#FILE 00-HEADER @@ 00-HEADER # Last edited on 2025-07-17 13:39:22 by stolfi # -*- coding: iso-latin-1 -*- # Verbal descriptions of all pages. # # # Includes comments from: # (unmarked) 2025-07-15 21:15:37 "desc25e1-52.txt" # "T1": 2025-07-15 21:58:02 "../074/text25e1-53.evt" # "T2": 2025-07-15 21:38:49 "../076/starps-U.evt" # "T3": 2025-07-15 21:46:15 "../076/SAVE/2025-07-15-200047/starps-U.eva" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ #FILE A00todo @@ A00todo TO DO ??? Repace "circle {N}" by "C{N}" or "c:{N}". ??? Specify which details were retraced in dark brown ink. ??? Update all 16e6 unit numbers {...} to current numbering. ??? Merge the two or three "Descriptions" of each page into one. ??? Check all "Layout" comments, make sure that they are uniform. ??? In the "Layout" section, distinguish "parags" from "text blocks"? ??? Mark somehow comments that refer to a specific locus order. ??? Uniformize references to images (MLI98, BLI04, etc.). ??? Provide fractional line counts for all parags. ??? Standardize the definitions of "edge", "margin", "v-line", etc. ??? Use the notation "spanning 0.2--0.8 TB, 0.6--1.0 LR". ??? Check whether parag-title splits in comments match the EVMT trans. ??? Remove "Coloring" from the "Attributes" section. ??? Note on each page the amount of anomalous dark ink and other signs of re-stroking or corrections. ??? Keep only one copy of each description item, in text20e1 or comm20e1. ??? Describe the file format and special conventions, e.g. <%>, line ends, etc.. ??? Extract from "loci-evmt16e6-ivtff.tbl" a list of old units for each page with the ne line numbers. ??? Insert the above numbers in each page. ??? Check Rene's page-per-page website. ??? Restore the numeric weirdo codes from "&NNN" (no ";") to "&NNN;" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ #FILE A01glossary @@ A01glossary Glossary: "bifolio": a connected piece of vellum. "binding fold": the fold across a bifolio where it is bound to the spine of the book. "folio": each of the two parts of a bifolio separated by the binding fold. "flap": each part of a bifolio limited by a physical edge of the vellum or by a fold, whether the binding fold or not. "panel": each side of a flap. "recto": usually, the side of a flap that comes first in book reading order. However there may be exceptions for logical or historical reasons. "verso": the side of a flap opposite to the recto side. "logical page": one or more panels that are used as if they were a single page, with text and/or figures spanning across the folds that separate those panels. "quire": a set of bifolios that are folded and nested into each other, like a booklet, and bound together in the book. "nymph": a small human figure, naked or clothed, female with only one or two exceptions. They are almost all seen frolicking in the ponds of the "bio" section, and holding stars in the "zod" section. There is one on page f116v. The term does not include the faces of sun/moon/moons/planets in the "cos" section, the faces in the plants of "hea", "heb", and "pha" sections, or the figures in "zod" representing the signs of the Zodiac. "mechanical line": a smooth and precise straight line, suggesting that it was drawn with a ruler. May show short and somewhat wider "tics" at the ends, possibly drawn before the line itself. "mechanical circle": a smooth and precise circle, suggesting that it was drawn with a compass or tracing around a round template. Often shows deviations from circularity suggesting that the compass or template shifted while it was being drawn. "compass pinprick": the pinhole created on the vellum by the pivot arm of the compass. "standard star": a star hand-drawn as a non-crossing polygonal outline with several (usually 6 to 8) rays, each with two straight sides; the length of each ray being 3-5 times its width at the base. The star may have a "tail" which is a sinuous line in the text in that connects to the tip of a ray or to the corner between two rays. It may also have a "core" which is a small circle nested at the center, not touching the star outline; or just a "dot" at the center, both drawn with the text ink. Stars are usually crudely painted with a "splot", a roundish spot of paint applied at the center, possibly extending to fill part of the rays and some of the space between them. If the star has a core, the splot may fill it, or leave it unpainted, or painted with another color. Stars with tails have been conjectured to be flowers. "starlet": a six-pointed asterisk, each drawn as three crossing strokes "notched square": a decorative device used as delimiter in several bands between two close circles. It consists of a square that usually spans the width of the band, with four short tics or notches growing inwards from the sides (the "upright" variant) or from the corners (the "skew" variant). A notched square may also be "dotted" (containing extra dots) and/or "braced" (with the sides enhances by extra radial strokes or other decorative bands). "grushed": said of liquid paint that is applied very crudely to a figure with a brush, leaving an unpainted margin before the outline, or overstepping. "grubbed": said of paint that is applied very crudely to a figure in a way that suggests rubbing with a solid color pencil crayon rather than liquid brush; namely, leaving a rough dusting of micro spots of color, often in streaks, rather than than a solid cover. It may be the result of brushing with a nearly dry or bad quality brush. "yel": a transparent light yellow paint used throughout the manuscript, for instance on nymph hair and standard stars. "normal ink": the light brown ink used in the majority of the text and figure outlines of the manuscript. Distinguished from "darker brown ink" apparently used to retrace some glyphs or figure details, and "red ink" used in f67r2. "weight" of a pen stroke: combination of width and darkness. "medium" stroke weight: the most common stroke weight in the neighborhood. "heavy" stroke: darker and/or wider than medium-weight strokes. "faint" stroke: lighter in color than medium-weight ones, possibly with a medial gap and/or "porous" coverage as if the pen was almost out of ink. "normal ink flow": the pattern of stroke weight expeceted from a Scribe writing running text. Namely, heavy strokes for a couple of words after re-inking the pen, then medium strokes for a dozen words or so, them progressively fainter strokes for a few words; at which point the Scribe re-inks the pen and the pattern repeats. "retraced": a glyph of figure, or part thereof, that appears to have been drawn once in normal ink and then carefully re-drawn with a different ink. "backtraced": a glyph or a group of a few consecutive glyphs, or part thereof, which is drawn in apparently normal ink but with strokes which are noticeably heavier than those of preceding *and succeeding* glyphs, with abrupt transitions of weight. Also said of parts of figure outlines with similar stroke weight pattern. Conjectured to be due to the Scribe writing past that spot, re-inking the pen, then going back to that spot to add those details, or embolden them, or correct their shape (e.g. turn an @r into an @s). "washed" stroke: unnaturally lighter than others in the same region, not as if the pen was running out of ink but as if some of the ink of the finished text had later been dissolved by the liquid from a stain and then removed as the liquid was wiped off. "frushed" stroke: washed but with with blurry halo, as if the dissolved ink had spread out through porous vellum. "whitegrain": tiny (~0.1-0.4 mm) white roundish spots within pen strokes, due either to cavities or hydrophobic spots on the vellum where the ink did not stick, or to bubbles or saliences where the ink rubbed off over the centuries. "offsetted": of a stain that looks like it was printed by contact with some other soiled object or sheet, as opposed to a drip of liquid or semiliquid stuff directly inthe spot. "malformed" glyph: a glyph that is signifly deformed from its "ideal" shape, possibly to the point of being impossible to identify. "v-rule": an imaginary line that bounds the lines of a left- or right- justified paragraph. This name is used instead of the usual term "margin" because the latter is reserved for the area of a panel between the main text and/or figure and the edges (physical or folded) of the panel. Agents: "Author": decided to write the book, chose the topics and sources, devised the script, composed the text, sketched the figures. "Scribe": the person who actually wrote on vellum the original version of the text and drew the outlines of the figures, in normal ink. "Painter": whoever applied the paints to the manuscript. There may have been two, possibly acting on separate epochs: the "Light Painter" who appplied watercolor-like light transparent yellow (yel) and green, and the "Dark Painter" who applied semi-transparent or opaque tempera-like colors. "Retracer": the person who retraced or added some details in the dark brown ink (or, on f67r2, in red ink). "Beautician": Whoever retraced the lips of nymphs in red and added sprinkles of red to their cheeks. "Month Labeler": the person who wrote the month names in the Zodiac section; "Quire Numberer": whoever wrote the quire numbers at bottom right of some pages. "Folio Numberer": whoever wrote the folio numbers at top right of some pages. Seems to have been distinct from and later than the Quire Numberer, since there are inconsistencies between the two numberings: the folio numbers match the current binding state, the quire numbers do not. See the discussion of quire 9 below. "Binder": Whoever bound or re-bound the book in its present state. May have been the same as the Folio Numberer. Abbreviations: "altern" = "alternate" "alternly" = alternatingly" "approx" = "approximate" "approxly" = "approximately" "CCW" = "counterclockwise" "CW" = "clockwise" "deco" = "decorative" or "decoration" "diam" = "diameter" "discd" = "disconnected" "horz" = "horizontal" "horzly" = "horizontally" "lig" = "ligature" "ligd" = "ligated". "mfd" = "malformed". "perp" = "perpendicular" "perply" = "perpendicularly" "probly" = "probably" "puff" = a one-leg gallows, [pf] (or [zw] in ';U' transcription). "puffed line" = a text line with one or more puffs. "pufftial" = a puff that is the first glyph on a line. "semitrans" = semi-transparent. "signf" = significant "signifly" = significantly "trans" = "transcription"; (of color) transparent. "triang" = triangle or triangular. "vert" = "vertical" "vertly" = "vertically" Notations: Folios are numbered "f1", "f2", ..., "f116" based on the numbers written by the Folio Numberer, usually on the top right corner of one of the panels. Bifolios are designated by the numbers fof their two folios, e.g. "f2+f7". Flaps are designated by folio number and a digit suffix, like "f72.2". In folios that are a single horz row of flaps, the suffix is usually 1 for the one adjacent to the binding fold, and increases as one moves away from it. The flap numbering on the the complex "Nine-Rosette" bifolio is special and explained in the "Quire structure" section below. Panels are indicated by the flap number with the "." replaced by "r" for the recto side and "v" for the verso side. A logical page is designated by the number of one of its panels. Usually the leftmost one, not considering half-width panels. Note that two flaps may belong to the same logical page on one side of a folio but to distinct pages on the other side. Again, the page numbering on the the complex "Nine-Rosette" bifolio is special and explained in the "Quire structure" section below. "T", "B", "L", "R": directions relative to the text's reading orientation, respectively top, bottom, left, and right. So a running text line always reads L to R, even when updown or in a text ring, and the lines of a parag are read T to B. "N", "S", "E", "W", "NE", "SE", "NW", "SW": cardinal directions North, South, etc., assuming that North is towards top of the page and West is toward the left edge. "03:30" and other hours notation: directions as in a 12-hour clock, assuming that "12:00" (or "00.00") is toward the top of the page, and "03:00" is towards the right edge. "0.7 LR" or "0.7 WE": approx horz position of something, namely 0.7 of the way from the left edge of the panel to the right edge. Same for any other fractional number. "0.7 TB" or "0.7 NS": approx vertical position of something, namely 0.7 of the way from the top edge of panel to the bottom edge. Same for any other fractional number. In the description of a paragraph: "L-flu", "R-flu": means that every line is flush against the "L" (left) or "R" (right) edge, respectively, of the panel or containing box. "L-jus", "R-jus": means that every line is flush against an imaginary "L" (left) or "R" (right) vertical margin line, some distance away from the corresponding panel edge. However, for "R-jus.", the last line of the parag may stop short of this margin line. "L-fig", "R-fig": means that the "L" (left) or "R" (right) ends of the lines are flush against some figure or diagram, with at most a few interword spaces worth of space. "L-rag", "R-rag": means that the "L" (left) or "R" (right) ends of the lines is are not vertically aligned. "3.7 lines": means that the parag has 3 whole lines, and an incomplete line that stops at 0.7 of the way from the parag's ideal left boundary to its ideal right boundary, as specified by "L-jus", "R-fig", etc. Same for any other fractional number. "sep 2/3/1 bln": the paragraphs just mentioned are separated by 2, 3, and 1 blank lines. Same for other lists of numbers. Voynichese text embedded in comments (#-comments, inline comments "", or this file) is denoted as "@{CH}" where {CH} is a single EVA encoding character [a-zA-Z]; or as "@'{TX}'" where {TX} is a fragment of EVA-encoded text, possibly including ligatures "{...}", weirdo codes "&{NNN}", punctuation [.,], etc. In description of titles and incomplete lines before or after paragpraphs: "ctrd": centered between the normal paragraph boundaries. In lists of numbered concentric circles, text rings, figure bands: "O": outside. "I": inside. "OI": from outer to inner. "IO": from inner to outer. In descriptions of figures: Unless stated otherwise, dimensions in mm on the descriptions of most figures, including Herbal and Pharma, are measured on the drawings (actually, on images of the VMS pages, scaled assuming the book height to be 23.5 cm). The actual dimensions of the objects depicted by the Scribe are generally unknown, and may be only a fraction of those given, or many times bigger. The exceptions are on figures that include nymphs or recognizable animals, which allow rough estimation of the actual dimensions of the objects associated with them (such as hats or tubs). In non-Voynichese text: Glyph readings and/or graphical descriptions provided by the original transcribers were mapped to Roman letters by J. Stolfi, based on their similarity to late medieval letter forms --- especially those of a German alphabet from the 1400's posted to the vms-list by Rene Zandbergen. Inline comments "" enerally refer to the PRECEDING glyph or word. In inline comments "" "R" means "retraced" and "B" means "backtraced". "R|B" means "retaced or backtraced" "Rb" means "begin retraced part" and "Re" "end retraced part". "M" means malformed. "F" means faint or effaced. "T" means truncated, e.g. of a tail or plume. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ #FILE A01intro @@ A01intro Verbal descriptions of quires and pages. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ #FILE A02quires @@ A02quires Current quire arrangement The last panel of a quire usually has a quire number at the bottom right corner. The number itself is in Western digits, sometimes with obsolete shapes. It is generally followed by a superscript "m9", "u9", "t9" etc, where the "9" has the circle on the baseline and the tail descending below it. This symbol seem to be be a common scribal abbreviation for a Latin ending, such as "-us"; so, for example, "4t9" is "quartus" ("fourth") and "8u9" is "octauus" or "octavus" ("eighth"). The first quire number however, is not "1m9" but "p^m9" with the circumflex over the "p" -- an abbreviation of "primus" ("first"). The current arrangement of each quires is shown below. Except where indicated otherwise, the schematics represent the view from below the book, with the fold-out folios unfolded. In those schematics, "-" is a horz physical edge of a flap, seen edge-on, "¦" denotes a fold that separates two logical pages, ":" is a fold that is spanned by a logical page, "+" is a vertical physical bifolio edge, "B" is the binding that attaches the bifolio to the book, "X" is a folio that is apparently missing, "#" is a folio number, and "@" a quire number. The "f" codes are logical page (not panel) numbers, and the arrows indicate the direction of reading for each logical page. Quire 1 (4 bifolios, 8 folios, 8 flaps, 16 pages) - all Herbal, except f1r wich is Unknown: f1r-> # ---------------------+ ¦ <-f1v ¦ f2r-> # ¦ -------------------+ ¦ ¦ <-f2v ¦ ¦ f3r-> # ¦ ¦ -----------------+ ¦ ¦ ¦ <-f3v ¦ ¦ ¦ f4r-> # ¦ ¦ ¦ ---------------+ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ <-f4v B B B B ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ f5r-> # ¦ ¦ ¦ ---------------+ ¦ ¦ ¦ <-f5v ¦ ¦ ¦ f6r-> # ¦ ¦ -----------------+ ¦ ¦ <-f6v ¦ ¦ f7r-> # ¦ -------------------+ ¦ <-f7v ¦ f8r-> # ---------------------+ @ <-f8v Quire 2 (4 bifolios, 7 folios (+ 1 missing), 7 flaps, 14 pages) - all Herbal: f9r-> # ---------------------+ ¦ <-f9v ¦ f10r-> # ¦ -------------------+ ¦ ¦ <-f10v ¦ ¦ f11r-> # ¦ ¦ -----------------+ ¦ ¦ ¦ <-f11v ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ -XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX f12 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ B B B B ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ f13r-> # ¦ ¦ ¦ ---------------+ ¦ ¦ ¦ <-f13v ¦ ¦ ¦ f14r-> # ¦ ¦ -----------------+ ¦ ¦ <-f14v ¦ ¦ f15r-> # ¦ -------------------+ ¦ <-f15v ¦ f16r-> # ---------------------+ @ <-f16v The missing folio f12 is inferred from the folio numbers. Thus it must have been cut off after the folio numbers were written. The stub where it was cut from is visible between folios 11 and 13. Quire 3 (4 bifolios, 8 folios, 8 flaps, 16 pages) - all Herbal: f17r-> # ---------------------+ ¦ <-f17v ¦ f18r-> # ¦ -------------------+ ¦ ¦ <-f18v ¦ ¦ f19r-> # ¦ ¦ -----------------+ ¦ ¦ ¦ <-f19v ¦ ¦ ¦ f20r-> # ¦ ¦ ¦ ---------------+ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ <-f20v B B B B ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ f21r-> # ¦ ¦ ¦ ---------------+ ¦ ¦ ¦ <-f21v ¦ ¦ ¦ f22r-> # ¦ ¦ -----------------+ ¦ ¦ <-f22v ¦ ¦ f23r-> # ¦ -------------------+ ¦ <-f23v ¦ f24r-> # ---------------------+ @ <-f24v Quire 4 (4 bifolios, 8 folios, 8 flaps, 16 pages) - all Herbal: f25r-> # ---------------------+ ¦ <-f25v ¦ f26r-> # ¦ -------------------+ ¦ ¦ <-f26v ¦ ¦ f27r-> # ¦ ¦ -----------------+ ¦ ¦ ¦ <-f27v ¦ ¦ ¦ f28r-> # ¦ ¦ ¦ ---------------+ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ <-f28v B B B B ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ f29r-> # ¦ ¦ ¦ ---------------+ ¦ ¦ ¦ <-f29v ¦ ¦ ¦ f30r-> # ¦ ¦ -----------------+ ¦ ¦ <-f30v ¦ ¦ f31r-> # ¦ -------------------+ ¦ <-f31v ¦ f32r-> # ---------------------+ @ <-f32v Quire 5 (4 bifolios, 8 folios, 8 flaps, 16 pages) - all Herbal: f33r-> # ---------------------+ ¦ <-f33v ¦ f34r-> # ¦ -------------------+ ¦ ¦ <-f34v ¦ ¦ f35r-> # ¦ ¦ -----------------+ ¦ ¦ ¦ <-f35v ¦ ¦ ¦ f36r-> # ¦ ¦ ¦ ---------------+ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ <-f36v B B B B ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ f37r-> # ¦ ¦ ¦ ---------------+ ¦ ¦ ¦ <-f37v ¦ ¦ ¦ f38r-> # ¦ ¦ -----------------+ ¦ ¦ <-f38v ¦ ¦ f39r-> # ¦ -------------------+ ¦ <-f39v ¦ f40r-> # ---------------------+ @ <-f40v Quire 6 (4 bifolios, 8 folios, 8 flaps, 16 pages) - all Herbal: f41r-> # ---------------------+ ¦ <-f41v ¦ f42r-> # ¦ -------------------+ ¦ ¦ <-f42v ¦ ¦ f43r-> # ¦ ¦ -----------------+ ¦ ¦ ¦ <-f43v ¦ ¦ ¦ f44r-> # ¦ ¦ ¦ ---------------+ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ <-f44v B B B B ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ f45r-> # ¦ ¦ ¦ ---------------+ ¦ ¦ ¦ <-f45v ¦ ¦ ¦ f46r-> # ¦ ¦ -----------------+ ¦ ¦ <-f46v ¦ ¦ f47r-> # ¦ -------------------+ ¦ <-f47v ¦ f48r-> # ---------------------+ @ <-f48v Quire 7 (4 bifolios, 8 folios, 8 flaps, 16 pages) - all Herbal: f49r-> # ---------------------+ ¦ <-f49v ¦ f50r-> # ¦ -------------------+ ¦ ¦ <-f50v ¦ ¦ f51r-> # ¦ ¦ -----------------+ ¦ ¦ ¦ <-f51v ¦ ¦ ¦ f52r-> # ¦ ¦ ¦ ---------------+ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ <-f52v B B B B ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ f53r-> # ¦ ¦ ¦ ---------------+ ¦ ¦ ¦ <-f53v ¦ ¦ ¦ f54r-> # ¦ ¦ -----------------+ ¦ ¦ <-f54v ¦ ¦ f55r-> # ¦ -------------------+ ¦ <-f55v ¦ f56r-> # ---------------------+ @ <-f56v Quire 8 (2 bifolios + 3 missing, 4 folios + 6 missing, 4 flaps, 8 pages) - mixed Herbal + Cosmo + Unknown: f57r-> # Herbal ---------------------+ ¦ <-f57v Cosmo ¦ ¦ f58r-> # Unknown (text only) ¦ -------------------+ ¦ ¦ <-f58v Unknown (text only) ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX f59 ¦ ¦ X ¦ ¦ X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX f60 ¦ ¦ X X ¦ ¦ X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXX f61 B B X X X ¦ ¦ X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXX f62 ¦ ¦ X X ¦ ¦ X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX f63 ¦ ¦ X ¦ ¦ XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX f64 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ f65r-> # Herbal ¦ -------------------+ ¦ <-f65v Herbal ¦ ¦ f66r-> # Unknown (text only) ---------------------+ @ <-f66v Herbal The six missing folios f59 to f64 are inferred from the written folio numbers. Three entire bifolios were apparently removed from the middle of the quire, after the folio numbers were written. The binding thread between the two remaining central folios f58 and f65 seems to have been partially cut. However the arrangement of those bifolios is questionable because it interleaves the Herbal pages with Cosmo and Unknown ones. See below for a discussion about the original arrangement. Quire 9 (1 bifolio, 2 folios, 6 flaps, 10 pages) - all Cosmo This quire has only one bifolio comprising six flaps in a horz row. In the current numbering, the flaps are f67.1, f67.2 (folio f67), f68.1, f68.2, f68.3, and f68.4 (folio 68). Flap f68.4 is about half as wide as a normal panel, and its panels f68r4 and f68v4 are included in the logical pages f68r3 and f68v3. f67r1-> @# f67r2-> -----------------¦---------------+ ¦ <-f67v1 <-f67v2 B ¦ f68r1-> f68r2-> # f68r3-> ---------------¦-------------¦-----------:---------+ <-f68v1 <-f68v2 <-f68v3 The current folding of these flaps in the closed book cannot be determined from the scanned images. According to the foliation by L. Davis, the flap f68v4 is a crest while the others are valleys when seen from the inside. That source and the placement of the folio numbers suggests that flap f67.2 is folded down below f67.1 (so that panel f67r1 is first of folio f67) and the flaps of f68 are folded in such a way that, when folio f67 is turned over, but folio f68 is still folded, panel f68v2 is the one visible. The implied pattern is f67r1-> @# ----------------- ¦ <-f67v1 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ f67v2-> ¦ ¦ +--------------- ¦ <-f67r2 ¦ ¦ f68v2-> # B ------------- ¦ ¦ <-f68r2 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ f68r3-> ¦ ¦ ----------- ¦ ¦ : ¦ ¦ f68v3-> : ¦ ¦ +--------- ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ f68r1-> ¦ --------------- <-f68v1 Quire 10 (1 bifolio, 2 folios, 4 flaps, 6 pages) - mixed Cosmo + Zodiac This quire has only one bifolio comprising four flaps in a horz row. In the current numbering, the flaps are f69.1 (folio f69), f70.1, f70.2, and f70.3 (folio 70). Flap f70.3 is about half as wide as a normal panel. f69r-> # -----------------+ ¦ <-f69v B ¦ f70r1-> f70r2-> ----------------¦-----------:---------+ <-f70v1@ <-f70v2 Unlike quire 9, this one has the quire mark on the expected page, namely f70v1. On the other hand, there seems to be no folio number on folio f70, neither on recto nor or verso. The half-width panels f70r3 and f70v3 are included in the logical pages f70r2 and f70v2. Thus the quire has six logical pages in total. The reading order is f69r1, then (turning the folio) f69r2, then (unfolding f70 completely) f70r1, f70r2 including panel f70r3, then (turning the folio) f70v2 and f70v1. The first four are Cosmo, the other two are Zodiac. Based on the central figures, the latter are believed to refer to the signs of Pisces and the "Dark" half of Aries, respectively. The widths of the flaps (in mm) are f69 = ~160 f70.1 = ~152 f70.2 = ~137 f70.3 = ~90 When the book is closed, the second folio is presumably folded in a spiral patterm, like this: f69r-> # -----------------+ ¦ <-f69v ¦ ¦ ------------- ¦ : <-f70r2 ¦ B : ¦ ¦ ---------+ ¦ ¦ <-70v2 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ f70r1-> ¦ ---------------- <-f70v1@ The folio number "70" should then be on f70v2 if it had been applied with f70 folded, or somewhere on f70r1 or f70r2 if it had been applied with f70 unfolded. But, again, there is no sign of it. Quire 11 (1 bifolio, 2 folios, 5 flaps, 8 pages) - all Zodiac This quire has only one bifolio comprising five flaps in a horz row. In the current numbering, the flaps are f71 (folio f71), f72.1, f72.2, f72.3, and f72.4 (folio 72). Flap f72.4 is about half as wide as a normal panel, and its panels f72r4 and f72v4 are included in the logical pages f72r3 and f72v3. f71r-> # -----------------¦ ¦ <-f71v B C ¦ f72r1-> f72r2-> f72r3-> --H------------¦-------------¦-----------:---------+ <-f72v1@ <-f72v2# <-f72v3 The "C" here is a folded strip of paper that has been conjectured to be the stub of a bifolio whose two folios were cut away. However, if that was the case, the removal would have had to happen after the book was bound, and then the folio numbers woudl have a gap. Since there is no gap, that "stub" is probly a strip of vellum added to reinforce the binding. The "H" there is a large roughly elliptical hole (~16 mm talln and ~12 mm wide) that seems to have been cut out with a knife in order to remove a defect of the vellum. As discussed in the description of pages f72r1 and f72v1 below, that sugery must have been done by the Scribe, after completing the text and figures of f72r1 but before doing those of f72v1. The reading order of the pages is believed to be: f71r, then (turing the folio) f71v, then (unfolding f72) f72r1, f72r2, f72r3, then (turning the folio) f72v3, f72v2, and f72v1. In that sequence, based on the central figures, they are presumed to be about the "Light" half of Aries, the "Light" and "Dark" halves of Taurus, then Gemini, Cancer, Leo, Virgo, and Libra. The folio numbers are on page f71r and f72v2, and the quire number is on page f72v1. Accordin to L. Davis, the flaps of f72 are folded in zigzag fashion rather than spiral: f71r-> # -----------------+ ¦ <-f71v1 B ¦ f72v3-> ¦ +------- ¦ : ¦ f72r3-> : ¦ ---------- ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦f72v2-> # ¦ ------------- ¦ <-f72r2 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ f72r1-> ¦ --------------- <-f72v1@ The posiiton of the f72 folio number makes sense because the NW corner of f72v2 is visible when f72 is folded, due to the tilted folds and the slanted top edges of flaps f72.3 and f72.4. Quire 12 (1 bifolio, 1 folio + 1 missing, 1 flap, 2 pages) - all Zodiac: Folio 2 of this quire is missing; apparently it was cut out after the book was bound. f73r-> # -----------------¦ ¦ <-f73v B ¦ -XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX+ f74 The missing folio probly contained diagrams for the Western Zodiac signs of Capricorn and Aquarius, completing the Zodiac. If it had additional panels, there is no way of guessing what sort of contents they may had. Quire 13 (5 bifolios, 10 folios, 10 flaps, 20 pages) -- one Unknown, rest all Biology. f75r-> # --------------------+ ¦ <-f75v ¦ f76r-> # Text only ¦ ------------------+ ¦ ¦ <-f76v ¦ ¦ f77r-> # ¦ ¦ ----------------+ ¦ ¦ ¦ <-f77v ¦ ¦ ¦ f78r-> # ¦ ¦ ¦ --------------+ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ <-f78v ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ f79r-> # ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ------------+ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ <-f79v B B B B B ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ f80r-> # ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ------------+ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ <-f80v ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ f81r-> # ¦ ¦ ¦ --------------+ ¦ ¦ ¦ <-f81v ¦ ¦ ¦ f82r-> # ¦ ¦ ----------------+ ¦ ¦ <-f82v ¦ ¦ f83r-> # ¦ ------------------+ ¦ <-f83v ¦ f84r-> # --------------------+ <-f84v@ The page and quire numbers are all in the expected places. However, the figure on f78v extends across the fold and connects to the figure in f81r, indicating that, at some point (before the page numbers were written) the arrangement and nesting of these bifolios was such that those two pages were facing each other. Assuming that they were all collected in one quire, as they are now, bifolio f78+f81 should have been the one in the center, still folded as it is now. Unfortunately, if this conjecture is true, there is no clue as to the arrangement of the other bifolios at the time. The presence of text-only page f76r in the middle of the quire is also puzzling. While all Biology pages have a lot of text, even the densest ones have figures in the margins. Perhaps bifolio f76+f83 was originally the outermost one, so that page f76r was some introduction to the whole section. But that must have been before the quires were numbred, otherwise the quire number would be on f83v and not in f84v. Quire 14 (1 bifolio, 2 folios, 6 flaps, 7 pages) - mixed Cosmo/Unknown This quire has a giant fold-out with six flaps arranged as two rows of three. The binding fold is between two flaps on the bottom row, thus leaving one folio (f85) with two flaps, one above the other, and the second folio (f86) with four, in a 2 × 2 arrangement. One side of the bifolio is a single logical page (f85v2) spanning all six panels of that side, containing an elaborate figure (the "Nine-Rosette Map"). The figure apparently is meant to be read with the book oriented so that the panels form a grid with two rows and three columns, with the binding in the fold between the leftmost two panels of the bottom row. We will denote those panels as f85v2[i,j] where i is the row (1 = top/N, 2 = bottom/S) and j is the column (1 - left/W, 2 = middle, 3 = right/E), assuming that orientation. The other side of the bifolio has six separate logical pages. Their conventional numbers, and the corresponding panels of page f85v2, are f85r1 verso of f85v2[2,1] f85r2 verso of f85v2[1,1] f86v3 verso of f85v2[2,2] f86v4 verso of f85v2[1,2] f86v5 verso of f85v2[2,3] f86v6 verso of f85v2[1,3] When the non-bound vertical fold (only) is unfolded, looking from below, the arrangement is as follows: f85r1-> # --------------------+ ¦ <-f85v2[2,1] ¦ <-f85v2[1,1] ¦ ------------------+ ¦ ¦ <-f85r2 B ¦ ¦ ¦ f86v4-> f86v6-> ¦ -----------------¦--------------+ ¦ ->f85v2[1,2]-> ->f85v2[1,3] ¦ ->f85v2[2,2]-> ->f85v2[2,3] -------------------¦--------------+ @ <-f86v3 # <-f86v5 In this schematic, the outermost three flaps are the bottom row of the 2 × 3 grid, and the innermost ones are the top row. The folds between the two rows should be imagined to be beyond the screen. When the bifolio is completely folded, the arrangement is f85r1-> # Text only --------------------+ ¦ <-f85v2[2,1] ¦ <-f85v2[1,1] ¦ ------------------+ ¦ ¦ <-f85r2 B ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ f86v5-> # ¦ ¦ +---------------- ¦ ¦ f85v2[2,3]<- ¦ ¦ ¦ f85v2[1,3]<- ¦ ¦ ¦ +-------------- ¦ ¦ ¦ <-f86v6 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ f86v4-> ¦ ¦ ¦ ---------------- ¦ ¦ ->f85v2[1,2]-> ¦ ¦ ->f85v2[2,2]-> ¦ -------------------- @ <-f86v3 In this schematic, note that the folio numbers ("#") are in the expected places (the top right corners of f85r1 and f86v5), and so is the quire number (bottom right corner of f86v3). The presumed reading order of the single-panel pages is: f85r1, then (turning over folio f85, still with the top folded over the bottom) f85r2, then (unfolding only the other vertical fold of folio f86) f86v4, f86v6, then (turning folio f86, still with the top folded down) f86v5, and f86v3. In this order, the pages' contents are: Text, Cosmo, Cosmo, Text, Text, and Cosmo. There is no strong evidence that this is the correct order, nor where the Nine-Rosette Map fits in this sequence. However, if the the top half of the bifolio is unfolded, in order to read pages f85r2, f86v4, f86v6 the book would have to be flipped over and turned upside-down. ??? Finish this section ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The problem of quire 8. Quire 8, the one with three apparently missing bifolios, currently has typical Herbal pages interleaved with Cosmo-like pages or text-only pages. This suggests that the bifolios were rearranged and folded in the wrong way at some point. Here we discuss how they could habe been arranged initially. Since bifolio f57+f66 has two Herbal pages on one side and two non-Herbal ones on the other side, there is no way to arrange and fold the two surviving bifolios so that the four Herbal pages come all before (or all after) the non-Herbal ones. The two arrangements at below achieve this goal except that the text-only page f66r is betwen two Herbal pages: f65r-> Herbal f65v-> Herbal ------------------+ ------------------+ ¦ <-f65v Herbal ¦ <-f65r Herbal ¦ ¦ ¦ f66r-> Text ¦ f66r-> Text ¦ ----------------+ ¦ ----------------+ ¦ ¦ @ <-f66v Herbal ¦ ¦ @ <-f66v Herbal ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ f57r-> Herbal ¦ ¦ f57r-> Herbal ¦ ----------------+ ¦ ----------------+ ¦ <-f57v Cosmo ¦ <-f57v Cosmo ¦ ¦ ¦ f58r-> Text ¦ f58v-> Text ------------------+ ------------------+ <-f58v Text <-f58r Text Either scheme leaves the current quire mark (on page f66v) inside the quire, insted of on the last page of the quire (f58v or f58r). Thus, if this conjecture is correct, the incorrect rearrangement and re-folding of these two bifolios must have taken place before the quires were numbered. Assuming that the missing bifolios were originally part of the quire, they could have been interleaved into the above scheme in any place, as long as their pages had the proper type (Herbal or not) that would keep the first few pages Herbal, and the rest non-Herbal, apart from f66r. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The problem of quire 9 The quire number of quire 9 is anomalously placed on the first page, f67r1, instead of the last one, f68v1. A possible explanation is that the bifolio that makes up that quire had been numbered when it was still unbound, and was folded in a different (incorrect) way when it was bound into the VMs book. Here we discuss how the quire may have looked initially, before that mistake. The flap widths (in mm) are f67.1 = ~158 f67.2 = ~158 f68.1 = ~150 f68.2 = ~135 f68.3 = ~132 f68.4 = ~92 (max) These numbers imply that flap f67.2 is a tad too wide to be folded under f68.1. And indeed the state of its right physical edge suggests that a sliver a few mm wide had to be folded or crumpled to make it fit. However, the placement of the quire mark on f67r1 rather than f68v1 suggests that, *when the quire numbers were written*, bifolio f67+f68 was either unbound or bound between flaps f67.1 and f67.2, rather than at between f67.1 and f68.1 as it is now. The first folio of the quire then would have only one flap, the current f67.2, and the current panel f67r2 would be the first page of the quire (which could explain why it was retraced in red ink). The second folio would have four full flaps (the current f67.1, f68.1, f68.2, and f68.3) and one half-width flap (the current f68.4). Flap f67.1 would then have recto and verso reversed. This second folio would be folded in such a way that the current panel f67r1 was at the bottom of the quire. That is: Unfolded f67r2-> -----------------+ ¦ <-f67v2 ¦ ¦ f67v1-> f68r1-> f68r2-> f68r3-> -----------------¦---------------¦-------------¦-----------:---------+ @ <-f67r1 <-f68v1 <-f68v2 <-f68v3 Folded f67r2-> -----------------+ ¦ <-f67v2 ¦ ¦ f68v1-> ¦ --------------- ¦ ¦ <-f68r1 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ----------- ¦ ¦ ¦ : <-f68r3 | ¦ ¦ ¦ : | ¦ ¦ ¦ : | ¦ ¦ ¦ ---------+ | ¦ ¦ ¦ <- f68v3 | ¦ ¦ ¦ | ¦ ¦ ¦ f68r2-> | ¦ ¦ ------------- ¦ ¦ <-f68v2 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ f67v1-> ¦ ----------------- @ <-f67r1 There are other possibilities for the folding of the flaps f68.1, f68.2, f68.3, and f68.4, provided that they are all between flaps f67.2 and f67.1. The spiral order above seems more natural. In any case, the reading order of the logical pages at that time would have been current f67r2 then (turning the first folio) f67v2, then (unfolding the second folio) f67v1, f68r1, f68r2, f68r3 (which included f68r4), then (turning the second folio over) f68v3 (which included f68v4), f68v2, f68v1, and f67r1. But at some later time the book was rebound, and then this quire got re-folded in the present state, with flaps f67.1 and f67.2 in one folio and flaps f68.1, f68.2, f68.3, f68.4 in the next folio. Furthermore flap f67.2 was folded invards, flaps f68.3 and f68.4 were folded inwards, and the two pairs folded inwards again folio folded into the quire in such a way that f67.r2 was the first panel of the quire and f68.v1 was the last one. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ #FILE A03retraces @@ A03retraces There are three kinds of evidence that make a character suspect of retracing: * "Stick-outs" : strokes of a fainter ink sticking out from under darker strokes. A common type of stick-out is the "faint extender" : a fainter extension of a darker stroke, especially at the final end of plumes and tails. However these cases are weak evidence because they could be explained by qualitative change in ink flow due to reduce pressure along the stroke. A faint extender is somewhat more convincing when the dark stroke ends abruptly, with a squared-off tip; but that too could be an inking accident. Another common but unconvincing kind of stick-out is a thin strip of faint ink along the edge of a darker stroke: this can be argued to result from imperfect ink flow under the pen's nib, or to the liquid vehicle spreading over the vellum while the solid pigment stays behind. The most convincing stick-outs are strokes in fainter ink that are roughly but not quite parallel to the darker strokes. * "Dark loners" : single characters or groups of a few characters that are darker than their neighbors on both sides. These could be cases of the writer going back after a re-inking, so they are only circumstantial evidence. They carry more weight if there is a clear difference in ink tone as well as strength. * "Fuzzies and sharpies" : the same page shows faint characters with fuzzy edges, mixed with darker characters with sharp edges. These differences could be due to differential wear (e.g. because of bumps and waves on the vellum) or chemical/mechanical effects (e.g. loss of opaque pigment leaving behind a stain from the carrier fluid). * "Crookies" : characters that seem misshapen due to the retracer having made them with unusual strokes, or uncommon bends etc. For example a squarish "o" or a "t" where the transversal flourish seems to have been drawn as two separate strokes. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ #FILE f1r @@ f1r Identification: * Nickname: "First page" * Page: f1r = AA/n001 (Rene) = p001 (Stolfi) * Folio: f1 * Panels: f1r * Bifolio: bA1 = f1+f8 * Quire: A (Rene) = I (Beinecke) Page 1 of the British Library photocopies. Levitov figure 17, page 93. Attributes: * Language: A (Currier) * Hand: 1 (Currier) * Subsets: T (Rene), unk (Stolfi) * Subject: unknown (text only). * Folio number: "1" on NE corner. * IsolatedLetters: yes. * Layout summary: Four parags, spanning 0.1--0.8 TB, sep 2/3/3 bln. ¤ Parag P1 (4.6 lines, 1-5) is TLR-jus. ¤ Parag P2 (2.4 lines, 7-9) starts at 0.25 TB, LR-jus; line 1 indented 1.5cm. ¤ Parag P3 (9.4 lines, 11-20) starts at 0.45 TB, LR-jus; line 1 indented 1cm. ¤ Parag P4 (5.5 lines, 22-27) starts at 0.70 TB, LR-jus. ¤ Lines 6, 10, 21, and 28 are R-jus titles (T1, T2, T3, T4), Each title is either aligned with the tail of the preceding parag, or slightly lower than it. Three columns of partly erased "key-like" letter sequences in the right margin. Three large weirdoes outlined with brown, painted red: ¤ Big weirdo 1 in top margin, near right corner. ¤ Big weirdos 2 and 3 are placed as initials of parags 2 and 3. Almost-erased Roman cursive text in the bottom margin. Description Contents: The page contains four paragraphs (P1,P2,P3,P4) with 4.6, 2.4, 9.5, 5.5 lines, respectively, each followed by a short right-justified title (old units T1,T2,T3,T4). Parags P2 and P3 begin with big "weirdo" glyphs at left rail, as if they were ornate capitals. Another similar weirdo is in the top left corner of the margin, just past and above the corner of the text area. Within the right margin area there seem to be three columns of letters ("key like sequences"). It is usually read as a three-column table, where the the middle entry in each row is Voynichese, and the other two seem to be letters of the Roman alphabet in lower case italic hand. The table starts at the end of the second line of the paragraph at its left, and it is not well aligned with the lines of the Voynichese paragraphs and titles. The table is very faint. There is a line of non-Voynich text in the broad margin at bottom of the page, which is more legible after contrast enhancement of the images. Rene claims that, below that line, there is also a "W" in the left margin and what looks like two "7"s near the middle. There may be faint unreadable text in the margin at the very top of the page, apparently in cursive handwriting. Voynichese handwriting: The handwriting is clean and even, mostly with horz and straight lines and evenly spaced well-formed glyphs. Nib is ~0.7 mm wide, although the first glyph of line 1 has a very thin leg (~0.4 mm). Stroke ends are square at 45° with sharp corners or with a small (~0.2 mm) NE serif. The small glyphs are a bit compressed vertically (o-height ~1.5 mm). The ink is brown on heavy strokes and ocher on medium ones, with whitegrain everwhere. Glyphs in general are well-formed and distinct. Glyphs @a and @o are quite distinct. Plume shapes on @r, @s, and @'Sh' etc are quite variable, even withing the same word. Several @y glyphs have rather short tails, to the point that some may have been transcribed as @a, or vive-versa. Glyphs @r and @s are quite distinct overall, but for one or two ambiguous cases. There are puffs and tall gallows on lead lines. Puff initials on P1 and P4, whereas the big red weirdos &252 and &253 take the place of the first glyph or first word of P2 and P3. Internal puffs in P1 (@p and @f in line 5), P2 (@z in line 9), P3 (2×@p in line 13, @w, @p, @p each in lines 17, 18, 19), and P4 (@z in line 24). Weird and malformed glyphs: The three "big red weirdos" are very unlike normal Voynichese letters. Their shape emulates bold brush strokes, with flaring strokes and "swallowtail" serifs. However all three glyphs are actually outlined with pen in the normal ink and carefully filled-in with opaque red paint. The big red weirdo on line 7 (&252, ~18 mm wide and ~10 mm tall) is like a V with underbar; or a K on its side; or the chinese character for "great", upside down, with stroke 2 not protruding. The big red weirdo on line 11 (&253, ~11 by ~15 mm) is like an upside down "pi", somewhat like the one above it, but with a squiggle extending up from between the two horns. The big red weirdo at the top right corner of the page (&254, ~10 by ~10 mm, transcribed at the end of line 1), is partly erased or painted with a lighter red than the other two. It loks like "F" with two tails curving out and up, one extending from the leg of the "F" and the other starting at the liddle if the lower arm; all this updown. It has been described also as the letter "a" with a "b" beneath it. There seems to be a small faint square dot on the baseline of line 1, just after @'ytaiiin'. There seems to be another similar dot on the midline of that same line, squeezed between the @o and the @s of @'kos'. Malformed glyphs: The @a glyphs are often open at bottom. Line 2: @C of @'{Ch}kaiin' is like italic "L". Line 2: @C of second @'{CTh}ar' is crossed by the platf slash. Line 3: @C of @'{CTh}es' is almost an @i. Line 4: @r of @'oteor' has extra stroke in plume. Line 4: @r after @'oteor' is squashed. Line 4: @'{CT}a' of @'{CT}ar' maybe @'{CTa}' with lost lig. Line 4: @a in @'{CT}ar' is open at bottom. Line 5: @a in @'{CFh}aiin' is open at bottom. Line 7: &410 = @C lig to top of @y with plume on the lig. Line 7: @'oy' is a bit uncertain, was partly worn off. Non-Voynichese writing: Transcribers claim that in the first column of the table one can clearly read "a", "b", "c", ... "f", "h", "o", ... "r", "u", "v", "y", "z". The presence other letters (like "j", "w") is disputed. Fewer entries can be read in the third column, but it seems to contains the same letters as the first column, shifted down by one row: "r" next to "s", and so on. In the middle column only a few entries can be read,like EVA @d next to Roman "a", @r next to "c", @g next to "y", @y below "h" and one of the gallows letters somewhere near the "q", "r", "s". Damage: The page generally has a worn and dirty look. Several glyphs have become faint, almost invisible. Like the two word-final @y on line 1, the first word @'y{Sh}ey' on line 8, and the next @'{Sh}', and the final @'chal' on line 15. There are several wormholes and wormfurrows over the text at the left margin. The first glyph on line 4 is a @d partly obscured by a hole that makes it into an &136. In particular, a bookworm apparently scraped the surface of the vellum in a large down-pointing triang area, ~20 by ~65 mm, spanning from near the top edge at ~0.6 LR down to line 8. Within that area many glyphs have been damaged, and some were lost. In particular, on line 7, the word before @'{CZh}oaiin' completely lost maybe 2 glyphs. Bleedthrough of the green paint on the leaves of page f1v (but not the yellow paint) created a background of light green stains on this page. There are two brownish stains ~7 mm wide, with "fractal" edges and a slight pinkish hue, spanning lines 7-9 of P2 and the title T2, ~0.75 LR. They may have faint round cores with sharp edges, ~3 mm wide. Some of the writing inside those stains seem to have been dissolved. The ink of an @o in T2 seems to have been smeared to SW. Several smaller stains (~2-5 mm wide) with sly fuzzy edges, some of them possibly with the same fluid as the two above, occur on the hook of the initial @w of P1 (line 1), above an @y on that line, ~0.3 LR, on the plume of an @s on line 9, between P2 and P3 at ~0.5 LR, on top of an @'ai' on line 14, ~0.75 LR, on an @n on line 16, ~0.25 LR, between lines 17 and 18 at ~0.20 LR, under an @a and over an @'ii' on line 21 and above an @o on line 22, all three at ~0.8 LR. There is an irregular offsetted smudge over @'ok' on line 25, ~0.6 LR, with a slighly more reddish tinge. There is an elongated stain, ~2 mm wide and ~7 mm tall, with sharp but fractal edges, spanning lines 12 and 13 of P3, at ~0.6 LR. Its color is very similar to that of normal ink. In the whole bottom, top, and right margins the vellum is stained with various shades and hues of light brown, as if liquid had been spilled or rubbed over it. Writing that falls within the stained area, such as the initial @z gallows and the three-column table, is substantially faded. More details in those areas are visible in older UV/IR photographs, especially with modern image enhancement, than in the modern scans available at the Beinecke site as of 2025. Backtracing and retracing: There are several instances of apparent backtracing (by the Scribe himself) on this page. Some exampls are seen at the end of line 1 (@o in @'shol'), on line 2 (the stem only of the @r in @'shar' and the left side of the @C in @'{CTh}ar', on line 7 (first stroke of @'Sy' and @{CWh}oy', the @o in @'Shol', etc.), on line 11 (first stroke of @'{CWh}esaiin') on line 27 (the last three @o glyphs), and many more. A fine example of backtracing is on line 15, where the original faint strokes of the almost-dry pen in @'daiin.{Sh}{CKh}ey' are visible under the backtraced @'iin.{Sh}' and @y. Another interesting example is the backtraced stem of the @r, also on line 15, whose still-fresh ink was picked up by the pen when drawing the loop of the @k just below, and dragged a short distance to the SW. There are no clear examples of retracing (by later owners), although the ink of some of the backtracings is a bit too dark, so that they may be in fact retracings. Comments: The page layout suggests that the four paragraphs are quotes or endorsements, and the "titles" below each is the name of the quoted author. Denis Mardle [10 Feb 97] suggested they may describe the four parts of the book. Rayman Malekei [20 Nov 1997] thinks that each paragraph paragraphs may have been added at a different time. The placement of the three-column table suggests that it was added after the main text was written. The same conjecture has been made about the big red weirdo in the top right corner. It has been conjectured that it was added by Marci [???]. The brown staining of the vellum and the effacing of the text in the bottom, right, and top margins was reportedly caused by Voynich, when he applied chemicals to the area in an attempt to bring out invisible text. The faint scribbling at the top may be just an artifact of this staining. However, Brumbaugh claimed that there was a date in the upper right corner of f1r before it was obliterated by the application of chemicals (intended to reveal faded writing). The text in the bottom margin is generally believed to be in Roman cursive script, and as such it has been read as the Czech name of Jacobus Sinapius of Tepenecz, specifically "Jacobj a Tepenece". The two "7"s seen by Rene would lie below the "en" of the latter. The handwriting has been reported to match his signature in some other document [f1r.3]. The signature in the bottom margin was identified by Voynich as that of Jacobus de Tepenecz, as reported by Mary D'Imperio. Gabriel [18 Sep 1997] suggests that the signature may have been written with invisible ink. He says thatsome bits of the signature are visible in contrast-enhanced scans of that page (if one is told where to look). The EVA @r claimed to be next to "c" in the three-column table is rather misshapen. Also the synchronization of the three columns seems rather imperfect. D'Imperio says that the "weirdo" characters EVA &252/&253 are in bright red ink; confirmed by Glen Claston [20 Feb 1998] and Jim Reeds [03 Mar 1998]. Rene [28 Jul 1997] found a medieval astrological diagram [f1r.1], in Greek, where the weirdo EVA &252 is used as a symbol for Aries, which is "kruos" or "kryos" in Greek. He conjectures that EVA &253 may be a variation of the same. But he cautions that the author may have just borrowed the symbol for its looks. The outline of the top weirdo &252 has a peculiar "tail" curving to the left and down at the bottom left corner of its base. Could there be some text under the red paint? Rene [1 Feb 1999] thinks that &253 resembles the old Greek Virgo symbol drawn on its side, but he is not sure. Stolfi suggested [07 Aug 1998] that the symbols may be abbreviations for "Koenig" and "KoenigiN" --- i.e. "K" and "K"-with-squiggle. References: [f1r.1] Codex Taurinensis C VII 15 (author anonymous, no date avaliable). http://www.ficom.net/members/ditch/secret.htm [f1r.2] John Grove http://members.tripod.com/~VoynichMs/Prefix.htm [f1r.3] Catalog entry for MS 408. Beinecke Library, Yale. [f1r.4] Michel Roe's Voynich site, page about dating the manuscript. http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/mrr/voynich/date.html Misc notes: # T1: # The first glyph on this line is a @d partly obscured by a hole that makes it into an &136. # T1: # T1: # T1: # &C~y; = like @'Cy' with an @s-plume over the lig # T1: # T1: # T1: # Unit T2: Title 2 - right-justified part of line . # T1: # T1: # T1: # &CK; = a @C ligd to a platf gallows @K that does NOT ligate to the next glyph. # T1: # T1: # T1: # &CTOy; = a @C ligd to platf gallows @T then across raised @o and to top of @y # T1: # T1: # T1: # &-'; = the lig stroke of @c (without the @e stroke) with an @s-plume. # T1: # &CPo; = a @C ligd to a platf gallows @P ligd to the top of @o. # T1: # &ct; = a @C ligd to a NON-platf gallows @t. # T1: # T1: # T1: # The right-justified part of was split off as . # T1: # T1: # T1: # Unit T3: Title 3 - right-justified part of line . # T1: # T1: # T1: # The gallows are taller and wide but otherwise normal. # T1: # T1: # T1: # The right-justified part of was split off as . # T1: # T1: # T1: # Unit T4: Title 4 - right-justified part of line . # T1: # T1: # T1: # Unit K1: Three-way letter table ("key sequence") in right margin. # T1: # Believed to have been added by Marci. # T1: # The Roman text is given as inline comments "", where "" denotes a blank # T1: # entry, "" means illegible. Many lines are extrapolated, and some # T1: # are hihgly uncertain (e.g. , ). # T1: # T1: # Large red weirdo in the upper right corner, partly erased. # T1: # T1: # These letters in the margin are believed to have been added by # T1: # some late owner: # T1: # # T1: # ?= # T1: # a= # T1: # ?= # T1: # ?= # T1: # ?= # T1: # # T1: # ?= # T1: # ?= # T1: # # T1: # ?= # T1: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ #FILE f1v @@ f1v # ??? REPLACE [3,2] (Petersen, Stolfi) * Layout: A plant spanning the whole page. Two parags in bottom 1/2-page, sep 1 bln. ¤ Parag 1 (3.7 lines) starts at 0.5 TB, LR-jus, cut by plant. ¤ Parag 2 (5.8 lines) starts at 0.65 TB, LR-jus, cut by plant. Description: There is the drawing of a plant centered on page. Tere are two paragraphs (unit ) with 3.8 and 5.8 lines, just below mid-page. They are left- and right-justified, and every line is interrupted by the plant drawing. Plant description: ??? Give dimensions * Root: a knobby, warped, pancanke-like tuber with short roots attached like claws or fangs all around the rim. * Stem: thick, well drawn. * Branches: one straight up, two oblique with drooping tips. * Leaves: broad lance-shape, with two short tails. All of the same size and about the same shape. The stalks are short. * Flowers: one, growing at the tip of the plant's stalk, depicted in profile view. With a very short stalk, a conical calyx, apparently continuous with petals, three stubby petals or sepals with rounded tips, and a hemispherical core, almost as wide as the flower. There is a glyph inside the 3rd leaf on the left side of the left branch. Its vertical axis appears to be aligned with the axis of the leaf. It may or may not be Voynichese script. Writing: Clean and neatly spaced, with well-formed glyphs. Tall gallows on head lines, including gallows initials. Coloring: The leaves are filled with transparent paint, almost alternating between light yellow and light green. The "fangs" of the root are filled with some light transparent paint, possibly yellow (yel) or green. (The color is uncertain because of the heavy stains bleeding through from the recto side.) The hemispherical core is grubbed solid brown, carefully filling the outline. Everything else is unpainted. Comments: The core of the flower could be a berry. Part of this drawing (root and leaves only) is repeated on Pharma page f102r1[3,2]. The plant looks basically normal, except for the very peculiar root and the coloring of the leaves. Petersen identifies the plant as "Solanum Solatrium, Belladonna" specifically the "flower" and cites L. Fuchs [f1v.2,f1v.3]. There is no ê{Solanum:solatrium}, but "solatrium" is an ancient (Dioscoridean) name for some or all of these species: ê{Atropa:Belladona} (deadly nightshade) ê{Hyoscyamus:niger} (henbane) ê{Solanum:nigrum} (black nightshade) ê{Solanum:dulcamara} (bittersweet) All four plants are poisonous in varying degrees. The active principles can be absorbed by smoking or through the skin as well as by ingestion. They were used as potent psychoactive drugs, causing paralysis of involuntary muscles, dizziness, sleep, hallucinations, violent behavior, etc., and have been often associated with witchcraft. Other somewhat less likely plants referrred to as "Solanum Solatrium" ê{Withania:somnifera} and ê{Physalis:alkekengi}. The leaves of f1v seem most compatible those of ê{Atropa:belladonna} (shape) and ê{Hyoscyamus:niger} (attachment to stem). The "flower" at the top of f1v does resemble the sheathed, shiny black fruits of these two species. However, ê{Atropa:beladonna}'s root has been described as a roundish rhizome with a long (up to 1m) tapering root, which does not seem to match the highly distinctive "pancake with claws" of f1v. I have found no image or description of the other plants' roots. A very similar root, with quite different leaves, can be seen on another Italian herbal [f1v.1]: The medieval text calls that plant "Gran[i]a maggiore". The modern commentary tentatively identifies it with ê{Ecballium:elaterium} (Squirting Cucumber) I have found no image or description of ê{Ecballium:elaterium}'s roots. The symbol in the leaf could be a somewhat mangled Voynichese glyph. It looks like a "picnic table" @x with a tail that starts at the tip of the right foot and cuves down and to the left in a spiral, for about 360°. That symbols could also be a Roman letter or Latin scribal abbreviation, but its reading as such is equally uncertain. References: [f1v.1] University of Vermont Library MS 2, fol. 39 (ca. 1500) http://www.library.ucla.edu/libraries/biomed/his/immi/vm9437.htm [f1v.2] Fuchs p. 398. [f1v.3] Fiscker p. 17. Misc notes: # Transcriber ;E says that the final @'am' may be a correction. # T1: # T1: # T1: # The initial @'qo' has a high overbar that spans from the apex of the @q to beyond the @o. A new weirdo? # T1: # There is a wormhole between the last @'ch' and next @o, mistaken as glyph by some. # T1: # T1: # T1: # The plume on &366 is faint and may seem a distinct type of plume to some readers. # T1: # T1: # T1: # &O~h; = like @o ligd to @h. (But the reading by ;I> is wrong, it is just @'or'.) # T1: # T1: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ #FILE f2r @@ f2r # ??? REPLACE ), with 6.4 and 5.4 lines, both of them left- and right-justified: one at the top, slightly narrower, interrupted by three flowers; and one near the bottom, interrupted by two branches. There is a Voynichese word in the right margin (unit ), at mid-height, squeezed between the leaf and the vellum edge. The letters are about half-size, but otherwise look like normal Voynichese. There is another Voynichese word (unit ) inside the third leaf from the bottom in the first leaf bunch at right. Coloring: The root is filled with dark red color. The trunk (base of the plant stem) and parts of two of the flower stalks are grushed light green. Thin red lines are grubbed (with a pen?) in red roughly along the midlines of trunk and branches. The leaves are grushed with semitrans dull green. They may have been painted first with a lighter and more transparent green. The calyx of each flower is grushed with the same green as the leaves, then overlaid with 8-10 red rectangular dots, apparently applied with a pen. The petals are grushed with very light transparent salmon-pink paint. Comments: The root looks rather strange, the stems and leaves are somewhat awkward, but the flowers look normal. Petersen tentative identification is "cyanus segetum, cornflower (caeruleus) (cf 153)". That must be ê{Centaurea:cyanus} (cornflower, fiodaliso, bluet, kornblume). The flower shape and branching pattern seem to match fairly well; however, those features are not very specific. The color seems to be wrong, though (f2r flowers are light salmon-pink, cornflowers are intense blue). But maybe they were originally painted with a vegetable blue that faded over time to that pink. Also, the leaves of ê{Centaurea:cyanus} are long and thin, with smooth edges or a few very shallow teeth, attached directly to the stem; quite unlike those of f2r. Infusions of ê{Centaurea:cyanus} were once used as a febrifugue (whole plant) and eye wash (flowers only). Gabriel says that the first word @{kydain} or @{kydainy} appears only here in the whole ms. Could it be the plant's name? References: Misc notes: # T1: # T1: # &CTo; = a @C ligd to a platf gallows @T and ligd to top of an @o. # T1: # T1: # T1: # &So; = an @S ligd to the top of an @o. Accident? # T1: # The @d on the first word seems to have accident too. # T1: # T1: # T1: # &a~; = an @a with an @s-plume. # T1: # The plume on the &a~; is actually between the @a and the next @i. # T1: # T1: # T1: # Unit : Labels associated with plant. # T1: # T1: # East of plant. # T1: # T1: # T1: # Within leaf. # T1: # T1: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ #FILE f2v @@ f2v # ??? REPLACE # T1: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ #FILE f3r @@ f3r # ??? REPLACE ) with 9.5, 3.5, 2.7, and 2.8 lines: one at the top, the other three just below mid-page. The first two are left-justified and follow the plant's outline on the right. The last two are left- and right-justified, and interrupted by the plant's main stem. Coloring: The root is grushed with rusty brown. The left (hatched) side of the stem, and every other leaf starting with the lowest ones, are grushed in semitrans green. The other leaves are painted with opaque red. The two lowest leaves are fully painted, while each of the others has only the middle part painted, leaving an unpainted stripe along the border, avoiding the dotterd line. Comments: The plant looks strange because of the dense leaves. Perhaps they are actually the sheaths of leafstalks, badly drawn? Perhaps the dots along the leaf rim are short spines? Someone suggested that it may be ê{Origanum:dictamnus}, "Cretan dittany". References: Misc notes: # T1: # T1: # However the horz arm of the first @p bends down to baseline level. # T1: # T1: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ #FILE f3v @@ f3v # ??? REPLACE [1,1] (Petersen) * Layout: A plant spanning the page top to bottom, mostly in the right 1/2-page. Two parags in top 1/2-page, sep 1 bln. ¤ Parag 1 (6.0 lines) is TL-jus, R-fig. ¤ Parag 2 (7.5 lines) is L-jus, R-fig. Description: There is one plant, flush against the right edge of the panel, spanning TB with only a few mm or margin. ??? Give dimensions. * Root: single long root, consisting of six "telescoping" conical segments, with flat top. The tip of the root is bent into a hook and ends with a small round knob. * Stem: long, straight, vertical. * Branches: none. * Leaves: paired. Each leaf is shaped like a disk (diam ~??? mm), with two "tails" and two "arms", (both ~??? mm long) and a swallowtail-shaped "head", with long outward-curved "antennas" (~??? mm long). The leaf stalks are half as wide as the plant's stem. * Flowers: two, very unequal size, growing out of the tip of the stem on short stalks, similar to the leaf stalks. The calyx starts as narrow as the stalk and going up, but then bends by a bit more than 90° as it widens, and ends in a flat surface. It can be said to look like a sweet potato cut in half. The flat face is surrounded by a single row of tiny semicircular petalsm and has four concentri circles inside; the outermost one is a transversally dashed line, the other three are dotted. There are two paragraphs (unit ) with 6.0 and 7.5 lines, both in the top half of the page. The text is left-justified and follows the plant outline on the right. There is an elongated stain above the root tip, in the bottom left corner. Could it be an erased label? Coloring: Each root segment has the sides painted semitrans rusty brown, and the cross-section unpainted. The leaves are painted semitrans green. The stem and leaf stalks are grushed green. The flower sides are painted solid opaque dark blue, and their stalks are gubbed with the same color. The flat face of each flower is grubbed yel, follwing the circles. Everything else is unpainted. Comments: The plant looks quite strange. The telescoping root is hard to explain. The leaf shape is unusual but not impossible. The bloated flower calyces are very strange; they may have been drawn from pressed and dried specimens. References: Misc notes: # T1: # T1: # The final @'ai' is right next to the plant so it may have been @'ain' or @'aiin' etc. # T1: # T1: # T1: # The tail of the final @y is covered by the plant. Misread as @a by some. # T1: # &ôKy; = a filled-in @o ligd to a platf gallows @K ligd to @y. May be &OKh; or just &CKh;. # T1: # T1: # T1: # Those who read @'sh' at end mistook a petal for a glyph. # T1: # T1: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ #FILE f4r @@ f4r # ??? REPLACE ) with 3.8 and 8.6 lines, both above mid-page. The first is left- and right-justified, and interrupted once by the top inflorescence. The second one is left-justified and follows the plant's outline on the right. Coloring: The central cluster of the root is grushed with ligh brownish yellow. The corolla and stamen of each flower are grushed with the same paint. Every leaf is either grushed with semitrans green, or grubbed with semitrans red, the latter apparently applied with a pen with broad split nib. On each group of 4 leaves, each of these two colors is applied to one leaf on each side. Other leaves seem to be colored more randomly. Of the visible leaves in dense cluster at top left, six well-spaced ones are red, and 10 are green. Leaves in single pairs may or may not get the same color. All other parts of the plant are unpainted. Comments: The plant has a relatively normal appearance and is well-drawn. The layout of leaves and flowers is very naturalistic. The Dark Painter apparently spared it. The four leaves in each goup may have been meant to be 90° apart around the branch, rather than two leaves on each side of it. The three flowers on the bottom tier of the inflorescence may be just the foreground ones of a ring of 5, like the top tier. The three glyphs on the stem could be Vounichese, but somewhat deformed. If that is the case, they are best read bottom-to-top with glyph tops pointing W, possibly as @{hosi} or @{chose} or something similar. However the @o seems to have been retraced and has a clearly penned dot above and a dot below. Originally it may have been some other Voynichese glyph or two. The letters could instead be Roman script. Stolfi [10 apr 1999] suggested that the writing on the plant were instructions for painter: the leters on the stem could be "rot" (German for "red") in Rene's German alphabet [f4r.1], and the "F" on the calyx may be either short for German "Farbe" ("color") or a `paint-by-number' code [f4r.2]. However, neither the stem not the calyx were actually painted. The "F" could also be or Romance for "flower" (e.g. Italian "fiore"). Alternly, the figure may have been copied from some other book, which had letter labels on the parts; but the corresponding key was not copied, and that "F" should have been omitted as well. The plant was claimed by O'Neill to be hypericum, ê{Centaurium:erythaea} [f4r.3 [f4r.4]. References: [f4r.1] Fritz Saxl, book about astronomical and astrological images in medieval manuscripts. [f4r.2] THE MANUSCRIPT BOOK, by Graham D. Caie and Stephen Harris. http://acunix.wheatonma.edu/mdrout/AllSeafarer/book/BookNar.html [f4r.3] O'Neill. [f4r.4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centaurium_erythraea, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Leiden_Centauria_minor.jpg Misc notes: # T1: # T1: # There may be a faint plume over the first &Ch;, so it would be &Sh; # T1: # T1: # There may be a parag break here. Evidence is line spacing and the gallows on next line. # T1: # T1: # T1: # Unit : Labels on plant. # T1: # "U" readings by J. Stolfi from BLI04. # T1: # T1: # Writing on the stem, just above. Assuming they are voynichese glyphs # T1: # are transcribed by reading sideways and upwards (SU). Assuming they # T1: # are (badly misshaped) Roman letters, they are transcribed as comments # T1: # by reading from top down (TB), with each letter upright. # T1: # ??? Get other people's transcriptions. # T1: # h.o.si # T1: # T1: # On rightmost flower. # T1: # A tiny but clear uppecase Roman "F". # T1: # # T1: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ #FILE f4v @@ f4v # ??? REPLACE ) with 5.4 and 7.5 lines, both above mid-page. The first is left- and right-justified; the second is left-justified, and follows the plant's profile on the right. Coloring: The root is grushed (and almost entirely filled) with dark brown opaque paint. The stem, branches, knots, and the stamen's stalk are grushed yel. Type 1 leaves are grushed with semitrans green. Type 2 leaves and the head of the stamen, including its spines, are grubbed with semitrans olive green, perhaps applied with a broad-tipped split pen. The calyx and the outside of the corolla are completely filled with dark opaque blue paint, that runs over the division between the two. The inside of the corolla is rougly grushed with trans dirty light blue, apparently a diluted version of the paint used on the outside. Comments: Plant appearance: very, very odd because of the two radically different leaf types. Badly drawn, with no perspective. Type 1 leaves are in unnatural positions, and the branches keep their width through the whole length. Type 2 leaf clusters look like flowers, but the plant already has a very different conspicuous flower. This drawing is almost certainly an expanded version of plant f101r1[1,5]. Stolfi suggested that the person who drew this page thought that the star-shaped things in f101r1[1,5] were flowers, so he supplied fantasy leaves; and he only noticed the mistake halfway through the plant. The separation between calyx and corolla is almost completely obscured by the opaque blue paint. Hints or it are barely visible on the Beineke images as of 2025. It may well be an illusion, just paint or vellum noise. In this case, the flower would have no trace of a calyx. Someone claimed that the plant could be a species of ê{Convolvulus} (that includes the morning glory) or ê{Ipomoea} (that includes the sweet potato). However these species generally have much wider corollas and much smaller calyces. References: Misc notes: # T1: # T1: # &Oh; = an @o ligd to an @h. (But reading ;E is wrong.) # T1: # T1: # T1: # &CT; = a @C ligd to a platf gallows @T but NOT ligd to next glyph. # T1: # &CTo; = a @C ligd to platf gallows @T ligd to top of @o. # T1: # T1: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ #FILE f5r @@ f5r # ??? REPLACE ) with 3.6 and 2.5 lines, both above the plant, left- and right-justified. There is no clear evidence of late retracing. Some leaf outlines are wider than normal, but they seem to be in normal ink. Coloring: The calyx of the flower may have been grushed first with trans light green. Dark opaque green paint was then carelessly grubbed onto the calyx and forming a line down the middle of the plant's stem. The dome-like corolla of the flower was left unpainted, but the crescent-shaped space between the dome and the arch above it was painted in dark greyish blue. The leaves were grushed with opaque paint, alternating between slightly bluish greeen and yellowish green. The original outline of the leaves is sometimes overrun by the paint and obscured. On the two leaves nearest to viever, the strip along the edge delimited by the "vein" was left unpainted. Comments: A proposed idntification for this plant was "Herba paris": possibly ê{Paris:polyphylla} [f5r.1] and whose root (rhizome) has medicinal properties. It is native to China, India, and Indochina. Indeed the shape and arrangement of the leaves is similar, as is the flower; but the root less so. Another plant with more similar leaves but somewhat less similar flowers and roots is Indian cucumber-root, ê{Medeola:virginiana} [f5r.2], which however is native to North America.. References: [f5r.1] ê{Paris:polyphilla} https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_polyphylla https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/Paris_polyphylla_PICT6023.jpg https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2024.1400616/full [f5r.2] ê{Medeola:virginiana} https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Medeole_de_virginie.jpg https://etc.usf.edu/clipart/73300/73320/73320_medeola.htm Misc notes: # T1: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ #FILE f5v @@ f5v # ??? REPLACE