В комментариях к предыдущему посту, Диана О' Донован задала вопрос, на который нужен развернутый ответ.
Vladimir, Can you please clarify a point for me? The Yale essay 'Physical Materials' says there is only one set of sewing marks- which means the .. fascicles(?) or 'notebooks' have only been bound into a bookblock on one occasion. However, most of the people who talk about the manuscript online speak as if it was bound (1400s) and later dis-bound, and then re-bound in the 'wrong order' and with pages mislaid or removed.
Have you found evidence for two sets of sewing marks? Or only one?
Мое мнение, что бифолио переупорядочивались.
Поскольку остатки нити Т6 (самая древняя) сейчас находятся не на центральных изгибах бифолио ( 18-23, 19-22, 41-48,42-47, 43-46, 50-55, 51-54) , то возможно два варианта развития событий, но приводящих к одному результату.
Либо, эти бифолио были центральными в каких-то тетрадях, и теперь они сложены вместе в соответствующие сегодняшнему сшиванию тетради, либо все эти 7 бифолио ранее были индивидуально пришиты к трем опорам книжного блока. И старый шпагат с них не удалили. Второй вариант менее приемлем. Так как больше вероятность износа изгиба каждого бифолио, что приведет к утрате листа.
Сейчас у книжного блока есть три стойки опоры, и две фальшь опоры, которые образовывались связыванием между собой шпагатов прошивки каждой тетради.
Для книги такого габарита, достаточно пяти мест крепления. Я считаю, что существовало три периода (стадии) крепления в 15-16 веках.
1 этап. крепление к трем стойкам и крепление тетрадей между собой через край сверху и снизу книжного блока с образованием "каптала". 
2 этап. крепление тетрадей к трем стойкам и крепление с помощью нескольких шпагатов Т3 (Т5) к подвижным стойкам с образованием что-то похожего на "каптал" , как в рукописи Vat.lat.11506.
По времени, это произошло до того, как на центральные листы некоторых бифолио поставили прокладки. Ведь логично, чтобы увеличить прочность конструкции лучше использовать для крепления бифолио, на которые установлены прокладки.
3 этап. после износа второго по времени "каптала" и подрезания многих бифолио снизу, делали крепление шпагатом Т4, причем начинали (и заканчивали) привязку с фальшь опор. Cделав узел, оставляли конец длиной несколько сантиметров. 
Затем эти концы связывали между собой соответственно сверху и снизу.
Здесь же хочется повторить вопрос. Куда делись вкладыши на сканах 2014 года по сравнению с 2004, через которые внешняя прокладка Q14, крепилась к Q15? Анализ материала и клея этих вкладышей мог бы многое уточнить в истории реставрации манускрипта.
Vladimir - Than you for this detailed response. I do appreciate it. By the way (a) my forename is Diane (b) I am not currently a member of two Voynich mailing lists but no Voynich forums. I will cite your blogpost on this question.
ОтветитьУдалитьThe double translation from my voice-to-type made a mistake, so I will try again...
ОтветитьУдалитьThank you for this detailed response. I do appreciate it. By the way (a) my forename is Diane (b) I am currently a member of two Voynich mailing lists but of no Voynich forum.
I will cite your blogpost about this question in future.
I know the use of your two names from the site of Nick and Lisa F. D. You can refer to my blog.
УдалитьA further question, about your illustration of that 'Stage 1' binding. This is a question, not an hypothesis but could that stage have been one where a different type of binding had been originally used - such as binding in Coptic, or Byzantine or pre-Latin Armenian style which was then made a fully Latin-style binding later - now adding bast-fibre stitch supports to more nearly approximate the Latins' use of tawed leather for that purpose? My own research, over the past sixteen years has continually brought me back to comments made by Georg Baresch in 1639 about the matter in the manuscript having been obtained from a variety of sources that were obtained or copied "in eastern parts". He's not specific, and I think he was just repeating something passed on to him, but we know that hunting antique works through the eastern Mediterranean was fashionable and traditional, so it seems a reasonable possibility.
ОтветитьУдалитьответ на ниндзя https://www.voynich.ninja/thread-5411-post-82150.html#pid82150
УдалитьVladimir- thank you for replying, but I am not a member of 'Ninja' forum and cannot read what is posted there. All links are invisible to non-members and no discussion is possible. Also, my forename not Diana, but Diane (with an 'e'). Would it be possible for you to email me a copy of your reply if it is not convenient to reply to me on your blog? My email is dntodon [at] gmail [dot] com. Again, thank you for responding to the question.
ОтветитьУдалить
УдалитьThe Byzantine and pre-Latin Armenian styles of book block formation can be ruled out, as a characteristic feature of these styles is a V-shaped slit across the thickness of the book block, into which the binding threads of the quire are inserted in the former case, and the braids for fastening the quire are laid in the latter case. See Figs. 3 and 2, respectively. https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/iskuss...stavratsii
The profile of this slit is diamond-shaped (Fig. 1) and decreases in size from the outer to the inner bifolio of the quire.
We do not see diamond-shaped holes in the Voynich manuscript!
The use of Coptic binding of the quire in stage 1 cannot be completely ruled out. There are pros and cons.
If Coptic binding was used in stage 1, then the reason for the need for Latin rebinding emerges. When binding notebooks using the Coptic method (especially when there's a headband), it's impossible to remove the entire bifolio without cutting it into individual sheets. If one thread breaks, the entire structure unravels.
Cons: For a book block of this size, five attachment points are sufficient. The attachment points are evenly distributed along the height. This is consistent if you focus on the top (and bottom, partially removed) holes (and not the holes in the false supports). This is indicated by the rectangle in the figure.
But the holes at the top and bottom are too close to the edge of the notebooks to support the headband being attached through them (captal). Unless, of course, the pages were cut 20-25 mm at the top and bottom.
Overall, I consider the following argument for a possible Eastern influence on the Voynich manuscript.
In Europe, there is a tradition of hanging a horse shoe at the entrance to a house. In the East, a camel hoof is used for this purpose. We see this three times in the drawings of tent tips. On the same pages, the two types of tips are used in pairs. https://www.jasondavies.com/voynich/#f75...0.329/4.00
https://www.jasondavies.com/voynich/#f78...0.057/5.00
https://www.jasondavies.com/voynich/#f78...0.102/5.00
https://www.jasondavies.com/voynich/#f79...0.114/4.00 https://www.jasondavies.com/voynich/#Ros...0.526/5.00
https://www.jasondavies.com/voynich/#Ros...0.244/5.00
The European one is shaped like an onion head, and the Eastern one is shaped like a camel's hoof.
The combination of tents on page 75v represents the synergy of East and West. Geographically, this could be the Black Sea, the Sea of Marmara, the Red Sea, the Nile River, or the Persian Gulf.