- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
[Design of Marci Letter]
- [Design of Marci Letter]
-
RE: Just Saying...
asteckley > 17-04-2026, 01:44 PM
(17-04-2026, 01:17 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I've long wondered what the basis was for this "19th c. rebinding by the Jesuits", supposedly producing the current cover, and why the cover is said to be "18th or 19th century in origin". But I have never been able to find a physical, forensic reason for it.
…
Perhaps someone knows of such physical proof this cover could not have been the one seen and handled by Marci…
It is possible to get some additional evidence for or against that claim by looking at light table pictures of the back endleaf.
Due to improvements in the process of making laid paper, later era paper showed less shadowing along the vertical chain lines. The Marci Letter shows such shadowing but you see it only on light table images.
The endleaf may or may not show chain shadows (or watermarks).
Unfortunately, it would be very difficult to take such imagery on the endleaf — the manuscript is too fragile and delicate to risk it.
The issue would not affect the core hypothesis though; the evidence that the letter was bound (or “tipped-in”) is stronger than evidence that the manuscript could not have been rebound without preserving the binding-in of the letter. -
RE: Just Saying...
Rafal > 17-04-2026, 02:06 PM
As a person who started this discussion I would like just to say that I have no personal opinion and no idea if VM was rebound or not
I was just repeating the mainstream view.
-
RE: Just Saying...
proto57 > 17-04-2026, 03:31 PM
(17-04-2026, 02:06 PM)Rafal Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.As a person who started this discussion I would like just to say that I have no personal opinion and no idea if VM was rebound or not
I was just repeating the mainstream view.
Hi Rafal: I understood that... I didn't mean to sound like I was arguing with you on the matter. I was only describing what I found out on the topic you had brought up.
What I wrote does reflect a very common phenomenon in Voynich studies, one I carp on all the time: That "we are told" many things about the Voynich, its provenance, its construction, materials, and so on. They are often either stated as fact, or implied as fact. But then when we critically examine them... look at what is actually known, for certain, and what is not, and then these firm, foundational "facts" often turn out to have many alternative possible outcomes contrary to the given ones.
It was the main point of my recent Zoom talk segment. Not about my theory, or anyone else's particular theory, but just making the point that we often cannot take the current paradigm's building blocks for granted, because there is, it often turns out, little or no foundation for them. The binding seems to be yet another case... even I was going on about the "18th century cover" until recently, taking it for a fact, and what such an age cover might mean to me or others...
... and a couple of hours of research, and yet again... it turns out there is no little to no foundation to it. Until further testing is done we just don't know when that cover is from, or when it was put on the Voynich. I guess I'm repeating myself... but anyway, I didn't mean to argue with you, but with the provided "rebinding paradigm". It could happen to be correct, but there is little to no basis for it. Important to know, I feel.
Rich -
RE: Just Saying...
Jorge_Stolfi > 18-04-2026, 02:20 AM
(17-04-2026, 06:37 AM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.GRIN FIENDISH BEAST - INTO BLIGHTED TINGLED TATTER
Why? Because ...
LETTER HAS LEFT BINDING-TAB DESIGNED RIGHT INTO IT
I think I cracked the first anagram, but I am baffled by the second one. Waiting for the solution...
Seriously: first, congratulations for seeing things that were quite obvious but somehow were not seen by the hundreds (tens of thousands?) of Voynichologists who scrutinized and analyzed that letter from every possible angle. Including myself...
I think it says something general about the whole discipline and community. But let's leave it at that.
IIUC, that tab along the left edge of the letter would have been originally glued on the inside of the original front cover ("page f0v") just next to the binding gutter, in the area that is now covered by the flap of vellum that reinforces the (new) binding. Correct?
So the letter must have been detached when the book was rebound by the Jesuits (if indeed it was). And then it must have been re-glued to the new cover -- if we are to take Wilfrid statements and that newspaper article literally, as you propose.
But if the letter was at some point glued to the new cover, before Wilfrid showed it to the public, we cannot tell whether it was the Jesuits or Wilfrid who glued it, right?
The letter may also have been detached by Kircher when he received the book. (If he indeed received it). No?
By the way, are the dimensions of the VMS "standard" in some sense? I mean, was parvelchlumment traded in sheets of standard size, that was then cut in halves, quarters, thirds, whatever was desired? Which would have resulted in book dimensions being "quantized" to specific values, plus or minus a few mm...
Apologies if the paper answers these questions; I could only do a quick reading.
All the best, --stolfi -
RE: Just Saying...
asteckley > 18-04-2026, 09:01 AM
(18-04-2026, 02:20 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.IIUC, that tab along the left edge of the letter would have been originally glued on the inside of the original front cover ("page f0v") just next to the binding gutter, in the area that is now covered by the flap of vellum that reinforces the (new) binding. Correct?
Actually, I do think that is the most likely location. In the paper, I gave roughly equal weight to the possibility that it was pasted next to the gutter on the verso side of a now-missing endleaf (i.e one similar to the endleaf still present at the back of the codex). However, I did that because—based strictly on the physical evidence available—that also seems possible.
I think it would be much more natural to paste the tab to the relatively stiff cover rather than to a single sheet of paper like an endleaf though.
(Technically, I believe one could call those particular endleaves “flyleaves,” but I avoided that term to prevent confusion with the use of “flyleaf” to refer to the letter after it has been pasted in.)
(18-04-2026, 02:20 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.So the letter must have been detached when the book was rebound by the Jesuits (if indeed it was). And then it must have been re-glued to the new cover -- if we are to take Wilfrid statements and that newspaper article literally, as you propose.
As I see it, yes.
A couple of points are worth mentioning. I attempted to apply Occam’s razor—proposing the simplest scenario that is still directly aligned with the evidence. I also tried to limit the scope of the formal hypothesis to what seems to be supported by physical evidence (and left the alignment with documentary evidence to the details in the explanatory narrative). Consequently, the hypothesis doesn't try to cover for what was written in letters or newspapers, or stated by Wilfrid, etc.
I also assumed, at least for the purposes of the paper, that everything is “authentic.” That is to say, the Marci letter was indeed written by Marci, and Wilfrid’s claims and motives were genuine. There is still reason for some skepticism regarding some aspects of the documentary evidence and provenance (I have raised such points on this forum myself often enough), but my aim here was simply to consider the most straightforward scenario that takes all available evidence at face value. And to leave any questions of forgery or chicanery for separate discussions.
Now, although the current limp-vellum covers are supposedly from the 18th or 19th century, I have yet to see (or see discussed) any codicological evidence supporting that claim. I have only seen what appears to be speculation presented as declarative statements. (And I see Rich has gone into that same issue in a comment.) Until such evidence is produced, I can't see any reason to conclude that the last binding or repair (prior to Hans Kraus) did not occur at the time of Marci and Kircher. That remains the simplest scenario consistent with the available evidence.
(18-04-2026, 02:20 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But if the letter was at some point glued to the new cover, before Wilfrid showed it to the public, we cannot tell whether it was the Jesuits or Wilfrid who glued it, right?
We cannot say with certainty—that is true. However, I also do not think there is any evidentiary reason to suggest that either the Jesuits or Wilfrid glued (or pasted) it into the manuscript.- Its absence from Kircher’s bound volumes of letters suggests it was already bound into the manuscript (either by Marci, for the reasons I suggest in the paper, or by Kircher after he received it).
- There is no evidence, as mentioned above, that the manuscript was rebound before Wilfrid acquired it in 1911.
- Wilfrid’s wording in his 1921 lecture is not what one would expect if the letter were still attached to the manuscript. (English was not his first language, but I think he was fluent enough to know the correct verb tense when he said “...which was attached to the front cover.”)
- If the letter had been removed between the time of Kircher and Wilfrid, there seems to be no reason Wilfrid would have glued it back into the book after 1911 only to remove it again by 1921.
(18-04-2026, 02:20 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The letter may also have been detached by Kircher when he received the book. (If he indeed received it). No?
Again, possible and plausible—but that would reintroduce the question of why it was absent from his carteggio.
(18-04-2026, 02:20 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.By the way, are the dimensions of the VMS "standard" in some sense? I mean, was parvelchlumment traded in sheets of standard size, that was then cut in halves, quarters, thirds, whatever was desired? Which would have resulted in book dimensions being "quantized" to specific values, plus or minus a few mm...
I would also like to know more about that. I expect it's something our manuscript experts can answer fairly easily. (But note that it would also imply that any hypothetical “Book A” would need to share yet another feature with the VMS—namely, its exact dimensions.)
(18-04-2026, 02:20 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Apologies if the paper answers these questions; I could only do a quick reading.
Actually, I had to omit quite a bit of additional observations and discussion from the paper due to page limitations. (The conference organizer did confirm that it was acceptable to circulate the preprint, however.) If the paper is accepted, I expect to put up a site with much of that omitted material as SOM.
Addendum: The preprint should be replaced shortly with an updated version of Figure 2. (I accidentally reversed the terms "recto" and "verso" which do often.) - Its absence from Kircher’s bound volumes of letters suggests it was already bound into the manuscript (either by Marci, for the reasons I suggest in the paper, or by Kircher after he received it).
-
RE: Just Saying...
Jorge_Stolfi > 18-04-2026, 03:06 PM
(18-04-2026, 09:01 AM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[quote="Jorge_Stolfi" pid='83005' dateline='1776475209']
I would also like to know more about that. I expect it's something our manuscript experts can answer fairly easily. (But note that it would also imply that any hypothetical “Book A” would need to share yet another feature with the VMS—namely, its exact dimensions.)
By the way, are the dimensions of the VMS "standard" in some sense? I mean, was parvelchlumment traded in sheets of standard size, that was then cut in halves, quarters, thirds, whatever was desired? Which would have resulted in book dimensions being "quantized" to specific values, plus or minus a few mm...
[quote]
That is why I asked.
I am guessing that paper book sizes were somewhat standard ("folio", "quarto", "octavo", etc.), not only because the sizes of paper sheets must have been a de-facto standard for traders' and users' convenience, but possibly also because each printing press and printing house may have been organized and configured to produce books of certain specific sizes. But the question is whether that was the case also for parchment books in the pre-Gutemberg era.
For the Book Switch theory to work, Wilfrid would have had to find a book that (A) could be passed off as Bacon's to some Stupid Rich Banker, (B) fit the description in Baresch's letter, and © was large enough for Marci's letter to have been pasted inside it. If books mostly came in certain specific sizes, that would have made requirement © almost trivial.
All the best, --stolfi -
RE: Just Saying...
ReneZ > 18-04-2026, 05:09 PM
(18-04-2026, 03:06 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I am guessing that paper book sizes were somewhat standard ("folio", "quarto", "octavo", etc.),
These terms are used equally for parchment manuscripts, and refer to the fraction of a full hide.
Still, there was no standard. Folio, Quarto, Octavo can be considered as groupings.
I am happy to refer to a much older post where I visually compared the size of the Voynich MS with a number of other more or less famous ones:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. -
RE: Just Saying...
Jorge_Stolfi > 18-04-2026, 11:28 PM
(18-04-2026, 05:09 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I am happy to refer to a much older post where I visually compared the size of the Voynich MS with a number of other more or less famous ones:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Great image, thanks! I posted a reply to that thread with a plot of the aspect ratios, data mined from your image with pickaxe and shovel...
All the best, --jorge -
RE: Just Saying...
Jorge_Stolfi > 18-04-2026, 11:41 PM
(18-04-2026, 05:09 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Still, there was no standard. Folio, Quarto, Octavo can be considered as groupings.
AFAIK, "[in] folio", "quarto" and "octavo" referred to how many times the original sheet of paper was folded and cut in half. Folio (illogically) meant using the sheet without cutting, as one bifolio. Quarto means cutting it in half to make two bifolios = 4 folios. Octavo meant cutting twice to make 8 folios.
I would expect a series of standard sizes to develop spontaneously within a market area, like it did for gold and silver (coins), barrels of wine, etc. Not only to simplify trade, but also so that a consumer who is writing logbooks or some other series of documents would not have to trim every sheet, or every new batch, to fit the size of earlier docs.
All the best, --stolfi -
RE: Just Saying...
ReneZ > 19-04-2026, 06:45 AM
(18-04-2026, 11:41 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.AFAIK, "[in] folio", "quarto" and "octavo" referred to how many times the original sheet of paper was folded and cut in half. Folio (illogically) meant using the sheet without cutting, as one bifolio. Quarto means cutting it in half to make two bifolios = 4 folios. Octavo meant cutting twice to make 8 folios.
Yes, but parchment books had been made from hides before that for many centuries, and hides came in non-normalised (but also non-uniform) sizes. The reason I showed the plot is that there is almost a continuum of sizes even in this small sample of herbal books. Your plot also shows that clearly.
By using a colour code for the F/Q/O one could see how they work out.
However, I did not record these assignments (which are made by the libraries) so this would be a bit of work.
(I have seen codes 2o and 12o in some library catalogues as well.)