• Options
• Login
• Desktop Style

Missing folios

• Index

  • The Voynich Ninja
  • Voynich Research
  • Provenance & history
  • Missing folios
• Missing folios

• Missing folios

  Malatin_1 > 25-07-2026, 06:21 PM

  One question that has always interested me is the fate of the missing Voynich folios.
  
  It is generally accepted that several folios are no longer part of the manuscript, although exactly when they disappeared remains unknown. If the missing leaves once contained text and illustrations similar to the surviving sections, they could potentially provide valuable clues about the manuscript as a whole.
  
  One observation often mentioned in discussions of the manuscript is that the missing leaves appear to fall near major transitions between different sections of the book. Whether this is significant or merely coincidental is impossible to say, but it raises an interesting question: were these particular folios somehow considered more useful or more interesting than others?
  
  Another point that has been noted by researchers is the foliation. As far as I understand it, the missing leaves were already absent by the time the manuscript received its present folio numbering, which suggests that their removal may have taken place before that stage of the manuscript’s history. If that interpretation is correct, then the loss probably predates the seventeenth-century foliation.
  
  Assuming this is the case, one possible period worth considering is the late sixteenth or early seventeenth century, when the manuscript is generally believed to have been associated with the court of Emperor Rudolf II in Prague.
  
  This leads to an interesting possibility rather than a conclusion.
  
  Rudolf II’s court was famous for its interest in alchemy, natural philosophy, rare manuscripts, and unusual books. If the Voynich manuscript was indeed present there, it is not difficult to imagine that individual leaves might have been removed for closer examination, copying, comparison with other manuscripts, or some other purpose. At present, however, I am not aware of any direct evidence demonstrating that this actually happened.
  
  Another possibility is that the folios became separated later, during the dispersal of Rudolf II’s collections. The political upheavals of the seventeenth century, particularly the events surrounding Prague, created many opportunities for manuscripts and loose leaves to become scattered.
  
  There is also the well-known historical practice of reusing medieval parchment in later bookbindings and archival material. Thousands of manuscript fragments have survived only because they were recycled in this way. If the missing Voynich folios were ever detached from the manuscript, it seems at least conceivable that they could have followed a similar path.
  
  If that happened, where might they be today?
  
  One obvious place to consider would be collections that received material originating from Prague after the Thirty Years’ War. Swedish collections naturally come to mind because of the transfer of many manuscripts from Prague in 1648. Austrian collections might also be relevant if material from the Habsburg libraries remained there. This is only speculation, but it suggests a practical direction for archival research.
  
  If a genuine Voynich folio were ever rediscovered, I suspect it would be relatively easy to recognize. The combination of its parchment, script, illustrations, and overall appearance is unlike any other medieval manuscript that I know of.
  
  At the moment this is simply a hypothesis based on a series of observations rather than direct evidence. Still, medieval manuscript fragments continue to be identified in archives and old bindings even today, so the possibility does not seem entirely unrealistic.
  
  I would be interested to hear whether anyone knows of published research discussing the possible fate of the missing Voynich folios, or whether searches for unidentified manuscript fragments in Swedish or Austrian collections have ever included the Voynich manuscript as a possibility.

• RE: Missing folios

  Jorge_Stolfi > 25-07-2026, 10:54 PM

  (25-07-2026, 06:21 PM)Malatin_1 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.One question that has always interested me is the fate of the missing Voynich folios.  I would be interested to hear whether anyone knows of published research discussing the possible fate of the missing Voynich folios, or whether searches for unidentified manuscript fragments in Swedish or Austrian collections have ever included the Voynich manuscript as a possibility.

  
  I don't see any real hope of solving that riddle.    There is no mention of the VMS anywhere between Marci sending the book to Kircher and the announcement by Wilfrid.  Before the latter, there is no mention anywhere of missing folios.  Or even of the size of book.  
  
  

  Quote:One obvious place to consider would be collections that received material originating from Prague after the Thirty Years’ War. Swedish collections naturally come to mind because of the transfer of many manuscripts from Prague in 1648.

  
  Could be.  I think this transfer to Sweden has been discussed.  But that does not help much.  Marci's letter to Kircher is dated 1665-1666, so we would talking about the Swedes taking away a few undecipherable loose sheets from Baresch's or Marci's private holdings while leaving the rest of the book behind.   That is already unlikely enough, and finding those sheets in some Swedish archive would be rather problematic...
  
  All the best, --stolfi

• RE: Missing folios

  ReneZ > 25-07-2026, 11:57 PM

  (25-07-2026, 06:21 PM)Malatin_1 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.One observation often mentioned in discussions of the manuscript is that the missing leaves appear to fall near major transitions between different sections of the book. Whether this is significant or merely coincidental is impossible to say, but it raises an interesting question: were these particular folios somehow considered more useful or more interesting than others?

  
  I've only seen that suggestion once, in a recent forum discussion here, but it is not really valid. Folio 12 is in the middle of the herbal section and folios 109 and 110 in the middle of the stars/recipes section. Several others are in a mix of different topics.
  
  

  (25-07-2026, 06:21 PM)Malatin_1 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Another point that has been noted by researchers is the foliation. As far as I understand it, the missing leaves were already absent by the time the manuscript received its present folio numbering, which suggests that their removal may have taken place before that stage of the manuscript’s history. If that interpretation is correct, then the loss probably predates the seventeenth-century foliation.

  
  It's the opposite: the leaves seem to have disappeared after the folios were numbered.  Possibly also around the same time, but the person writing the numbers must have known about the folios that we no longer have.
  
  The missing folios seem to be a collection: one of each type (to the extent that we can see).

• RE: Missing folios

  Rafal > 26-07-2026, 11:37 AM

  My feeling is that they were sent to some scholar so he would have a look at the manuscript's sample and he never gave them back.
  But it is just a guess.
  
  It happened after page numbers were written. And page numbers were written somewhere in the 1600s, judging by the handwriting style.

• RE: Missing folios

  LisaFaginDavis > 26-07-2026, 01:09 PM

  The missing leaves comprise six bifolia plus two single leaves: four bifolia were removed from the centers of quire 8 (three bifolia, folios 59-64) and quire 20 (one bifolium, folios 109-110), two of the bifolia were singulion quires (quires 16 and 18, that is, folios 91|92 and 97|98), and two single leaves were cut out leaving stubs behind (folios 12 and 74). All of these were removed AFTER the seventeenth-century foliation was added and BEFORE Voynich acquired the manuscript in 1911/12, but there is no way to know precisely when the leaves were removed or by whom. There is also no way to know if any leaves had already gone missing by the time the foliation was added. 
  
  The sequence of events goes like this:
  
  1) Quire numbers were added and the manuscript was (mis)bound sometime in the fifteenth century;
  2) Folio numbers were added in the seventeenth century;
  3) six bifolia and two single leaves were removed before Voynich acquired the manuscript in 1911/12. 
  
  In addition, there is no way to know if the missing leaves were all removed at the same time by the same person, or by different people at different times. I suspect that folios 12 and 74 were cut out first, perhaps sent to Prague to Rome, since cutting out those single leaves is a very different codicological process than removing bifolia from the center of a quire, although that is pure conjecture.

• RE: Missing folios

  eggyk > 26-07-2026, 05:35 PM

  (26-07-2026, 01:09 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The missing leaves comprise six bifolia plus two single leaves: four bifolia were removed from the centers of quire 8 (three bifolia, folios 59-64) and quire 20 (one bifolium, folios 109-110), two of the bifolia were singulion quires (quires 16 and 18, that is, folios 91|92 and 97|98), and two single leaves were cut out leaving stubs behind (folios 12 and 74). 

  
  Out of curiosity, what is the reason for the stubs seen between You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. - f68r1, and between You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. - f72r1? I thought those represented missing leaves as well. Are they something else?

• RE: Missing folios

  Jorge_Stolfi > 26-07-2026, 08:57 PM

  (26-07-2026, 01:09 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I suspect that folios 12 and 74 were cut out first, perhaps sent to Prague to Rome

  
  The only person who could have done that was Baresch himself.   I don't see why Marci would have sent Kircher two pages before sending the whole book.   
  
  However, in his You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., Baresch says that he previously had sent copies of the pages, and said that Father Moretus could bear witness that the copies were faithful:
  
  

  Quote:And so I ordered a certain old book to be transcribed in part, with the writing closely imitated (the bearer of this letter will inform you that he saw it with his own eyes). A year and a half ago I sent that writing to your Reverence. [...] It did not seem advisable to commit the book itself to a journey so long and full of perils. I could only suppose from the fact that I have had no word of the matter after all this time that the previous consignment did not reach Rome. I had therefore just decided to repeat the exercise when the above Father Moretus informed me to my great pleasure that it had ended up in the City. It would be an even greater pleasure if the said book could be opened by your Reverence’s aid, and make all men of quality co-owners of whatever good it contains. [...] I should be forever in your debt, not only for what the work contains but also for whatever it will make possible. I here append a line or two of the unknown script to revive your memory of it, having previously sent a whole file of similar characters.

  
  

  Quote:Traducta itaque ali qua parte, scriptura imitata simili, ex libro quodam uetusto (cuius ocularis inspector, et informator erit praesentium lator) scripturam eam direxi ad Vestram Reuerendam ante sesqualterum annum, [...], librum enim ipsum itineri longinquo, periculis pleno committere, consul
  tum non est: Siquidem etiam illud, quod proxima uice missum fuit, Romam non peruenit, ut ex eo colligo, quod tanto tractu temporis, nihil de hoc re scriptum intellexi. Quapropter altera more duxi repetendum, quod in Urbe feliciter appulisse, supradictus Pater Moretus mihi retulit, de quo uehementer gavisus sum, magisque gaudebo, si praedictus liber ope Vestrae Reverendae reclusus fuerit, ut eius, quod in se boni habet, boni possint esse participes [...]Pro quo ei obligatus ero, non tantum illo, quod opus illud continet, sed etiam quicquid aliud erit possibile. Adiungo hic aliquot lineas scripturae ignotae, ad revocandum in memoriam, ante missam similium characterum scriptionem.

  
  So either he sent the real pages later, with a third letter; or it seems more likely that the pages were removed  by someone else while the book was in Rome.  
  
  Or by Wilfrid, before he went public with the book...
  
  All the best, --stolfi

• RE: Missing folios

  Koen G > 26-07-2026, 09:11 PM

  How many owners or custodians did the book have between its foliation and Kircher?

• RE: Missing folios

  ReneZ > 26-07-2026, 11:32 PM

  I have occasionally wondered if Moretus, when he sent the first letter to Kircher on Barschius' behalf, may have cut out two pages for his own study. These could have then been added to his scientific notebook(s). 
  
  Unfortunately, only two of three volumes of these notebooks have survived, and the one that should include the date when this letter was sent, is the one that is missing. 
  
  There is a lot of missing stuff that is potentially interesting.
  All of Marci's books (which should include his inheritance of the remainder of Barschius's books, and the letters he received from Kircher) have gone missing as well.
  
  One of Lisa's points is worth highlighting: beside the few known missing pages, there may have been quite a few more that we know nothing about. Not much we can do with that suggestion though.

• RE: Missing folios

  Bernd > 27-07-2026, 12:02 AM

  Was violating a valuable manuscript like this common practice? Do we have similar examples of pages removed for study?
  Considering Rudolf (allegedly) paid a huge sum for the VM, this appears odd. One might think it would be more prudent to either send copies (as suggested in the letter) or summon a scholar to examine the book, not cut it up.
  
  Which probably means the removal happened after the VM was not in Rudolf's possession anymore, and the new owner considered it curious but not excessively valuable. A more sinister possibility would indeed be that the pages were deliberately destroyed because they did not fit the narrative under which the VM was sold. Either by whoever sold it to Rudolf, or by Wilfried himself. But I find that hard to believe. The removal from different sections looks more like a sampling method to get representative pages from the entire VM and send it to a scholar.
• Next Oldest Next Newest