age.
Books with a binding of beech wood were also much lighter than those bound in oak.
It would be helpful if any reputable source could be found for the statement that smaller books were rarely bound in wooden boards (covered with leather).