Jorge_Stolfi > 24-04-2026, 02:14 AM
(23-04-2026, 06:11 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.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:
Quote: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).
...[proposed timeline:] The Jesuits 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,
Quote:so it stays that way [detached from the book]; Voynich finds the letter tucked into the manuscript and brings it to Florence, London, and New York
Quote:Before the modern era, adhesive would have been a really unlikely choice.
Quote:uncertainties do not mean that we must question the authenticity of all of these manuscripts. Occan's Razor applies. ... 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.
LisaFaginDavis > 24-04-2026, 02:36 PM
(24-04-2026, 02:14 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Interesting! But was that some sort of a cover letter written for a book that was already bound? Or was it a document that was meant to be part of the book form the start, before it was bound?
(24-04-2026, 02:14 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But that part of the story implies that the letter was bound into the book when Marci sent it. Meaning that Marci had the book re-bound after the letter was written and before sending it to Kircher? Does not seem likely.
(24-04-2026, 02:14 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.IF the edge of the letter was indeed cut out by Marci's secretary to create the tab, he must have glued it to the book. It would have been both difficult and unnecessary to secure it with the binding cords. And he would not have created the tab if he intended to simply insert the letter into the book, unattached.
On the other hand, if the letter not sewn into the binding when the Jesuits had the book re-bound, why would they sew it into the new binding, instead of leaving it as it was before?
Thus I see at least two possibilities:
1. Marci's secretary cut the letter so as to create the tab, and pasted it inside the book's
cover.
2. Marci's secretary simply folded the letter, without the tab, and inserted it
into the book, unattached. Sometime later, in Rome, someone cut the edge of the
letter to form the tab, and pasted the letter inside.
Then, by the time the Jesuits had the book re-bound, either the letter had become loose again as the paste/glue decayed; or they or the bookbinder gently removed the letter by moistening the tab. Then they may or may not have sewn the letter into the new binding, or pasted it back, or left it unattached inside the cover. Or stored it somewhere else, separate from the book...
Quote:so it stays that way [detached from the book]; Voynich finds the letter tucked into the manuscript and brings it to Florence, London, and New York
So you think it is likely that the letter was not physically attached to the book when Wilfrid got it?
(24-04-2026, 02:14 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Well, you're right, although there is always a point of diminishing returns when more work won't necessarily lead to refined results. Everyone has to identify that point for themselves.Quote:Before the modern era, adhesive would have been a really unlikely choice.
I think that glue (including "library paste" made of flour, water, and salt) has been used to stick sheets together since antiquity. Egyptian papyrus was made by gluing thin strips of the pith of the plant in a crosswise pattern. ( Google AI assures me that some illuminated books had their pictures drawn on separate pieces of vellum that were then pasted onto the pages, to avoid bleedthrough of the colors. But it could not give me any examples...) By Marci's time, wasn't it usual to paste a sheet of paper on the inside of book covers?
Quote:uncertainties do not mean that we must question the authenticity of all of these manuscripts. Occan's Razor applies. ... 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.
Occam's Razor is a rather crude way to handle competing theories. If there are two theories that are compatible with the data, Occam's Razor (1) claims that the simplest of two theories is the most likely one and (2) implies that you should pretend that theory to be true, and dismiss the others as fantasies not worth thinking about.
The problem with (2) is that probabilities were invented precisely because classical logic -- where each statement is assumed to be either true or false -- was poorly suited for thinking about the real world. So, if you give 80% probability to theory A and 20% to B, it is not a good idea to pretend that A is the truth, and dismiss B as fantasy. Unless you are somehow forced to choose one, you should keep both in mind, with their probabilities.
Moreover, a probability is just a numeric expression of someone's degree or confidence in some claim. Thus probabilities are inherently subjective and variable. There is no such thing as "the" probability of something; only "my" probability, and "your" probability. And "my probability" now may be very different than "my probability" five minutes later.
So the theory that is the most likely to you now may not be the one that is most likely to others. Or to yourself, five minutes from now. No useful interchange is possible if each chooses a different theory as the "truth". Keeping all theories as possible, with probabilities, is a better setting for productive debate.
oeesordy > 24-04-2026, 04:34 PM
Koen G > 24-04-2026, 07:15 PM