The Voynich Ninja

(23-04-2026, 04:07 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(23-04-2026, 03:45 PM)Fabrizio Salani Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Certo, può trattarsi ...

Regetably  I don't speak Italian. I hope this is an accurate translations:

(23-04-2026, 02:53 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(23-04-2026, 12:50 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There are many factors that could cause stains of this kind over the course of hundreds of years. Exposure to smoke, liquids, dirt, just to name a few. The next question that someone will surely ask is: can a test be done? Of course, but I guarantee you that the Library would never agree to bear the costs, risks, and staff time required, since the result would add nothing to our understanding of the letter.

Of course, it could be many things, but that “something there” is there, and its position seems very important to me. I mean, why would “exposure to smoke, liquids, dirt...,” whatever it may be, “randomly” be located near the fold of the tab, without however crossing it? Here is the entire length of the tab in the photo you took on the light table, with brightness and contrast adjusted so that it can be seen as clearly as possible (I think others might be able to modify this image and perhaps get something more out of it):
For example, regarding your suggestions of alternatives to glue or paste, such as dirt or water stains, I can’t understand how they could resemble what we see, because, first of all, they do not cross the fold at any point and, secondly, they are not present anywhere else on the letter in this way: neither with a similar color tone nor with a slightly irregular line like this.
Now, one possible reason why it might not be an adhesive could be “why?”. Wouldn’t it be more centered relative to the width of the tab? Well, perhaps this would depend on how it was attached in the first place, for example with one edge held down and the other lifted to apply the glue. Or for a million other reasons.
In any case, I think it could provide important clues for understanding what it is. There are many non-invasive and low-risk methods to determine the composition of substances on paper that could be useful for this purpose. If it were hoof glue or skin glue, egg white, and so on, it could tell us a great deal.
And yes, of course it is already assumed that the letter was originally in this book and that it refers to this book… but that is only a hypothesis, with varying degrees of plausibility. It has not been established as a fact, only hypothesized. Here is an opportunity, with the proposals, suggestions, and observations that asteckely has made, and I think it would be excellent to try to discover the reality of the letter, the folds, the seals, the tab, the cover, for example… all of this while there is still time, especially when it is not harmful to carry out many tests and take macrophotographs, rather than continuing to take the outcome for granted without trying.
It is often said “never take anything for granted,” but much of what we believe we know about the Voynich manuscript is based on assumptions. Why not investigate further and instead strengthen and validate these assumptions, or discover new facts that might finally help solve this mystery? The opportunity is right in front of us.

Actually, Andrew, that was a quote of my comment, which Fabrizio translated INTO Italian and reposted...

(deleted)

(23-04-2026, 04:03 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.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.

 
And here is another reason that I've gone back and forth on the foreign fragment possibility:  There is a small remnant of paper extending across the wax seal that doesn't seem to belong there (whether it is a fragment or a fold-over). You can see it in the image you have in comment #39, and I indicated it in yellow outline in my figure in comment #31.

(23-04-2026, 02:53 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.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):

With my superior pareidolia, I think I see the thin dark irregular edge of a water stain, running along the tab fold, about 1 cm above t.

If real, that could be water from the paste that seeped through the tab and onto the letter, that was presumably folded over the tab while the paste was still fresh.

Or perhaps water that was applied to the tab in order to soften the glue and release the letter from the cover, when the book was re-bound.

Before the invention of PVA ("Elmer's glue"), nitrocellulose, etc., I suppose that "glue" in household and scribal contexts should have meant either a paste of flour and water, or a thick solution of gum arabic.  The former would release water that would seep into the paper; but would probably have been eaten by insects or molds long ago.  The latter would not have seeped into the paper, but may have survived better, and would probably have been softened easily by wetting.

By the way, I can't imagine Marci attaching the letter to the book by sewing it into the binding.  That tab surely was meant to glue it somewhere on the book (or paste it, if we are to distinguish the words).  I suppose that the book had been bound well before Barschius got it, and I don't see why Marci would re-bind it.  And I doubt very much that the Jesuits (or whoever re-bound the book after Kircher) would have decided to incorporate the letter into the new binding.

All the best, --stolfi

Not every question is answerable. As medievalists, we learn to live with that. We're likely never going to know FOR SURE if and how the Marci letter was attached or associated with the VMS. We're certainly unlikely to learn what made that smudge (maybe Umberto Eco had some pollen on his thumb when he examined it). Sometimes we just have to learn to live with uncertainty.

It is worth noting that literally EVERY MEDIEVAL MANUSCRIPT that is no longer in its place of origin has gaps in provenance and unidentified stains and human interventions in its structure. Those uncertainties do not mean that we must question the authenticity of all of these manuscripts. Occan's Razor applies. 

I am not suggesting that Marci was the one who attached the letter to the binding - that wouldn't make sense. It would be more logical for Kircher or someone later in the Jesuit period to do that. But it was common practice to tip a document or flyleaf into a manuscript by cutting a tab for attachment to the sewing stations, with the tab either visible inside the cover or protruding on the other side of the first quire. It happens all the time - I have seen hundreds of examples. Here's one that I wrote a book about:

[attachment=15283]

(here's the book: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.)

In this case, the notches indicate that the fragment was removed WITHOUT cutting the sewing cords. The fact that there's evidence of sewing holes in the valley-fold of the Marci letter's tab but no notches is what implies that the letter was removed by cutting the sewing cords instead (there's a notch for the first hole, but I suspect that was an abortive attempt to detach the letter). Before the modern era, adhesive would have been a really unlikely choice. And if it were a modern adhesive, the evidence would be clear.

Anyone can come up with increasingly-complex explanations for anything. But the more leaps and twists you have to make in order to explain something, the less plausible it becomes. The simplest explanation here strikes me as the most plausible.

Marci's secretary writes the letter in 1665;
The book and letter are sent to Kircher;
Someone (Kircher or another Jesuit, probably) feels it would be prudent to attach the letter to the book;
The Jessuits replace the cover of the manuscript, removing the old wood boards and replacing them with the current limp vellum;
When they cut the hinges to release the covers, the letter becomes detached, so it stays that way;
Voynich finds the letter tucked into the manuscript and brings it to Florence, London, and New York;
The letter is inherited by Ethel and Anne, sold to Kraus along with all the other ephemera, and given to the Beinecke.

That's a lot of activity of a small sheet of fragile 17th-century paper. Written, folded, sealed, shipped from Prague to Rome, sewn, unsewn, folded, unfolded, for hundreds of years. It crossed the Alps, likely on horseback. It's experienced at least one ocean crossing. What were the conditions in Voynich's Florence, London, and New York offices? Was there something smudgy at the bottom of his briefcase? Did he have it with him at dinner in Chicago? Did the Director of the Art Institute spill tea on it? Did someone at the New York Academy of Medicine forget to wash her hands before handling it? Was the safe at Ethel's insurance company climate-controlled? How about the apartment she shared with Anne? Or Kraus' NY shop? Were Umberto Eco's hands clean? Or mine, for that matter (they were), or any of the hundreds of people who have handled it over the centuries? It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to formulate a timeline that would explain every stain and fold and hole. But of course if you want to try, I truly hope you are successful!

(23-04-2026, 06:11 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Not every question is answerable. As medievalists, we learn to live with that. We're likely never going to know FOR SURE if and how the Marci letter was attached or associated with the VMS. We're certainly unlikely to learn what made that smudge (maybe Umberto Eco had some pollen on his thumb when he examined it). Sometimes we just have to learn to live with uncertainty.

It is worth noting that literally EVERY MEDIEVAL MANUSCRIPT that is no longer in its place of origin has gaps in provenance and unidentified stains and human interventions in its structure. Those uncertainties do not mean that we must question the authenticity of all of these manuscripts. Occan's Razor applies. 
...

It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to formulate a timeline that would explain every stain and fold and hole. But of course if you want to try, I truly hope you are successful!

I'm sure you don't mean to, but it really sounds like you are advocating for "Don't ask questions, because the answers don't matter".  But there are good reasons why these questions are worth answering. 

Einstein supposedly said that everything should be as simple as it can be, but not simpler. He actually said something more along the lines of: everything should be as as simple as possible while still explaining all of the data.

The problem with the scenario that you suggest as being most plausible is that it simply doesn't explain all the data -- it still leaves some some outstanding issues.  Why did Wilfrid say it was "attached" if it wasn't?  Why was it called a "flyleaf"?  Why did he not talk about it for a decade after obtaining it when the content was directly relevant to his claim about the manuscript being the work of Roger Bacon (and there was basically no other evidence to support that claim)?

Do the answers matter to the bigger picture of the Voynich? Absolutely!
Suppose we were to find clear evidence that the letter had once been physically attached to the codex? Suppose, for example, that the endleaf at the end of the codex has the very same watermark as the Marci Letter? (I doubt it does, but no one can say without asking such a question and actually looking for the answer). For one thing, such findings could change the claims about the Jesuit's having done the current binding. More importantly, if the letter is finally positively connected to the Voynich Manuscript then it would put to rest the entire Book Switch Theory and give much more solid support to the putative provenance story.

On the other hand, if another codex were discovered with physical traces—paste marks, stains, or other indicators—showing it had originally contained the Marci Letter, then that would cause the entire provenance story for the manuscript prior to 1911 to collapse.  

These possibilities aren’t trivial. They may indeed never be answered, but whether or not people are inclined to engage with them, they remain relevant.

Of course we should ask questions - I'm just saying that not all questions are answerable, and at a certain point you may just have to accept that. Not all paths of inquiry are worth the effort, time, risk, and expense given the potential outcome.

(23-04-2026, 07:46 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Of course we should ask questions - I'm just saying that not all questions are answerable, and at a certain point you may just have to accept that. Not all paths of inquiry are worth the effort, time, risk, and expense given the potential outcome.

I would consider some of the questions being asked in this thread relatively answerable, with relatively large implications. If strong evidence of the marci letter being attached to the VMS were to be found, that's hugely important to the VMS provenance. 

I think it's fair to say that we shouldn't expect answers to these questions, but it would be a disservice to VMS research to simply not bother probing wherever possible for leads. At the end of the day, who decides what is, and isn't worth investigating? And who decides what is and isn't worth the risk? Beinecke, I suppose.

It sure feels to me like this question has been asked and answered. Regardless of HOW the tab was attached, the fact that the tab is essentially the same height as the manuscript and - as Andrew has demonstrated - the letter folds along existing creases to fit neatly within it feels like pretty satisfactory evidence that the letter was once attached to the manuscript. My experience tells me that we are very unlikely to learn anything more by speculating and theorizing. But of course you are welcome to do so.

And you are exactly right about the Library. The Beinecke owns and is responsible for the manuscript, and it is up to them to decide if the risks of any imaging or forensic tests are worth the potential rewards. And no matter what anyone says, every kind of testing and handling involves risk. Their job is to quantify the risks and rewards and base a decision on that information. Those who make those decisions may not agree with the person making the request when discussing the test's risk/reward calculation. But it is their call. And where the Voynich is concerned, they really do not want to mess around with anything that could potentially cause harm to the manuscript or its associated documents. That's why you can't just walk into the Library and ask to see it.

The Library Director, the curator, the lawyers, and the conservation officer are not the bad guys here. Their job is to care for the manuscript (and the MILLIONS of other objects in their care) and protect it from harm so that it can be preserved for the future. The digital images have made it accessible to the world. Those images also protect the manuscript by making it possible for millions of interested researchers to study it without having to handle it.

(23-04-2026, 08:07 PM)eggyk Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I think it's fair to say that we shouldn't expect answers to these questions, but it would be a disservice to VMS research to simply not bother probing wherever possible for leads. At the end of the day, who decides what is, and isn't worth investigating? And who decides what is and isn't worth the risk? Beinecke, I suppose.

It's definitely Beinecke's call —and reponsibility—to control access to the manuscript and letter. They are the library's private property, after all. But it's worth mentioning that so far, I've only found responses to my communications with them to be reasonable and helpful. I submitted a detailed proposal requesting permission to inspect the artifacts and take photographic imagery to answer a bunch of these questions. Not unexpectedly, they denied access to the manuscript  itself, but the curator responsible for those particular artifacts answered my request personally regarding my accessing of the letter to take special photographs.

(23-04-2026, 08:36 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.My experience tells me that we are very unlikely to learn anything more by speculating and theorizing. 

Well, that's pretty clearly not true -- there's potentially much we can learn that would be of consequence. I've got to reiterate what I already said before:  if the letter can be physically connected to the manuscript then it would put to rest the entire Book Switch Theory and give solid support to the putative provenance story.  And  if some other codex were shown to have contained the Marci Letter, then everything we think we know of the manuscript before Wilfrid Voynich would collapse.