27-07-2026, 06:46 PM
Thanks everyone for the detailed corrections and suggestions. The key correction to my original post is now clear: the missing leaves were removed after the seventeenth-century foliation, not before it. Lisa’s codicological summary also shows that we are not dealing with a single type of loss, but with two distinct processes: two single leaves were cut out, while several bifolia were removed from quire centres or as complete singulion quires.
That distinction may matter more than identifying any specific suspect.
The two cut leaves could have been removed without rebinding and may fit a scenario of sampling for study, copying, or correspondence. The missing bifolia are more likely linked to a later binding intervention, though, as Jorge notes, they might still have been removed without fully dismantling the manuscript. In any case, the different methods suggest the leaves were not necessarily removed at the same time or for the same reason.
This shifts the archival question. Rather than looking for a single group of Voynich leaves that stayed together, it may be better to consider two separate survival paths:
1. Individual cut leaves: correspondence, scholarly papers, notebooks, or sample collections.
2. Removed bifolia: discarded bindings, rebinding materials, loose fragments, or papers of later custodians.
In that context, René’s point about the lost Moretus notebook is interesting, even if Moretus himself is unlikely to have removed anything. A notebook, letter file, or compilation of copied scripts may be a more plausible context for a single leaf than a formal manuscript collection.
A further question is negative evidence: do any surviving descriptions, inventories, letters, photographs, or early examinations record the manuscript’s physical extent before Voynich acquired it? Even brief notes on leaf count, thickness, loose quires, or binding state could help constrain the timing of removal. As Jorge noted, the lack of such records is itself significant, but indirect traces may still exist in Jesuit, bookseller, restoration, or ownership archives.
So I would now reframe the question less as “Where are the missing folios?” and more as:
Can the different removal methods be linked to different custody periods, and do they imply different archival contexts in which the leaves might survive?
This remains speculative, but it seems a more testable approach than assuming a single removal event and a single destination.
That distinction may matter more than identifying any specific suspect.
The two cut leaves could have been removed without rebinding and may fit a scenario of sampling for study, copying, or correspondence. The missing bifolia are more likely linked to a later binding intervention, though, as Jorge notes, they might still have been removed without fully dismantling the manuscript. In any case, the different methods suggest the leaves were not necessarily removed at the same time or for the same reason.
This shifts the archival question. Rather than looking for a single group of Voynich leaves that stayed together, it may be better to consider two separate survival paths:
1. Individual cut leaves: correspondence, scholarly papers, notebooks, or sample collections.
2. Removed bifolia: discarded bindings, rebinding materials, loose fragments, or papers of later custodians.
In that context, René’s point about the lost Moretus notebook is interesting, even if Moretus himself is unlikely to have removed anything. A notebook, letter file, or compilation of copied scripts may be a more plausible context for a single leaf than a formal manuscript collection.
A further question is negative evidence: do any surviving descriptions, inventories, letters, photographs, or early examinations record the manuscript’s physical extent before Voynich acquired it? Even brief notes on leaf count, thickness, loose quires, or binding state could help constrain the timing of removal. As Jorge noted, the lack of such records is itself significant, but indirect traces may still exist in Jesuit, bookseller, restoration, or ownership archives.
So I would now reframe the question less as “Where are the missing folios?” and more as:
Can the different removal methods be linked to different custody periods, and do they imply different archival contexts in which the leaves might survive?
This remains speculative, but it seems a more testable approach than assuming a single removal event and a single destination.