Between Vellum and Prague

Nick Pelling – Independent Historian [email protected]

http://www.ciphermysteries.com/

It’s time to take sides…

…and I’m on the side of the evidence!

1. Radiocarbon dating the Vellum •

Terminus a quo

: ~1404 2. Provenance dating to Prague •

Terminus ad quem

: ~1612 What happened between Vellum & Prague?

Codicological layers

• Support material (vellum) • Ink + drawings + thin paint + heavy paint • Corrections + emendations + lacunae • Marginalia + annotation + colophon • Contact transfers + stains + accidents • Quire numbering (

for binding

) • Book numbering (

for finding

) • Folio numbering (

for cross-referencing

)

Voynich Folio Numbers

• Gaps imply pages removed after foliation – Perhaps by Baresch to send to Kircher?

• Foliation uses 16 th century number forms – Similarities with Dee’s / Kelley’s numbers – Probably added in / not long before Prague • Some paint added later!

– Under microscope, f42r’s “42” is overpainted • (According to Rene Zandbergen in 2009)

Voynich Quire Numbers

• Added to get quires bound in correct order • Added early in life of manuscript • 15 th century number forms – Noted by John Matthews Manly in 1931 • Rare numbering system, unusual for quires – Abbreviated longhand Roman ordinals – pm9, 29, 39, 4t9, 5t9, 6t9, 7m9, 8u9, 9n9 – C15 transitional hybrid Arabic/Roman

Folio & quire numbers inconsistent!

• C15 quire numbers vs C16 folio numbers • Q9 (‘Quire 9’) was restitched between quiration and foliation (John Grove) • Same for nine-rosette Q14 (Glen Claston) Quiration and foliation were not connected!

Quire order vs. original quire order • Reconstruct central two bifolios of Q13 – The quire number is on the wrong page • Reconstruct original page order of Q8 – The quire number is on the wrong page • Q15 and Q19 are out of sequence – The quire numbers are out of sequence • Quire hands not Voynichese / michitonese Quire numberer was not the original author!

Quire number paradoxes!

• Multiple quire hands (Pelling 2006) • Multiple quire hand numbering styles • Quire sequence gaps (Q16 & Q18 absent) • Not same as original bifolio order • Not same as final (foliated) order • Chicken scratch marginalia separated What happened to the quire numbers?

Generally accepted ‘explanation’

‘Q16 & Q18 were probably single bifolios removed by Baresch to send to Kircher’

Problem: doesn’t explain different quire hands, nor why quire hand #1 didn’t number all the quires in one go. Unlikely!

Bigger problem: only explanation on offer.

Intellectual History

• Assumes actions done in good faith • Assumes rationality under trying conditions • Primarily constrain hypotheses to evidence • What accounts can we devise that still fit?

A poor fit for cryptographic puzzles… But an excellent fit for pure codicology!

Intellectual history of the quires

• The quire numbers are not enciphered • The quire numbers are not deceptive • The quire numberers followed “the rules” What were “the rules” of quire numbering?

The rules of quire numbering

1. Number the quires in order 2. No need to number the endmost quire 3. Put number at bottom right of back page 4. Number each separate book individually

Introducing: Cod. Sang. 839

• St Gallen Abbey Library MS 839 • Nicolas Oresme’s commentary in 5 books • Colophon dated 1459 • Fol 176r has similar ‘

pm9

’ in top margin • First noticed by Thomas Sauvaget • ‘

pm9

’ added subsequent to colophon • First book is numbered ‘19’ (‘

primus

’)

Quire state prior to quiration…

The Voynich Manuscript arrived on Quire Hand #1’s desk as three separate books!

Book A: Q1-Q7,Q17,Q8(Q14),Q9-Q12,Q20 Book B: Q13 Book C: Q19,Q15

Step #1: origin of Q19…

• Q19 was the 1 st quire of Book C, so was numbered ‘19’ (‘

primus

’) • Q15 was the 2 nd (and last) quire of Book C, so needed no quire number

Step #2: origin of Q13…

• An owner rationalized Book A and Book B into a single Book AB1 • AB1: Q1-Q7,Q17,Q8(Q14),Q9-Q13, Q20

Step #3: Q14 falls out…

• First folded page of Q14 was f86v3 • Q14’s binding damaged, so had fallen out • Q14 was reinserted immediately after Q8 • AB2: Q1-Q7,Q17,Q8,Q14,Q9-Q13,Q20

Step #4: ‘chicken scratches’ redux • f66v is the last page of Q8 • f86v3 is still the first page of Q14 • Chicken scratch marginalia added to f66v and f86v3 - facing pages!

• AB3 = AB2 (but with chicken scratches)

Step #5: origin of Q14…

• Nine-rosette Q14 needed rebinding • Nine-rosette page was removed from after Q8 & reinserted after Q13 • AB4: Q1-Q7,Q17,Q8-Q14,Q20

Step #6: origin of Q15…

• The owner wanted to rationalize Book AB4 and Book C into a single book • Inserted Book C between Q14 and Q20 • Reversed order of Q15 and Q19!

• (Probably added Q20’s quire number) • ABC1 = Q1-Q7,Q17,Q8-Q15,Q19,Q20

Step #7: origin of Q17…

• Q17 was originally ‘7m9’, but contained uncomfortably wide folios. Sat awkwardly.

• The owner concluded that it should sit between the wide Q15 and Q19 quires • Reordered & changed ‘7m9’ to ’17m9’ • ABC2 = Q1-Q15,Q17,Q19,Q20

Step #8: the missing bifolios

Q : where did Q8’s missing bifolios go?

A : the foliator saw the stubs of Q14’s ripped fold still in place in the centre of Q8, and counted the stubs as missing bifolios.

i.e. the nine-rosette page was literally in two places at once, so was double-counted!

Step #9: origin of Q6/Q7…

• Q6 / Q7 had no quire numbers • An owner concluded that these should be quirated in the original numbering style • Final quire order: Q1-Q15,Q17,Q19,Q20

Conclusions (#1)

• Several people worked on the Voynich – At least two during C15 • They sought to give it form and order • They looked for clues in the marginalia (…even if they didn’t always get it right!) • Reordered & restitched

sympathetically

They were bibliophiles… librarians.

Conclusions (#2)

• Hybrid numbering scheme is very unusual – One foot in medieval traditions – One foot in contemporary practices – Torn between the two Not humanists, but monks!

Two Speculative Hypotheses

1.

– “The Monastic Library Hypothesis” “The Voynich Manuscript was given to Rudolf II by a representative or inheritor of an abbey, monastery or friary.” 2. “The Franciscan Library Hypothesis” – “The Voynich Manuscript was given to Rudolf II by a representative or inheritor of a Franciscan abbey, monastery or friary.” (

Roger Bacon was a Franciscan monk

)

That’s All!

Thank you for your attention!

Any questions?

Nick Pelling – [email protected]