13-07-2026, 07:10 PM
I read an article by Layfield and Davis about how the creators of the manuscript did not intend for the folios to be bound. As I understand it, the binding is a major mistake by one of the owners (and we can see this, for example, in the confusion of the beginning of the sections). The manuscript was supposed to be read as a set of four folios (so are these the Voynich folios or the Voynich scrolls?)
It is possible that this was done by someoneYou are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..
This led me to believe that the manuscript was originally more cohesive in terms of its sections.
Couldn't the pharmaceuticals be located near the Botany? This could explain the "Small Herbal" (images of herbs f90r1-f96v), which is located "inside" the pharmaceutical section. It also makes sense - there's no need to separate these two essentially identical topics...
It is possible that this was done by someoneYou are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..
This led me to believe that the manuscript was originally more cohesive in terms of its sections.
Couldn't the pharmaceuticals be located near the Botany? This could explain the "Small Herbal" (images of herbs f90r1-f96v), which is located "inside" the pharmaceutical section. It also makes sense - there's no need to separate these two essentially identical topics...