This is a great summary of #Receptiogate so far. In this morning's developments, the "scientific operational staff" page on the Receptio site has been taken down!
Look, people, it's not that hard. The rules of #Fragmentology are simple and finite. 1) If you are going to piece a dismembered manuscript back together online, do it with intellectual honesty.
2) If there's are missing leaves, show us where it is by indicating lacunae, as in this screenshot of my own work on the Beauvais Missal:
3) If there's no binding, don't photoshop the reconstruction into one. Digital reconstructions aren't about "fixing" physical imperfections by adding elements to make it look pretty.
Spending the afternoon @BeineckeLibrary photographing Wilfrid #Voynich 's scrapbook of press clippings heralding the "news" of the manuscript's decoding and attribution to Roger Bacon, and found this marvelous bit of editorial snark from the Providence Tribune, April 22, 1921:
Am now looking for an excuse to use the expression "I don't give two whoops in a rain barrel!"
Here's another good one, from the New York Evening Post, May 3, 1921. Apparently it is bad form to snort with laughter in the Beinecke Library reading room.
OK, people, you worked hard to get me to 10K followers, so here is your reward! An epic 62-Tweet thread about the #Voynich manuscript coming your way, starting NOW!
1. First things first. The #Voynich manuscript (VMS from now on) is a real object. Please always keep that in mind! It is a medieval manuscript (more on that in a minute) that belongs to the @BeineckeLibrary at Yale University, where it has been MS 408 since it was given in 1969.
2. I have seen it on multiple occasions and can confirm this. It is not imaginary. It is not fake. It is not a gift from aliens. But what IS it?
Remember a few weeks ago when I gave a lecture @imc_leeds about my reconstruction of the Beauvais Missal & announced that leaf no. 113 had landed in my inbox the day before? Now that I’m caught up on other things, I can work on placing it in the reconstruction. Here’s how…
Step 1: identify recto & verso. Generally a straightforward task…look for the binding holes (i.e. the gutter), which, in a manuscript that reads left -> right will be on the left of the recto side. In this case, the leaf is heavily trimmed on all sides, so no binding holes!
No binding holes, no problem. Just look at the text, and figure out which side continues the text from the other. In this case, though, the leaf is framed and only one side is visible! How to tell recto from verso, then? Is it impossible? Certainly not!
Ever heard of Cistercian numerals? I hadn’t either until yesterday, and after hours of diving down lots of rabbit holes, I’m here to tell you all about this fascinating chapter in the story of medieval numeration!
We all know about the two dominant numeral systems in the European Middle Ages: Roman numerals and Arabic numerals. Roman numerals are good for labeling and expressing a single number like a date, but Arabic numerals won the fight for numerical supremacy...
...because of their superior functionality for arithmetic (try doing a complex calculation using Roman numerals) and inclusion of the all-important 0.
Here's something else really interesting about @sims_mss 266: evidence for how it was made. By splitting up the 4-column scroll into four separate sections of a codex (Bible/Romans/France/England), the scribe had to carefully plan how the genealogical diagrams would be laid out.
As I mentioned in yesterday's absolutely chaotic thread (sorry, was trying to simultaneously board a plane and Tweet, always a bad idea), the branches at the bottom of ff. 12v/13 redirect all over the manuscript, as the survivors of Troy scatter across the Mediterranean:
Here's the same section in one of the Chronique scrolls, for comparison: