The Voynich Ninja

(12-04-2024, 06:16 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I think ideally we would have a list of genuine specialists in fields related to Voynich research that we could consult. These could be specialists in the history of astrology or the history of herbal manuscripts and other fields(I am open to suggestions).

Do consider the possibility that any specialist we list will also become a target for all theorists who see the list, each with a different theory and each more convinced than the last. So it might become a "list of people we'd like to turn away from Voynich research".

Rich

You are welcome to consider everybody or nobody an expert on the Voynich manuscript.

On one level this is a semantic question i.e. what is your definition of expert. I clearly have a more exacting standard for what I consider makes an expert. Personally, I prefer, as I have said, to talk about specialists rather than experts. I want to ask what is the person's specialism and what do they know about the subject.

(12-04-2024, 06:54 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(12-04-2024, 06:16 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I think ideally we would have a list of genuine specialists in fields related to Voynich research that we could consult. These could be specialists in the history of astrology or the history of herbal manuscripts and other fields(I am open to suggestions).

Do consider the possibility that any specialist we list will also become a target for all theorists who see the list, each with a different theory and each more convinced than the last. So it might become a "list of people we'd like to turn away from Voynich research".

Well, that is always a risk. But if getting involved in questions related to Voynich research makes them a target then that means we should never make use of specialist opinion. At the moment this hardly seems a problem as from my experience few researchers try to seek out and consult specialists. Especially as so far, if we take Rich's list, some peoples' presumed experts like Newbold seem to have no qualifications as such when it comes to dating the manuscript. I think there is a distinction between famous/well known researchers and experts.

(12-04-2024, 07:03 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Rich

You are welcome to consider everybody or nobody an expert on the Voynich manuscript.

On one level this is a semantic question i.e. what is your definition of expert. I clearly have a more exacting standard for what I consider makes an expert. Personally, I prefer, as I have said, to talk about specialists rather than experts. I want to ask what is the person's specialism and what do they know about the subject.

Again, we are actually in total agreement on the point of individual definition of who would constitute an expert or not. No argument on that, and there never was, from me. I do think your standard is "more exacting" than mine, and that of many, as you would say this person should be able to read and identify the Voynich (If forget your exact words), and that's great. So specialists, experts, knowledgeable people, and so on... everyone's prerogative, and I respect yours, of course.

But to reiterate, this issue does not alter my points here, or on my blog post, one iota, and only demonstrates those points in action. But I would ask, while I have you, would you consider a book cataloger an "expert on the Voynich"? Because on my list of pre-C14 experts, all are now off the list except for Lehmann-Haupt, book cataloger. He remains (well I think Rene introduced another, not in D'Imperio) the only pre-C14 dating "person" who guessed the age of those tests. If he is off the list, the tally is zero... or at best, one.

Would you retain his opinion? Its a genuine question, not trying to be annoying. There is a reason I ask.

Rich.

(12-04-2024, 07:13 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(12-04-2024, 07:03 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Rich

You are welcome to consider everybody or nobody an expert on the Voynich manuscript.

On one level this is a semantic question i.e. what is your definition of expert. I clearly have a more exacting standard for what I consider makes an expert. Personally, I prefer, as I have said, to talk about specialists rather than experts. I want to ask what is the person's specialism and what do they know about the subject.

Again, we are actually in total agreement on the point of individual definition of who would constitute an expert or not. No argument on that, and there never was, from me. I do think your standard is "more exacting" than mine, and that of many, as you would say this person should be able to read and identify the Voynich (If forget your exact words), and that's great. So specialists, experts, knowledgeable people, and so on... everyone's prerogative, and I respect yours, of course.

But to reiterate, this issue does not alter my points here, or on my blog post, one iota, and only demonstrates those points in action. But I would ask, while I have you, would you consider a book cataloger an "expert on the Voynich"? Because on my list of pre-C14 experts, all are now off the list except for Lehmann-Haupt, book cataloger. He remains (well I think Rene introduced another, not in D'Imperio) the only pre-C14 dating "person" who guessed the age of those tests. If he is off the list, the tally is zero... or at best, one.

Would you retain his opinion? Its a genuine question, not trying to be annoying. There is a reason I ask.

Rich.

My point is that one may have specialists in related disciplines to Voynich research, but I don't think there are yet people who could be said to be expert on the Voynich manuscript.

I would have to know more about Lehmann-Haupt to determine what precise knowledge they have to bear. There are certainly specialists out there with relevant knowledge to the Voynich manuscript, but I suspect very few of them have been consulted. Generally, the individuals opinions we rely on are the ones who come to Voynich research not those we seek out, which gives us a very limited pool of expertise.

Have you consulted relevant specialists on forgery? If you had a number of specialists in forgery who endorse your analysis I for one would find that persuasive.

(12-04-2024, 07:33 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(12-04-2024, 07:13 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(12-04-2024, 07:03 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Rich
You are welcome to consider everybody or nobody an expert on the Voynich manuscript.
On one level this is a semantic question i.e. what is your definition of expert. I clearly have a more exacting standard for what I consider makes an expert. Personally, I prefer, as I have said, to talk about specialists rather than experts. I want to ask what is the person's specialism and what do they know about the subject.

Again, we are actually in total agreement on the point of individual definition of who would constitute an expert or not. No argument on that, and there never was, from me. I do think your standard is "more exacting" than mine, and that of many, as you would say this person should be able to read and identify the Voynich (If forget your exact words), and that's great. So specialists, experts, knowledgeable people, and so on... everyone's prerogative, and I respect yours, of course.

But to reiterate, this issue does not alter my points here, or on my blog post, one iota, and only demonstrates those points in action. But I would ask, while I have you, would you consider a book cataloger an "expert on the Voynich"? Because on my list of pre-C14 experts, all are now off the list except for Lehmann-Haupt, book cataloger. He remains (well I think Rene introduced another, not in D'Imperio) the only pre-C14 dating "person" who guessed the age of those tests. If he is off the list, the tally is zero... or at best, one.

Would you retain his opinion? Its a genuine question, not trying to be annoying. There is a reason I ask.
Rich.

My point is that one may have specialists in related disciplines to Voynich research, but I don't think there are yet people who could be said to be expert on the Voynich manuscript.

I would have to know more about Lehmann-Haupt to determine what precise knowledge they have to bear. There are certainly specialists out there with relevant knowledge to the Voynich manuscript, but I suspect very few of them have been consulted. Generally, the individuals opinions we rely on are the ones who come to Voynich research not those we seek out, which gives us a very limited pool of expertise.
Have you consulted relevant specialists on forgery? If you had a number of specialists in forgery who endorse your analysis I for one would find that persuasive.

As for Lehmann-Haupt, his credentials, career, experience and work are clearly outlined in his Wikipedia page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellmut_Lehmann-Haupt

It is really impressive. I won't copy the whole thing here, it is unnessarary. For the sake of my question, and your wanting to know more before answering my question, I've linked it. He is mentioned two times in D'Imperios, on 2.3.4, where he opines on a southern Italian origin. As for his opinion on dating of the Voynich, that is recalled on 2.4.2, "Helmut Lehmann-Haupt (bibliographical consultant to H.P. Kraus) stated in a letter to Tiltman dated 1 November, 1963, that, there is a near agreement on the date of the CIPHER manuscript as around, or a little after, the year 1400".

I've not seen the letter, perhaps Rene or someone else has a copy to share. So I don't know who the others are, that he feels in "near agreement" with, as there he is practically, or entirely alone in coming to this opinion. By the time of that letter, Panofsky had modified his opinion to the early part of the 16th century, so a hundred years later. Perhaps Haupt was in "agreement" with others through letters or discussion, people who have not made it into the historical record.

So that's his resume, and his dating opinion, making him the (virtually) sole person who dated the Voynich to the time of the (eventual) C14 results. I know that, according to your definitions, he cannot be a Voynich expert... maybe a specialist? In any case, what do you think? Would you retain his opinion, or reject it?

As for, "Have you consulted relevant specialists on forgery? If you had a number of specialists in forgery who endorse your analysis I for one would find that persuasive."

A few things about that: No, I am not aware of the specific qualifications of those individuals who have and/or do believe the Voynich is a modern forgery, as I do. But you see, your asking that is another example of the use and misuse of expert testimony. I mean, of dozens of experts (specialists, knowledgeable, however you describe them) believe the Voynich is of a half-dozen other years of origin than you do, and they do, then wouldn't any such specialist who believed the Voynich a modern fake be similarly dismissed? For instance, to use poor Charles Singer again, you would argue that, although he is a specialist in the History of the Herbal and the history of medicine, and more, he was wrong in his dating and origin for the Voynich. I mean, you believe the Voynich is over a hundred years older than he did.

Do you see my point? It is this same issue again, playing out, again. The use and misuse of experts, to fulfill a preconception. On the surface, your request seems in the line of, "If the right person tells me the Voynich is a forgery, then I will think it is a forgery". But the right people have told you a great many things other than what you and others think it is, and all have been rejected. Some pretty amazing people... whom we are now to believe are not "experts" in their fields, nor the Voynich.

So what, exactly, would be the point? Wouldn't you... and again, you have every right to do so, as you do for me, or anyone else... to judge their opinions on your own standards? What would you need to see from this person to know that it is a forgery? I would say, "what more" would you need? Not sure if you understand me here, but that is an important point: Your request, compared with how so much opinion has been given, from so many capable people, tells us that "qualifications" are not really what is being sought.

In any case, I will say that, indirectly, the standards and descriptions of forgery throughout history, and the way they are presented, and excused, and promoted... as described and analyzed throughout history, by a great many experts (for you, specialists?) in the field of art and literary forgery, describe almost perfectly all the observed traits of the Voynich. In my lecture at the 2017 NSA Historical Cipher Conference, I listed the most common characteristics of forgery, which I had gleaned from learning all I could about the history of forgery. Here is the list:

1)  Elicits multiple, widely contrary expert opinions
2)  Has poor, contrary and/or missing  versions of provenance.
3)  Contains anachronistic content
4)  Owner/seller lies about provenance
5)  Contains incorrect uses of iconography
6)  Improper tools, methods, and/or materials used
7)  It looks "too new”
8)  There is a reluctance to produce, and/or test, original
9)  Copy of illustrations from books and catalogs
10) Financial or other incentive is offered for positive opinion
11) Claimed disappearance of original

The Voynich, arguably, hits to some degree, all of these except for #11. Most forgeries hit maybe two or three, that is a very high rate of coincidence, and to my knowledge, unheard of in any genuine item. The existence of these features in other forgeries is inarguable, and compiled by experts in the field. And some of them are observed by experts in the Voynich, too (although you would call them something other then experts... see what a chore this has become? I'm just going to call them experts from now on, which is my position), such as Yale noting "highly unusual" foldouts, and anomalies in construction, and more. McCrone finding a binder "not in their library", and "unsual" zinc and copper, and so on... I could cite a great many experts, in all fields, who point out features of the Voynich which fit that list of forgery features...

Well that was (necessarily) wordy, to make this point, spurred by your suggestion that if a forgery "specialist" agreed with me, that this was a modern forgery, then you might agree.

Well I don't think so. I am not sure what it would take... and again, that is fine if you never agree, this is a discussion about the acceptance and rejection of opinions of others... but I already know that volumes of expert opinions contrary to "1420 Genuine", the points of the Voynich which coincide with elements of forgery, as known by hundreds of years of the study of the art, and the similarities of these elements to the features of the Voynich itself, are all rejected.

Again, your prerogative. The point is, it is clear to me that this is what is done, and to what aim it is done, which would then cause me to seriously doubt any further evidence or opinion or whatever, would really make a difference. Or, tell me I am wrong, and what this hypothetical forgery specialist could show you, that would convince you? Not being sarcastic there, but truthfully asking the question.

Anyway, now that Lehmann-Haupt, his background and Voynich geography and dating opinions are revealed, what would you think about his input? Do you accept it, or reject it?

Thanks, Rich.

(12-04-2024, 08:36 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(12-04-2024, 07:33 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(12-04-2024, 07:13 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.as you would say this person should be able to read and identify the Voynich.

But I would ask, while I have you, would you consider a book cataloger an "expert on the Voynich"? Because on my list of pre-C14 experts, all are now off the list except for Lehmann-Haupt, book cataloger.

As for Lehmann-Haupt, his credentials, career, experience and work are clearly outlined in his Wikipedia page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellmut_Lehmann-Haupt

It is really impressive. I won't copy the whole thing here, it is unnessarary. For the sake of my question, and your wanting to know more before answering my question, I've linked it. He is mentioned two times in D'Imperios, on 2.3.4, where he opines on a southern Italian origin. As for his opinion on dating of the Voynich, that is recalled on 2.4.2, "Helmut Lehmann-Haupt (bibliographical consultant to H.P. Kraus) stated in a letter to Tiltman dated 1 November, 1963, that, there is a near agreement on the date of the CIPHER manuscript as around, or a little after, the year 1400".

As for, "Have you consulted relevant specialists on forgery? If you had a number of specialists in forgery who endorse your analysis I for one would find that persuasive."

A few things about that: No, I am not aware of the specific qualifications of those individuals who have and/or do believe the Voynich is a modern forgery, as I do. But you see, your asking that is another example of the use and misuse of expert testimony. I mean, of dozens of experts (specialists, knowledgeable, however you describe them) believe the Voynich is of a half-dozen other years of origin than you do, and they do, then wouldn't any such specialist who believed the Voynich a modern fake be similarly dismissed?

For instance, to use poor Charles Singer again, you would argue that, although he is a specialist in the History of the Herbal and the history of medicine, and more, he was wrong in his dating and origin for the Voynich. I mean, you believe the Voynich is over a hundred years older than he did.

Do you see my point? It is this same issue again, playing out, again. The use and misuse of experts, to fulfill a preconception. On the surface, your request seems in the line of, "If the right person tells me the Voynich is a forgery, then I will think it is a forgery". But the right people have told you a great many things other than what you and others think it is, and all have been rejected. Some pretty amazing people... whom we are now to believe are not "experts" in their fields, nor the Voynich.

So what, exactly, would be the point? Wouldn't you... and again, you have every right to do so, as you do for me, or anyone else... to judge their opinions on your own standards? What would you need to see from this person to know that it is a forgery? I would say, "what more" would you need? Not sure if you understand me here, but that is an important point: Your request, compared with how so much opinion has been given, from so many capable people, tells us that "qualifications" are not really what is being sought.


Well that was (necessarily) wordy, to make this point, spurred by your suggestion that if a forgery "specialist" agreed with me, that this was a modern forgery, then you might agree.

what this hypothetical forgery specialist could show you, that would convince you?

Anyway, now that Lehmann-Haupt, his background and Voynich geography and dating opinions are revealed, what would you think about his input? Do you accept it, or reject it?

Thanks, Rich.

My reason for dismissing certain people is not, because of their conclusions, but because on the basis of their specific qualifications they cannot be said to be specialists in dating the Voynich. Newbold had an excellent academic record, but he qualifications made him little better qualified to date the Voynich than the layman. So I would not dismiss experts on forgery if they had the relevant specialism on the subject. If for example if they were a specialist in identifying biblical forgeries they may not have the skills to identify medieval manuscript forgeries. You list some people as experts who I think are nothing of the kind that is my reason for excluding them.

I have read the Wikipedia page for Lehmann-Haupt. He clearly has an impressive CV. Whether he has the knowledge to be reliable at dating the Voynich is another question. I would have to know more. It would also be useful to know his argument for his dating. To me his associating the manuscript with Southern Italy is concerning as I think other opinion is more inclined to associate it with Northern Italy or Central Europe. It may have been a lucky guess on his part or he may have had a well reasoned argument for it; I don't know.

I should say in all honesty I doubt many of those people you cite as experts are experts and more importantly I don't think you really listen to them anyway as they have come to quite different conclusions from you. To the extent that you do listen to them, it is very selectively; observing a lack of consensus on dating and on that basis making the logical leap to the manuscript being a forgery. In fact the overwhelming consensus now and in the past appears to be that the Voynich is not a forgery, so why pretend that you are really listening to those people you fundamentally disagree with. The only thing I think one can say with confidence is that there has been a lack of consensus amongst academics and laypeople about many aspects of this manuscript that sadly is not an endorsement of any specific theory.

(13-04-2024, 10:31 AM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.My reason for dismissing certain people is not, because of their conclusions, but because on the basis of their specific qualifications they cannot be said to be specialists in dating the Voynich. Newbold had an excellent academic record, but he qualifications made him little better qualified to date the Voynich than the layman. So I would not dismiss experts on forgery if they had the relevant specialism on the subject. If for example if they were a specialist in identifying biblical forgeries they may not have the skills to identify medieval manuscript forgeries. You list some people as experts who I think are nothing of the kind that is my reason for excluding them.
I have read the Wikipedia page for Lehmann-Haupt. He clearly has an impressive CV. Whether he has the knowledge to be reliable at dating the Voynich is another question. I would have to know more. It would also be useful to know his argument for his dating. To me his associating the manuscript with Southern Italy is concerning as I think other opinion is more inclined to associate it with Northern Italy or Central Europe. It may have been a lucky guess on his part or he may have had a well reasoned argument for it; I don't know.

Ok then... Let me explain why I asked you this: First of all, I had two answers in mind, both which still apply, for if you rejected or accepted Haupt's testimony on dating. Both would make my overall points here. But you surprised me with a third option.
If one rejects Haupt, then it far more strikingly makes the case that virtually no pre-C14 expert believed this was early 14th century. Yes I show, and argue, that that case is already and amply made. And that somehow, each of the marvelous experts on that list are knocked off like ducks at carnival booth, when I in no way think they should be. And left is Lehmann-Haupt, who, on the grounds of comparative CVs, while his is excellent, also arguably does not target the "Voynich problems" quite as precisely as several of the other, previously rejected experts. So that point still stands for anyone who does reject Haupt's input. But you do not.

If one accepts Lehmann-Haupt's dating, then we have another striking case: That all the vast expertise (specialization, knowledge, experience, what have you) of all the others is rejected in his favor, with the easily arguable point that HE matches the C14, alone (or virtually alone). That is, the situation I believe exists, that the 1420 European Cipher Herbal (with minor variations) is unduly driven by that one radiocarbon range alone, and all input to the contrary, all alternate explanations for that range, be damned. And all things will be "C14-filtered", when they not only do not deserve to be, but arguably should NOT be.

And that is a conundrum for anyone who continues to so tailor that list, and any post-C14 list, and that is one of the facets of my pointing this out, both in my initial blog post on this subject, and practically all the ensuing comments on this. To make it clear this is being done, and that it shouldn't be done... it is backwards, and unscientific. That, although we process all input, and should do so, we have here an easily demonstrable example of an improper use of input. It is definable, and relatable.

But then you surprised me by giving a third option: You, so far, refuse to either accept nor reject Lehmann-Haupt's confirmation of the date range you believe, and probably the majority of Voynich Researchers, believe correct. Why? Well of course I cannot speak for you, and so do accept the reasons you have given, "Whether he has the knowledge to be reliable at dating the Voynich is another question. I would have to know more. It would also be useful to know his argument for his dating." But I must point out that these standards are, for most who have judged then rejected the other experts, is not a consistent one. In my experience the reasons for rejecting them is varied, and also, and more importantly, that the reasons other experts do give for their dating, when known, is quite sound. You know this if you have read them, and I am sure you have read them.

I would have to say that the logical implications to the two cases, accept and reject, for Haupt, would have occurred to anyone trying to answer my question, for the lone C14 "agreer". This conundrum (for 1420 advocates) is a sort of "checkmate" to this issue... there is no way to answer the question without shining a spotlight on the problem I've been describing: That the use of experts, in this case, is being done with the express purpose of defending the C14-Centric 1420 European Cipher Herbal Paradigm. And so, it does not get answered.

Mark Knowles Wrote:I should say in all honesty I doubt many of those people you cite as experts are experts and more importantly I don't think you really listen to them anyway as they have come to quite different conclusions from you. To the extent that you do listen to them, it is very selectively; observing a lack of consensus on dating and on that basis making the logical leap to the manuscript being a forgery.

Yes, I think from that you do seem to understand my position on this, and have actually stated it pretty well: But to clarify a bit, and point some things out about your statement: I actually, as I have said, do listen to them, as I do agree that most of the stuff they saw in the Voynich IS there, a troubling case if the Voynich is any sort of genuine article. And that is why most who think it is genuine must reject the vast amount of past, and a large amount of post-C14, outside opinion. I use what they have told me they saw there, I use there experienced guidance of lifetimes of thoughtful, scholarly education and research. And yes, I am selective, but I would not say "very". It is far, far simpler than that, and as I've explained, and will state again: These experts were not tasked nor challenged nor was it a major facet of any one of their careers to be looking at the Voynich as a possible forgery. They honestly reported on what the content looked like to them, what dates, geography and content it all implied. I do one thing: I point out why I believe they are all correct in most of this, and explain it by the fact they were all looking at a forgery. My hypothesis "makes" them all correct, or more correctly, my hypothesis explains their wide range of opinions. Which is, as I've pointed out, a "red flag" of forgery, as forgeries often cause a wide range of opinions among experts, even if they do not question their authenticity. Forgeries are usually jumbled messes like like the Voynich is.

Mark Knowles Wrote:In fact the overwhelming consensus now and in the past appears to be that the Voynich is not a forgery, so why pretend that you are really listening to those people you fundamentally disagree with. The only thing I think one can say with confidence is that there has been a lack of consensus amongst academics and laypeople about many aspects of this manuscript that sadly is not an endorsement of any specific theory.

Well first of all, consensus is not science. And also, I again point out that it is I, and anyone who believes this may be a forgery, who are the ones who actually use "consensus" to come to that opinion; while it is 1420 Genuine which must reject consensus, and then rationalize the rejection. I am not pretending to listen to them, that is the whole point here... I do listen to them, I do not reject them. The whole point of my blog post, and all this ensuing discussion. Claiming over and over that I do this, and the Genuinists do not, is not demonstrated by the history of how expert opinion has been viewed and used by all concerned.

And again, the "lack of consensus" is very much an indication, a very important clue, as to what the Voynich is. It is evidence that should not be discarded, and I do not discard it, I let it tell me something, as should be done. And what it tells me, the best explanation for it, is that the Voynich is a crude and inexpert forgery, improperly filled with a vast array of content from many geographies, disciplines, eras, and styles, up to the early 20th century, and made with materials and construction methods that are anachronistic and anomalous to the old and genuine thing it struggles to pretend it is.

But I've said this in a great many ways, many times now, and fully understand you disagree, and why you disagree. And of course that is fine. What this great discussion has allowed us both to do is to explain our very different views on this, and why we come to the disparate conclusions we have come to: The reasoning behind our positions. As I have always felt and often said, that is the most valuable, and most interesting part of all this: How we think about virtually intractable problems, and the Voynich is a perfect storm of intractable.

The fundamental question is why anything is falsified at all. Profit comes first here.
There is also the possibility of the ego trip "I am the only one who has something like this". But that would be eliminated by the sale.
So why would someone forge a notebook at such great expense and effort and not even sell it in the end?
Why mention the name "Tepenec" and then blur it again, even though it is the only thing that might have any value at all? "Well-known personality".
Is it a particularly stupid or particularly clever forger?
Just inviting experts to examine the book when it is still hot off the press is a risk.
So why forge it?

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

(13-04-2024, 04:23 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The fundamental question is why anything is falsified at all. Profit comes first here.

There is also the possibility of the ego trip "I am the only one who has something like this". But that would be eliminated by the sale.

So why would someone forge a notebook at such great expense and effort and not even sell it in the end?

Why mention the name "Tepenec" and then blur it again, even though it is the only thing that might have any value at all? "Well-known personality".

Is it a particularly stupid or particularly clever forger?

Just inviting experts to examine the book when it is still hot off the press is a risk.

So why forge it?

Well all good points, Aga, and ones that I have long wondered about. These questions have actually impacted my hypothesis in various ways, by causing me to see how and if they fit the scenario I began with, and have actually altered it to some degree. So the below if OF COURSE my opinions on them, and purely speculative, and subject to change. But FYI I will give my viewpoints on them:

1) Yes, profit: We know Wilfrid wanted to profit by it, from various bits of evidence it seems he was hoping for between $100,000 and about $160,000. That is, in today's (US) dollars, about $3 to $5 million.

2) "I am the only one who has something like this"- yes that would go away if he sold it, as you say, but still he would be known... and still is... for having "found" it. And I do think this would have been a tremendous motivation for him. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., his fame at the earlier sale of the 150 incunabula to the British Library was already old news by 1910 or so, while the celebrity of his wife was rapidly growing. To pull off such a "coup" as finding a rare and exciting book such as this would rocket him to fame... again. And, that is inarguable, it did.

3) "Why mention the name "Tepenec" and then blur it again, even though it is the only thing that might have any value at all?" I speculate a reason for this: I do believe he first created the manuscript to appear to be from the Court of Rudolf II, and so "signed" it with the Tepenenz "signature". But such an herbal would have been worth about 1,000 pounds (looking through his own catalogs at the time). A combination of considerations caused him to decide to change the authorship and origin to Roger Bacon, which he felt would be far more valuable (see my hypothesis). And so, now, he didn't want that signature, and tried to remove it. But he could not... he just made a blotty mess. This problem could then be easily fixed by the 1665/66 Marci letter, which explained, indirectly, why that signature would be on there. But for many reasons I feel, and others feel, that that signature is a fake: For one thing it was never seen by Marci/Baresch/Kinner/Kircher, for surely, when discussing the manuscript, one of them would have pointed out this all important clue.... if they were actually looking at, and describing, the Voynich. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

4) "So why would someone forge a notebook at such great expense and effort and not even sell it in the end?" Well first of all, this idea of a "great expense" is one I long took issue with, even if genuine, as I also once believed. And of course I have pointed out that Wilfrid plausibly had access to a vast amount of materials from the 1908 purchase of the Libreria Franceshini, so the few sheets of parchment would have cost him nothing extra. Ink is cheap to make, and the time would not have been (per experiments by me, Rugg and others) all that time consuming: Maybe two months of spare time? As for not selling it, well he did want to, we know that. That it didn't sell was due to circumstances beyond his control. I think a major problem was that nobody could decide what it was! That problem, amply described all over the internet. No, he wanted to sell it for a great deal of money, he just never could.

5) "Just inviting experts to examine the book when it is still hot off the press is a risk." Well of course this is always a risk, for any forger, first of all. I've heard it said, many times to me in fact, something along the lines of, "It would have been a great risk to his career, and he would not have made that risk, therefore it is not a forgery". But all forgers take this risk, and he had a tremendous amount of wealth to gain from it. But as for "inviting experts" (and again, it is interesting to me to see others, not familiar with my work or research, to ask the very same questions I've asked of myself. This is, to me, another great value in publicly discussing these things, to share my perspective, and the perspectives of others on the same issues): Two things: 1) Wilfrid was very selective about the experts he both queried, and who he allowed access to the Voynich. I believe he quietly sent the ms. out to selected audiences to get feedback... possibly including Joseph Baer in Frankfort about 1910. Even though I think Ethel and Anne believed it authentic, they, too, were careful who would get to see the ms., first considering whether or not that person would report favorably on their hoped-for Roger Bacon attribution. I found reference to this in the letters of Anne Nill, in which the question was occasionally posed: Will this one or that one agree with us, or hurt the attribution? And Wilfred even did this with Newbold, offering him over $10,000, should Newbold's "Roger Bacon" attribution "stick", and a successful sale was made because of it. 2) Wilfred had a "habit" which I saw several times, relating not only to the Voynich, but also to other of his holdings. It went like this: Write to an expert on the subject, and drop just enough hints to steer that person in the direction (I suspect) he desired. Then, when the the expert responded as hoped, Wilfrid would cite that expert as though the whole "discovery" was independently arrived at by said expert. A great example is his query about the "signature": You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. Anyway, a reader commented on something I had not noticed (I can't find the comment at the moment), something to the effect of, "... Wilfrid was asking for information about this supposedly unidentified person, then why did he say he was from Bohemia?"

As I said he did this in other places. Among them are a case I have not written about, in which he asked a map expert about a map, and "Could it be XXX?" The expert replied, "Yes it could be XXX". And then, Wilfrid quoted that expert in his own catalog, while trying to sell the map! And I think poor Newbold was also a victim of this, running wild like a loose cannon on Voynich's deck, after being steered toward advanced optics and a possible Roger Bacon. But that is also just a theory... You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. I think he was pointed in that direction, then went off and running to his doom... with visions of fame and $10,000 clouding his normally reputable judgment.

Anyway, those are my (speculative) explanations for the issues you have brought up. Your mileage may vary.

Rich.