- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
[Design of Marci Letter]
- [Design of Marci Letter]
-
RE: Just Saying...
Jorge_Stolfi > 19-04-2026, 12:57 PM
(19-04-2026, 06:45 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.parchment books had been made from hides before that for many centuries, and hides came in non-normalised (but also non-uniform) sizes.
What surprised me in that plot was how close the aspect ratios are to the A4 ratio of sqrt(2) = 1.414...
I think it shows that the aspect ratio of traded sheets was standardized, if not their sizes. If the original ratio was, say , 1 (square) or 2, the halved and quartered sheets would have one of those two ratios. An original aspect ratio of phi = 1.618... would give books with aspect ratios alternating between ~1.62 or ~1.24.
Quote: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.
I can understand that people with deficient pareidolia could see it that way. I see many clusters...
Someone in that thread stated that they had done a much more extensive survey. I haven't checked that yet. Did they consider this question? Like looking for regional size standards (French, German, Italian, ...), or vellum x parchment?
All the best, --stolfi -
RE: Just Saying...
ReneZ > 19-04-2026, 02:04 PM
(19-04-2026, 12:57 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I can understand that people with deficient pareidolia could see it that way. I see many clusters...
That's a strange remark, and it is also wrong. Looking at the heights in bins of 10 pixels, of which there are 11, there is only one bin that has no entry. -
RE: Just Saying...
Jorge_Stolfi > 19-04-2026, 04:06 PM
(19-04-2026, 02:04 PM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.That's a strange remark, and it is also wrong. Looking at the heights in bins of 10 pixels, of which there are 11, there is only one bin that has no entry
I was half-kidding, sorry.
But only half. Here are the clusters I see:
The books A, C, F are clearly outliers: they are more "square" than the norm. The aspect ratio of A is ~1.185. I don't see how one could get that aspect ratio by cutting sqrt(2) master sheets into m x n parts without leftovers. Any ideas?
Perhaps the contents dictated that shape?
All the best, --stolfi -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
LisaFaginDavis > 22-04-2026, 03:51 PM
After considering Andrew's work, I was inspired to return to the image I took of the Marci letter on the light table at the Beinecke. I hadn't realized it before, but the tab at the left has small pinpricks, several of which seem to allign quite neatly with the sewing stations of the inner front cover, suggesting that the letter may have originally been sewn to the front hinge of the manuscript (in blue below). There should be a hole next to line 9 of the letter, although it isn't visible in this image (I'll look again the next time I'm at the Library). The cut from the top left of the inner edge to the first hole suggests that someone thought about cutting the letter out of the manuscript at some point, but because there are no other such cuts leading from the edge to the holes, it also appears that the letter was actually removed when the manuscript's covers were replaced, as the hinges would have to have been cut to replace the boards. In addition to the tab used to attach the letter to the front inside cover, two folds (indicated below in red) would have been necessary to make the letter small enough to fit inside the manuscript. It's worth noting that this configuration explains one of the wax offsets, as the fold from the right alligns the two wax stains in the upper margin. After the covers were replaced, the letter was not re-attached but continued to be associated with the manuscript - loosely laid-in, perhaps.
The other folds are either original or were imposed later. Note that these allignment images were taken using my copy of the Siloe facsimile of the manuscript and the letter. The next time I'm at the Beinecke I'll image the actual objects together and will also ask if they'll let me image the inside of the front cover using UV light to see if there are any offsets (since there's no text there to be put at risk, I suspect it won't be a problem). That's a long shot, but definitely worth investigating.
There are unanswered questions, of course, such as how to explain the wax and its offsets. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
asteckley > 22-04-2026, 04:41 PM
(22-04-2026, 03:51 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The other folds are either original or were imposed later. Note that these allignment images were taken using my copy of the Siloe facsimile of the manuscript and the letter. The next time I'm at the Beinecke I'll image the actual objects together and will also ask if they'll let me image the inside of the front cover using UV light to see if there are any offsets (since there's no text there to be put at risk, I suspect it won't be a problem). That's a long shot, but definitely worth investigating.
There are unanswered questions, of course, such as how to explain the wax and its offsets.
I'm not sure this current thread is the proper place to discuss this topic.
In any case, as you know, I have submitted a detailed proposal to Beinecke to inspect both artifacts in order to answer this and several other questions around what I outlined in the paper. The presence of paste or glue using UV light is among the proposed tests, but there are several others proposed that are worth doing as well.
It seems, from your post, that my description of the folding sequence that I outlined in the paper was not conveyed very well. Unfortunately, due to length limitations, I had to remove figures which showed the use of folds and wax much better than the word descriptions I was able to retain. I expect, should the paper be accepted for the conference, I can show that in the video along with the reenactment I have using the facsimile. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
proto57 > 22-04-2026, 04:49 PM
(22-04-2026, 03:51 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.After considering Andrew's work, I was inspired to return to the image I took of the Marci letter on the light table at the Beinecke. I hadn't realized it before, but the tab at the left has small pinpricks, several of which seem to allign quite neatly with the sewing stations of the inner front cover, suggesting that the letter may have originally been sewn to the front hinge of the manuscript (in blue below). There should be a hole next to line 9 of the letter, although it isn't visible in this image (I'll look again the next time I'm at the Library). The cut from the top left of the inner edge to the first hole suggests that someone thought about cutting the letter out of the manuscript at some point, but because there are no other such cuts leading from the edge to the holes, it also appears that the letter was actually removed when the manuscript's covers were replaced, as the hinges would have to have been cut to replace the boards. In addition to the tab used to attach the letter to the front inside cover, two folds (indicated below in red) would have been necessary to make the letter small enough to fit inside the manuscript. It's worth noting that this configuration explains one of the wax offsets, as the fold from the right alligns the two wax stains in the upper margin. After the covers were replaced, the letter was not re-attached but continued to be associated with the manuscript - loosely laid-in, perhaps.
The other folds are either original or were imposed later. Note that these allignment images were taken using my copy of the Siloe facsimile of the manuscript and the letter. The next time I'm at the Beinecke I'll image the actual objects together and will also ask if they'll let me image the inside of the front cover using UV light to see if there are any offsets (since there's no text there to be put at risk, I suspect it won't be a problem). That's a long shot, but definitely worth investigating.
There are unanswered questions, of course, such as how to explain the wax and its offsets.
I from what I understand, Lisa, all of your observations... the possibility of pin prick holes implying a possible binding into the Voynich; the alignment of the seals when the right side is folding in; the order of folding and how it relates to making the Letter fit inside the Voynich; the cutting down of the Letter to the shape and size we see, which might effectuate all this; even the use of the term "tab"; and more, are all already parts of Steckley's hypothesis, in the paper he has shared.
I'm sure Andrew will opine on this.
But how do you think any of Andrews ideas would apply to my Modern Forgery Hypothesis? I mean, I don't mind it being in here, but I assume you think these ideas (most of which I think plausible, and valuable for many reasons) somehow impact my Modern Forgery Hypothesis? It does give me an opportunity, considering the rules here, to relate it to my own hypothesis... but do you believe it does relate, somehow, to Modern Forgery?
Or maybe you put it here as an error, and meant it for the thread in which Andrews's hypothesis is discussed? I mean, again I don't personally mind, because however the Marci Letter WAS attached, and if attached to the binding, or glued or otherwise affixed to the present, or some other cover, has no impact whatsoever on my Modern Forgery Hypothesis.
Rich -
RE: Just Saying...
proto57 > 22-04-2026, 05:10 PM
(18-04-2026, 02:20 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.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?
About Andrew's suggestion that the small fold might have been a glued "tab": This caused me to look more closely at Lisa's light table image of the Marci Letter, and lo and behold there is something there... some irregular deposit:
And although I only show a short section of it, it actually extends along the entire tab, and further, does not seem to be anywhere else on the Letter. I think that stain- or deposit?- really ought to be looked at more closely, and possibly tested in some ways, to learn what it is.
Rich -
RE: Just Saying...
tavie > 22-04-2026, 05:30 PM
Moved the posts #24-26 here from the Modern Forgery Thread. -
RE: Just Saying...
LisaFaginDavis > 22-04-2026, 06:12 PM
Sorry about that! I couldn't find the right thread...
I don't think there is any evidence of paste on the letter...it's paper, so adhesive would have left significant damage. It's fairly easy to remove adhesive from parchment, but paper is much more delicate.