(18-04-2026, 02:20 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.IIUC, that tab along the left edge of the letter would have been originally glued on the inside of the original front cover ("page f0v") just next to the binding gutter, in the area that is now covered by the flap of vellum that reinforces the (new) binding. Correct?
Actually, I do think that is the most likely location. In the paper, I gave roughly equal weight to the possibility that it was pasted next to the gutter on the verso side of a now-missing endleaf (i.e one similar to the endleaf still present at the back of the codex). However, I did that because—based strictly on the physical evidence available—that also seems possible.
I think it would be much more natural to paste the tab to the relatively stiff cover rather than to a single sheet of paper like an endleaf though.
(Technically, I believe one could call those particular endleaves “flyleaves,” but I avoided that term to prevent confusion with the use of “flyleaf” to refer to the letter after it has been pasted in.)
(18-04-2026, 02:20 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.So the letter must have been detached when the book was rebound by the Jesuits (if indeed it was). And then it must have been re-glued to the new cover -- if we are to take Wilfrid statements and that newspaper article literally, as you propose.
As I see it, yes.
A couple of points are worth mentioning. I attempted to apply Occam’s razor—proposing the simplest scenario that is still directly aligned with the evidence. I also tried to limit the scope of the formal hypothesis to what seems to be supported by
physical evidence (and left the alignment with
documentary evidence to the details in the explanatory narrative). Consequently, the hypothesis doesn't try to cover for what was written in letters or newspapers, or stated by Wilfrid, etc.
I also assumed, at least for the purposes of the paper, that everything is “authentic.” That is to say, the Marci letter was indeed written by Marci, and Wilfrid’s claims and motives were genuine. There is still reason for some skepticism regarding some aspects of the documentary evidence and provenance (I have raised such points on this forum myself often enough), but my aim here was simply to consider the most straightforward scenario that takes all available evidence at face value. And to leave any questions of forgery or chicanery for separate discussions.
Now, although the current limp-vellum covers are supposedly from the 18th or 19th century, I have yet to see (or see discussed) any codicological evidence supporting that claim. I have only seen what appears to be speculation presented as declarative statements. (And I see Rich has gone into that same issue in a comment.) Until such evidence is produced, I can't see any reason to conclude that the last binding or repair (prior to Hans Kraus) did not occur at the time of Marci and Kircher. That remains the simplest scenario consistent with the available evidence.
(18-04-2026, 02:20 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But if the letter was at some point glued to the new cover, before Wilfrid showed it to the public, we cannot tell whether it was the Jesuits or Wilfrid who glued it, right?
We cannot say with certainty—that is true. However, I also do not think there is any evidentiary reason to suggest that either the Jesuits or Wilfrid glued (or pasted) it into the manuscript.
- Its absence from Kircher’s bound volumes of letters suggests it was already bound into the manuscript (either by Marci, for the reasons I suggest in the paper, or by Kircher after he received it).
- There is no evidence, as mentioned above, that the manuscript was rebound before Wilfrid acquired it in 1911.
- Wilfrid’s wording in his 1921 lecture is not what one would expect if the letter were still attached to the manuscript. (English was not his first language, but I think he was fluent enough to know the correct verb tense when he said “...which was attached to the front cover.”)
- If the letter had been removed between the time of Kircher and Wilfrid, there seems to be no reason Wilfrid would have glued it back into the book after 1911 only to remove it again by 1921.
Any of these scenarios are possible -- I just don't see sufficient evidentiary basis to invoke them (again—Occam’s razor).
(18-04-2026, 02:20 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The letter may also have been detached by Kircher when he received the book. (If he indeed received it). No?
Again, possible and plausible—but that would reintroduce the question of why it was absent from his carteggio.
(18-04-2026, 02:20 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.By the way, are the dimensions of the VMS "standard" in some sense? I mean, was parvelchlumment traded in sheets of standard size, that was then cut in halves, quarters, thirds, whatever was desired? Which would have resulted in book dimensions being "quantized" to specific values, plus or minus a few mm...
I would also like to know more about that. I expect it's something our manuscript experts can answer fairly easily. (But note that it would also imply that any hypothetical “Book A” would need to share yet another feature with the VMS—namely, its exact dimensions.)
(18-04-2026, 02:20 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Apologies if the paper answers these questions; I could only do a quick reading.
Actually, I had to omit quite a bit of additional observations and discussion from the paper due to page limitations. (The conference organizer did confirm that it was acceptable to circulate the preprint, however.) If the paper is accepted, I expect to put up a site with much of that omitted material as SOM.
Addendum: The preprint should be replaced shortly with an updated version of Figure 2. (I accidentally reversed the terms "recto" and "verso" which do often.)
I was just repeating the mainstream view.