- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
New blogpost
- New blogpost
-
RE: New blogpost
Koen G > 20-01-2025, 03:46 AM
A very useful overview. Have you ever tried reordering folios based on the progression of the spill? -
RE: New blogpost
Aga Tentakulus > 20-01-2025, 07:27 AM
Nice detail.
The question. Who likes bathing in the waste water from two other bathrooms?
Or creating a third one from two mixed substances sounds more plausible to me.
Based on the technical process, the story of Quire 13 begins with F76r.
I'm looking forward to the result. -
RE: New blogpost
Wladimir D > 20-01-2025, 07:27 AM
Lisa.
My opinion on q9. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the holes between pages 67v2 and 67v1 do not match the existing book block pillars. This gives grounds to consider the option that this quire was taken from another manuscript. There are two more arguments in support of this option.
1. Only this QUIRE uses red ink.
2. Only here (on the title page) is the preliminary line ruling used.
Now an explanation of why the quire number is not in the right place. A separate person was responsible for the formation of the quire, quire marks. The master of the quire binding simply made a mistake.
During the continuous numbering of the manuscript, there was a stop on the page. The person doing the numbering noticed that the q9 mark was not in place. He washed off the number 67 and asked the binder to correct the stitching. This is a lot of work. The stitching correction was abandoned and number 67 was re-entered.
For a correct understanding of the page order (later?) additional numbering in Latin letters was entered.
Each bifolio/trifolio... at the top of the bend has an unused hole, through which (probably?) adjacent bifolios were stitched outward with stitches for the rigidity of the block (an additional "stand" was obtained). Many bifolios have the same unused holes at the bottom of the bend. On those bifolios where there are no holes, the pages were probably trimmed at the bottom. -
RE: New blogpost
Linda > 20-01-2025, 07:33 AM
I guess the early 2000s was specifically between 2004 and 2014, since the images show there were repairs done between on the Rosettes. Do you think they were ever folded differently? Sometimes I think I can see previous stitch marks but the version where you can see more within that area has been repaired, and you can barely see the rips anymore, so I don't know, don't have the expertise.
You said you had made some corrections, I didn't compare yet. I had remembered incorrectly about the hands of quires 13, 14, and 20, had thought some were the same hand, but I think now it was that their vord content was similar. I found this but not the post yet.
Did any of those change or was it in other sections? Will compare later.
Thanks for the food for thought. -
RE: New blogpost
ReneZ > 20-01-2025, 11:06 AM
(20-01-2025, 07:27 AM)Wladimir D Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.My opinion on q9. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the holes between pages 67v2 and 67v1 do not match the existing book block pillars.
This is correct, and this was observed in 2014 during the Folger library workshop.
However:
the holes were looked at through a microscope, and the conclusion was, that these 'holes' were very clean knife cuts, and never had a thread run through them. They were never 'used'.
This was the opinion of a MS conservator. I was lucky enough to see through the microscope myself, and while I have no expertise in this, what I saw completely matched that observation.
This means that the holes were prepared but never used.
I do like the possible explanation for the page numbering of 67, which is a bit of a small mystery in itself.
(20-01-2025, 07:33 AM)Linda Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.the early 2000s was specifically between 2004 and 2014, since the images show there were repairs done between on the Rosettes.
This was done around the time of the Austrian documentary, and my recollection is 2009. -
RE: New blogpost
RobGea > 22-01-2025, 08:01 PM
Nice blogpost, informative, clearly laid out and with some interesting ideas to persue and think about,
like the possibility of obtaining a bifolio reordering sequence by following the progression of the liquid stain.
Whilst reading the Staining hypothesis put forward in the that last paragraph of the 'Staining' section of the above article,
i had an idea, whether its logical or not, idk.
Staining hypothesis:
The VMS gets liquid spilt onto it , owner quickly decides to disassemble the wet bifolios
then sets them aside to dry BUT then VMS is rebound before the bifolios are completely dry.
a) Rebinding is not an everyday skill, it take someone who knows what they are doing.
BUT anyone who knows about rebinding MSS's would surely know to wait for the bifolia to completely dry.
b) If the VMS bifolia were rebound before they could completely dry.
then that means that the bifolia arrived into the hands of a MSS-binder in a fairly short amount of time,
which implies that the then VMS owner had binding skills or that a MSS-binder was located close by and was available. -
RE: New blogpost
zachary.kaelan > 03-03-2025, 08:07 PM
(20-01-2025, 07:27 AM)Wladimir D Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.My opinion on q9. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the holes between pages 67v2 and 67v1 do not match the existing book block pillars. This gives grounds to consider the option that this quire was taken from another manuscript.
In a You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. you had on the subject, you mentioned the possibility that carbon dating would show something different for Q9. I'd like to bring up that one of the pages carbon dated actually was You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. from Q9, and the dating for that page was slightly off compared to the others. -
RE: New blogpost
Barbrey > 04-03-2025, 11:30 PM
Excellent work, Lisa! It’s exciting to see Voynich research progressing.