Rich and I disagree about the possibility of a foreign fragment in the corner of the letter, although I don't think either of us is convinced either way. (I am on the fence about it, but it is among the specific elements in my formal proposal to the Beinecke Library) This annotated image shows some of the evidence that can be gleaned from the digital images. Unfortunately, it wasn't possible to include figures like this in the paper (due to length constraints).
[
attachment=15262]
And this is clearer than the word description in the paper, I think.
[
attachment=15261]
(22-04-2026, 06:12 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I hadn't realized it before, but the tab at the left has small pinpricks, several of which seem to allign quite neatly with the sewing stations of the inner front cover, suggesting that the letter may have originally been sewn to the front hinge of the manuscript (in blue below).
...
I don't think there is any evidence of paste on the letter...it's paper, so adhesive would have left significant damage. It's fairly easy to remove adhesive from parchment, but paper is much more delicate.
AND
(22-04-2026, 05:10 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.About Andrew's suggestion that the small fold might have been a glued "tab": This caused me to look more closely at Lisa's light table image of the Marci Letter, and lo and behold there is something there... some irregular deposit:
I don’t think the holes are from binding thread—I think they result from fatigue and wear, for the reasons I described in the paper. They may also have been worsened at points by direct contact with structural elements beneath the tab, such as the binding threads or sewing stations.
Lisa, I know when I first pointed out the binding tab to you, you suggested looking for regularly spaced slits along that crease. The reason I didn’t go that route is that I just couldn’t see regular spacing in those holes along that crease. And because they look exactly like what one sees with fatiguing (i.e. repeated folding/unfolding) along a single fold line.
That said, I do agree that if the tab had been glued, we should probably see more visible damage from its removal. However, if it were attached using a starch-based paste (rather than a protein- or animal-based glue), it could have been removed more cleanly and with less damage. That’s why I described Marci specifically as having
pasted the tab rather than
gluing it. (My limited research had suggested that such pastes were used in medieval/Renaissance times—although that was based largely on Wikipedia, which isn’t always reliable. I realized though that glue was the more likely choice of the two adhesives, and so I mentioned it as well when suggesting further inspections of the original letter.)
In Rich’s annotated image, though, there is clearly
something that caused that thin band or streak running along the binding tab (which I had not seen -- good catch!) If it isn’t residue from paste or glue, then what else might explain it? What are the other bookbinding or expected codicological features seen in old books that could account for that elongated yellowish blemish? (I'm asking Lisa here.)
There are many things that could cause staining like that over the course of hundreds of years. Smoke exposure, liquid, dirt, to name just a few. The next question from someone will certainly be - can it be tested? Sure, but I guarantee you that there's no way the Library would agree to the time, expense, risk, and staff time that would be required when the outcome really wouldn't add anything to our understanding of the letter. It's a letter written by Marci's secretary in 1665 when he sent Kircher a mysterious manuscript as a gift. The long-standing physical association of the letter with the Voynich Manuscript, along with Voynich's report of how he found it, makes it quite likely that the letter does in fact refer to the Voynich. Nothing is certain in this business, but it is much more likely than not.
(23-04-2026, 12:50 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The next question from someone will certainly be - can it be tested? Sure, but I guarantee you that there's no way the Library would agree to the time, expense, risk, and staff time that would be required when the outcome really wouldn't add anything to our understanding of the letter.
Testing seems unnecessary when there’s still more to learn from non-invasive photographic imaging. If they were to deny that, then the next question from someone will certainly be: what is being protected— an artifact or a theory?
(23-04-2026, 12:50 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There are many things that could cause staining like that over the course of hundreds of years. Smoke exposure, liquid, dirt, to name just a few. The next question from someone will certainly be - can it be tested? Sure, but I guarantee you that there's no way the Library would agree to the time, expense, risk, and staff time that would be required when the outcome really wouldn't add anything to our understanding of the letter.
Of course it can be many things, but the "something there" is there, where it is seems to me to be very important. I mean, why would "Smoke exposure, liquid, dirt...", anything, just "happen" to lay near the fold line of the tab, but not cross it? Here is the entire length of the tab in the picture you took on the light table, with the brightness and contrast played with to be able to see it as clearly as possible (I think, others could play with this image themselves, and maybe get more out of it):
[
attachment=15275]
For instance, to your suggestions for alternatives to a glue, or paste, such as dirt or water stains, I can't see how that would end up looking like what we see, because it does not cross the fold at any point, one, and two, it is not anywhere else on the letter like this: not in color tone, or in a slightly irregular line like this.
Now working against this being an adhesive might be "why?" would it not be more centered in the tab's width? Well maybe that would imply how it was attached in the first place, such as one edge being held down, the other tipped up to apply glue. Or for a million other reasons.
In any case, I think it could yield important clues to know what this is. There are so many non-invasive, non-risk methods of determining the makeup of substances on paper, which may determine this. If it were a hoof or hide glue, albumen from egg white, and so on, this could tell us a lot.
And yes, of course it is already assumed that the letter was in this book originally, and refers to this book... but that is all an assumption, with varying degrees of plausibility. But it has not been determined as factual, only assumed. Here is a chance, with the proposals, suggestions, observations which asteckely has been making, and I feel that it would be excellent to try and learn the reality of the letter, the folds, the seals, the tab, the cover for that matter... all while we can, especially when it is not harmful to do many tests, and take macro photographs, rather than continuing to assume the outcome without trying.
"Never assume" is often said, but most of what we think we know about the Voynich is based on assumptions. Why not dig deeper, and either buttress those assumptions and validate them; or discover new facts about all this that might help finally solve this mystery? The opportunity is right in front of us.
I saw "play around with the image" and couldn't resist. Obviously the hue/saturation has been altered here for visibility but you can see a thin line of
something (in light green). It doesn't line up with the fold exactly, but rather at a slight angle that would have taken it across the fold and to where the paper is now gone, below.
[
attachment=15277]
[quote="proto57" pid='83290' dateline='1776952437']
[quote="LisaFaginDavis" pid='83278' dateline='1776945043']
Sono molti i fattori che potrebbero causare macchie di questo tipo nel corso di centinaia di anni. Esposizione al fumo, liquidi, sporco, solo per citarne alcuni. La domanda successiva che qualcuno si porrà sicuramente sarà: si può fare un test? Certo, ma vi garantisco che la Biblioteca non accetterebbe mai di sostenere i costi, i rischi e l'impiego del personale necessari, dato che il risultato non aggiungerebbe nulla alla nostra comprensione della lettera.
[/citazione]
Certo, può trattarsi di molte cose, ma quel "qualcosa lì" è lì, e la sua posizione mi sembra molto importante. Voglio dire, perché mai "esposizione al fumo, liquidi, sporco...", qualsiasi cosa, dovrebbe "casualmente" trovarsi vicino alla piega della linguetta, senza però oltrepassarla? Ecco l'intera lunghezza della linguetta nella foto che hai scattato sul tavolo luminoso, con luminosità e contrasto regolati per poterla vedere il più chiaramente possibile (penso che altri potrebbero modificare questa immagine e magari ricavarne qualcosa di più):
Ad esempio, per quanto riguarda i tuoi suggerimenti di alternative alla colla o alla pasta, come macchie di terra o d'acqua, non riesco a capire come potrebbero risultare simili a quelle che vediamo, perché, in primo luogo, non attraversano la piega in nessun punto e, in secondo luogo, non sono presenti in nessun altro punto della lettera in questo modo: né con una tonalità di colore simile, né con una linea leggermente irregolare come questa.
Ora, un possibile motivo per cui non si tratti di un adesivo potrebbe essere "perché?". Non sarebbe più centrato rispetto alla larghezza della linguetta? Beh, forse questo implicherebbe il modo in cui è stato attaccato in primo luogo, ad esempio un bordo tenuto premuto e l'altro sollevato per applicare la colla. O per un milione di altri motivi.
In ogni caso, penso che potrebbe fornire indizi importanti per capire di cosa si tratta. Esistono molti metodi non invasivi e a basso rischio per determinare la composizione delle sostanze sulla carta, che potrebbero essere utili a questo scopo. Se si trattasse di colla di zoccolo o di pelle, albume d'uovo e così via, potrebbe rivelarci molto.
E sì, naturalmente si presume già che la lettera fosse originariamente in questo libro e che faccia riferimento a questo libro... ma si tratta solo di un'ipotesi, con diversi gradi di plausibilità. Non è stata accertata come un fatto, solo ipotizzata. Ecco un'opportunità, con le proposte, i suggerimenti e le osservazioni che asteckely ha fatto, e credo che sarebbe eccellente cercare di scoprire la realtà della lettera, le pieghe, i sigilli, la linguetta, la copertina, per esempio... tutto questo finché siamo in tempo, soprattutto quando non è dannoso fare molti test e scattare macrofotografie, piuttosto che continuare a dare per scontato il risultato senza provarci.
Si dice spesso "mai dare nulla per scontato", ma gran parte di ciò che crediamo di sapere sul manoscritto Voynich si basa su supposizioni. Perché non approfondire la questione e, al contrario, rafforzare e convalidare queste supposizioni, oppure scoprire nuovi fatti che potrebbero finalmente contribuire a risolvere questo mistero? L'opportunità è proprio davanti a noi.
[/citazione]
[allegato=15281]
Just saying... I've been having fun with Photoshop and something doesn't add up.
(23-04-2026, 03:52 PM)Fabrizio Salani Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Just saying... I've been having fun with Photoshop and something doesn't add up.
Fabrizio, I think you have a "scale issue" there. That is, you have two different scales to your images to the right, so of course they look different. But if the fold/fragment is simply mirrored, it matches the lower tear line perfectly:
[
attachment=15282]
Now this is a point of discussion between asteckely and I, in that I think we both cannot say if this is a fold over of the top of the tab, which was torn from that tab; or if it is a fragment of some other paper that got stuck there by the seal. I admit I do not know, but do favor it being a fold.
If a fold, it does demonstrate that the Marci Letter has been cut down from a larger sheet (of some sort, possibly a blank envelope with some seals already on it), because "unfolded" it extends past the tab.
As for the implications if a separate fragment, I won't speak for Andrew. But in either case, I think, it would be helpful to understanding this letter... it's origins, intentions, source... and also, I think, help us understand what Marci was doing here and how and why (if he created the Letter). But in ANY case, it is yet another key reason this ought to be examined to resolve this issue.
Rich