• Options
• Login
• Desktop Style

Bifolio as a functional unit?

• Index

  • The Voynich Ninja
  • Voynich Research
  • Analysis of the text
  • Bifolio as a functional unit?
• Bifolio as a functional unit?

• RE: Bifolio as a functional unit?

  anejati > 29-12-2025, 08:44 PM

  (15-12-2025, 08:29 AM)kckluge Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  (13-12-2025, 02:22 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.That's exactly what Colin and I have done with Latent Semantic Analysis. More here, and article coming soon:
  
  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  
  
  
  The evidence from Colin's analytics shows exactly what you're asking - a very strong textual correlation across conjoint bifolia in both the balneology and stars sections. We did NOT find that correlation across conjoint bifolia in the herbal section, which suggests that, as long suspected, each herbal page is it's own semantic unit.
  
  
  
  In other words, 104v and 115r (conjoint) are more closely related than, say, 104v and 105r (consecutive).

  
  
  
  It seems to me that this (the difference in LSA behavior between the balneology & stars section bifolia on the one hand and the herbal bifolia on the other) speaks strongly against theories involving glossolalia/automatic writing, Ruggian grids, self-citation methods, etc. because there is no obvious reason for such text generation mechanisms to produce bifolia with different LSA behavior in different (types of) sections. Or am I misunderstanding what the LSA analysis is saying about the herbal bifolia vs the balneology & stars bifolia?

  
  Based on what I'm reading here, self-citation can, in theory, explain the LSA behavior, but you have to add an extra assumption: That self-citation in non-herbal sections was done 
  at the bifolium level, but in the herbal section it was done on the page level. I would argue that indeed this extra assumption does work against the self-citation theory.

• RE: Bifolio as a functional unit?

  Jorge_Stolfi > 31-01-2026, 02:36 PM

  It occurred to me that the Author may actually have intended to make a bound book, but did not realize that, for that purpose, the pages had to be written on the bifolios in a complicated order, because the bifolios would have to be gathered and nested into quires.
  
  That mistake may seem too stupid once one thinks about it, but it is the kind of thing that could be overlooked by someone who had no previous experience in creating a book. And that seems likely to be the the case for both the VMS Author and his Scribe.
  
  (I seem to recall making that mistake myself when trying to laser-print on A4 paper, two-sided, what was meant to be a booklet in A5 size.  And I seem to recall that some word processor or PDF viewer had an option to do the necessary shuffling of the pages.) 
  
  All the best, --stolfi

• RE: Bifolio as a functional unit?

  Rafal > 31-01-2026, 02:45 PM

  There were other options apart from the book.
  
  Personally I consider the option that Voynich Manuscript could be originally a folded almanac.
  
  In such case it would be a collection of loose folios carried in some box.
  The hint is the presence of numerous foldouts in VM which are generally rare in manuscripts.
  
  
  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  

• RE: Bifolio as a functional unit?

  DG97EEB > 01-02-2026, 11:42 AM

  (31-01-2026, 02:45 PM)Rafal Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There were other options apart from the book.
  
  Personally I consider the option that Voynich Manuscript could be originally a folded almanac.
  
  In such case it would be a collection of loose folios carried in some box.
  The hint is the presence of numerous foldouts in VM which are generally rare in manuscripts.
  
  
  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  

  
  Here's a lovely example from the Wellcome Collection You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  
  Interestingly it's dated to around 1490, but there's a note which reads "Notes
  Mention of Pope Innocent VIII, who was pope between 1484 and 1492, gives an approximate dating for the manuscript as c. 1490. The vellum end-papers at each end are from fragments of an early 14th century Commentary on the Code of Justinian." Which suggests that vellum was being re-used

• RE: Bifolio as a functional unit?

  ReneZ > 01-02-2026, 11:39 PM

  (01-02-2026, 11:42 AM)DG97EEB Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Here's a lovely example from the Wellcome Collection You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  
  Shelf mark: Wellcome MS 335. It's a collection of items, but the main part is described as a herbal:
  
  

  Quote:8. pp. 75-372 Herbal in Latin
  
  p. 75 Absinthium est calidum in primo et siccum in 2o ... p. 372 ... et confert ulceri matricis per prouocationem menstruorum. Pandecta. Auicenna. Serapio. Explicit herbarius.

  
  I could not find out from the description if the MS itself has been written on paper or parchment.

• RE: Bifolio as a functional unit?

  DG97EEB > 02-02-2026, 07:51 AM

  (01-02-2026, 11:39 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  (01-02-2026, 11:42 AM)DG97EEB Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Here's a lovely example from the Wellcome Collection You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

  
  Shelf mark: Wellcome MS 335. It's a collection of items, but the main part is described as a herbal:
  
  

  Quote:8. pp. 75-372 Herbal in Latin
  
  p. 75 Absinthium est calidum in primo et siccum in 2o ... p. 372 ... et confert ulceri matricis per prouocationem menstruorum. Pandecta. Auicenna. Serapio. Explicit herbarius.

  
  I could not find out from the description if the MS itself has been written on paper or parchment.

  
  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
  
  "Physical description
  1 volume 473 pp. + 3 [4] bl. ll. tall 8vo. 21 1/2 x 7 1/2 cm. Original vellum binding, worn: ties wanting. With 116 watercolour illustrations of plants. Some (blank?) leaves have been cut out: one between p. 4 and p. 5, two between p. 62 and p. 63, one between p. 88 and p. 89, p. 102 and p. 103, p. 274 and p. 275, and after p. 473. Page 473 and the last blank leaf are defective, p. 339 has been repaired and the illustration is damaged. Written in a small current French hand. Ornamental initials in red, or red and green, with marginal decorations, headings and paragraph marks in red. There are pen-drawings of grotesque heads, etc. on pp. 47, 52, 56, 58, 60, 61, 64. The pagination is modern"
  
  I guess you saw that already... Doesn't really tell us much.. will see if I can find other catalogue information.
• Next Oldest Next Newest