01-01-2026, 12:27 AM
Thank you for this important codicological question. You're absolutely right to ask for clarification on quire labeling.
**Quire Letter to Number Correspondence:**
In my analysis, I used the letter system that appears in several Voynich research publications for clarity. Here's the mapping:
- **Quire A** = Traditional Quire 1 (folios f1-f8)
- **Quire B** = Traditional Quire 2 (folios f9-f16)
- **Quire C** = Traditional Quire 3 (folios f17-f24)
- **Quire D** = Traditional Quire 4 (folios f25-f32)
- **Quire E** = Traditional Quire 5 (folios f33-f40)
- **Quire F** = Traditional Quire 6 (folios f41-f48) - partial analysis
- **Quire G** = Traditional Quire 7 (folios f49-f56)
- **Quire H** = Traditional Quire 8 (folios f57-f66) - partial analysis
- **Quire I** = Traditional Quire 9 (folios f67-f70) - very partial analysis
**Why letters instead of numbers?**
I chose letters to avoid confusion with folio numbers and because this system is used in several statistical analyses I referenced. But you're correct that the traditional numbering (1-20) is more standard for codicological description.
**What are "Others" in Table 1?**
The "Others" category (56 folios, 10 analyzed) includes:
- Folios from quires beyond Quire I (J, K, L, M, etc.)
- The Rosettes foldout (quire structure differs)
- Folios with ambiguous quire assignment in standard reconstructions
- Some disconnected folios from various sections
**Complete mapping available:**
I've just added a detailed folio-to-quire mapping file to the GitHub repository:
`data/folio_quire_mapping.csv`
It shows exactly which folio belongs to which quire in both letter and number systems, plus the reconstruction source I followed (based primarily on Zandbergen's and Gheuens' work).
This is an important clarification I should have included in the paper. Thank you for catching it - this kind of precise feedback is exactly why I shared the work openly.
**Quire Letter to Number Correspondence:**
In my analysis, I used the letter system that appears in several Voynich research publications for clarity. Here's the mapping:
- **Quire A** = Traditional Quire 1 (folios f1-f8)
- **Quire B** = Traditional Quire 2 (folios f9-f16)
- **Quire C** = Traditional Quire 3 (folios f17-f24)
- **Quire D** = Traditional Quire 4 (folios f25-f32)
- **Quire E** = Traditional Quire 5 (folios f33-f40)
- **Quire F** = Traditional Quire 6 (folios f41-f48) - partial analysis
- **Quire G** = Traditional Quire 7 (folios f49-f56)
- **Quire H** = Traditional Quire 8 (folios f57-f66) - partial analysis
- **Quire I** = Traditional Quire 9 (folios f67-f70) - very partial analysis
**Why letters instead of numbers?**
I chose letters to avoid confusion with folio numbers and because this system is used in several statistical analyses I referenced. But you're correct that the traditional numbering (1-20) is more standard for codicological description.
**What are "Others" in Table 1?**
The "Others" category (56 folios, 10 analyzed) includes:
- Folios from quires beyond Quire I (J, K, L, M, etc.)
- The Rosettes foldout (quire structure differs)
- Folios with ambiguous quire assignment in standard reconstructions
- Some disconnected folios from various sections
**Complete mapping available:**
I've just added a detailed folio-to-quire mapping file to the GitHub repository:
`data/folio_quire_mapping.csv`
It shows exactly which folio belongs to which quire in both letter and number systems, plus the reconstruction source I followed (based primarily on Zandbergen's and Gheuens' work).
This is an important clarification I should have included in the paper. Thank you for catching it - this kind of precise feedback is exactly why I shared the work openly.