1665/66 Marci Discussion: Locked?

[proto57]

From You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.:

There were two basic ways a letter was prepared for delivery in the times before manufactured envelopes became available: One, the letter itself was folded into an envelope, with the writing to the inside and the address on the outside. Then this was usually secured with a “wax” seal, impressed while hot with the emblem of the sender.

An envelope is a protective sheath - you cannot "fold the letter into an envelope". In this case, you sealed your letter and then (optionally) write the name of the addressee on the back. This was done when you knew that the letter would be protected anyway, it was being sent in a satchel or via messenger. Nobody wrote a name and address on an envelope and dropped it into a mailbox. If there were a bunch of letters in one parcel being carried to the same person, you didn't even need to write the name on the back of the letter, because all  the letters were being bundled up safely together.

A small yet crucial detail as improper use of terminology which shows lack of expertise with the subject matter. The letter may seem different and odd to you but I'm not aware that any of the historians who have studied the matter have raised any issues with the folding or materials employed. If there are any, I would appreciate you bringing this to my attention.

You are splitting hairs with your complaint about my usage of the word "envelope", David. And I am quite aware of what process was used in these types of letters, and how they were prepared, and sent. The point is that the letter here was formed into an envelope, by folding it, so that the contents were unreadable. This method is long out of use, to my knowledge, but was the case in many of the letters of the Carteggio. They were either:

1) Formed/folded into their own envelope, with the content on the inside, the address on the outside, then sealed.
2) They were folded, with no address on them anywhere, and no seal, but placed into another sheet of paper which was folded into an envelope. That outer envelope had an address and seal.

The 1665/66 Marci letter it of the first type, whatever you choose to call it. I never believed, nor ever stated, that an envelope was "dropped into a mailbox". And it is "different and odd" not from my understanding of any modern envelope or letter practice, but "different and odd" from the practice of the time, and the other letters, in that it cannot be folded into anything. See below:

The 1665 Voynich/Marci letter seems different, and odd, in this area. So I printed out the 1666 Marci letter, and tried to fold it on its apparent fold lines. There are ways to fold it, but they do not make sense.

(emphasis mine)
Exactly. You don't know how to fold it. And this lack of knowledge has caused you to jump to conclusions. 
If you look at the correct way to fold it, it fits up nicely, in the same way (albeit much less dramatically) as an origami swan only works if refolded correctly.
It is nicely sealed up, with the sides coming in to prevent people snooping upon the contents / the sides snagging and tearing during travel. It's something the scribe would have done thousands of times during his working career.

No, David, there are no ways to fold it. That is the point. As I suggested on my blog post on the subject... if one doubts me... print the letter out, on both sides of a sheet of paper, so the "seals" and lines line up, and try it.

It is not that "I" "don't know how to fold it", it is that it cannot be folded into a sheave, envelope, or whatever you want to try and fold it into. The fold lines, any or all of them, make no sense, except in the context of re-purposed piece of period paper, from which the stock to create the Marci letter was cut from.

So give it a shot, yourself, rather than assuming it can be done. Stick to the visible fold lines... no fudging here, I assume you would want to know one way or the other, for yourself. And do as I did, also, and print out other of the Carteggio letters, with fold lines, and fold those. They, on the contrary, work... as you will see.

And then, when you see all this... perhaps you can come up with a reason the fold lines do NOT work on the 1665/66 Marci letter. I can't fathom one, but that is the point, and I'm all ears...