[Design of Marci Letter]

[LisaFaginDavis]

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:

   

(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!