Re: Starting Points for circle diagrams

[Jorge Stolfi <stolfi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

    > [Glen Claston:] These [astrological diagrams] are written in
    > natural language, and each time the author sees no need to mark
    > a starting point for circular text. On the other hand, the
    > Voynich author always needs to mark the starting place. ... in
    > the Voynich system it is absolutely necessary to point out where
    > the text begins.
    
"Always"? 

I do see a "start here" marker in some diagrams, but in most of them
the starting place is quite uncertain, or is only suggested by the
size and alignment of the word spaces (which may not be intentional).

Beware that many markings on the Marshall library images were done by
Friedman & co., and those may include some of the start-markers.

    > Why would [the VMS author] need to do this if it were written in
    > language?

>From the images I have, the most conspicuous "start" markers (a
characteristic "notched square" design, sometimes with decorated
edges) seem to be found only in the crudest-looking diagrams, such
as f71r.

So perhaps the answer is simply "inexperience". My guess is that the
author initially used elaborate "start" markers, but, as he refined
his style and standardized the starting place at 10--11 o'clock, he
simplified the markers and eventually dropped them altogether.

Note that the Zodiac diagrams may not have been drawn in the current
binding order. Considerind the style, layout, and details, my guess is
that Pisces was done originally as two 15-degree sections, on the
first folio of a new quire; but sometimes during the drawing of Taurus
the original Pisces was discarded, and redrawn as a single 30-degree
panel, on the last page of the preceding quire. The 30-nymph layout
was then used for all signs after Taurus. That sequence would explain
(among other things) why there is a start-marker on Aries-1 but not
in Pisces or (AFAIK) on any of the other Zodiac diagrams.

All the best,

--stolfi