Between Vellum and Prague

1. Between Vellum and Prague Nick Pelling – Independent Historian nickpelling@nickpelling.com http://www.ciphermysteries.com/

2. It’s time to take sides… …and I’m on the side of the evidence! • Radiocarbon dating the Vellum • Terminus a quo: ~1404 • Provenance dating to Prague • Terminus ad quem: ~1612 What happened between Vellum & Prague?

3. 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)

4. Voynich Folio Numbers • Gaps imply pages removed after foliation • Perhaps by Baresch to send to Kircher? • Foliation uses 16th 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)

5. Voynich Quire Numbers • Added to get quires bound in correct order • Added early in life of manuscript • 15th 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

6. 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!

7. 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!

8. 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?

9. 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.

10. 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!

11. 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?

12. The rules of quire numbering • Number the quires in order • No need to number the endmost quire • Put number at bottom right of back page • Number each separate book individually

13. 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’)

14. 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

15. Step #1: origin of Q19… • Q19 was the 1st quire of Book C, so was numbered ‘19’ (‘primus’) • Q15 was the 2nd (and last) quire of Book C, so needed no quire number

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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)

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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!

23. 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

24. 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.

25. 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!

26. Two Speculative Hypotheses • “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)

27. That’s All! Thank you for your attention! Any questions? Nick Pelling – nickpelling@nickpelling.com