A lot of really cool things in that post, I shall surely take a closer look. The possibility that someone created it as a hoax but not for monetary gain is also interesting, though unlikely. Indeed, I mentioned that a con artist could enjoy a scam and put more work into it than 'necessary'.But, by its very nature the manuscript's creation has to be an unlikely sequence of events, so nothing is out of the question. Still, it is also worth estimating how likely some hypothesis is, in a true Bayesian approach to inference. By that token, Rene's post is I think a good summary.
Once again, thanks for the wonderful post.
The personal satisfaction of creating "l'art pour l'art" is antithetical to the medieval view: the highest value of a work is the purpose it serves.
Even the concept of nonsense text as "fraud" is flawed from a historical perspective. If the way you practice medicine may involve prayers, charms and unknown symbols to enhance the experience, then where does cultural practice end and fraud begin?
Prayers don't work, from my secular perspective, but I don't think of a priest offering a prayer for someone's health as a fraud. I find it bizarre, but it functions within its context.
Species may become threatened with extinction because people in some cultures believe their ground up parts will enhance virility. We all know it's nonsense and doesn't work. But when a medicine man mixes up a potion for his patient, do we see him as a fraud or a practitioner of folk medicine?
People not understanding a word of the Latin spoken at church, is that fraudulent or part of their spiritual experience?
People selling amulets engraved with abracadabra and other magical words, fraud or understandable within the culture?
People selling magically inscribed birthing girdles to pregnant women, fraud or a cultural phenomenon?
Someone writing a book in a "language" and script they believe holds spiritual or healing powers... fraud or understandable within the culture?
My point is this: thinking of the VM as a fraud instead of trying to understand it as a product of its culture is anachronistic, and a wasted opportunity. Obviously we don't understand it yet, which is why its mystery endures. But approaching it within the context of early 15th century practices is probably the best way to go...
(I guess this post doesn't apply to you, Rich, since you think Wilfrid Voynich made it himself.)
(21-08-2025, 06:58 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.My point is this: thinking of the VM as a fraud instead of trying to understand it as a product of its culture is anachronistic, and a wasted opportunity. Obviously we don't understand it yet, which is why its mystery endures. But approaching it within the context of early 15th century practices is probably the best way to go...
Hi, Koen: I don't completely discount any possibility of course, even genuine/ancient, and also don't consider any time spent on alternatives to that to be wasted.
Quote:(I guess this post doesn't apply to you, Rich, since you think Wilfrid Voynich made it himself.)
Well to be more accurate, I do think it possible the Voynich could have been made FOR him, too. But I do think he was involved. But since I agree with those who see two or more styles in the characters, I don't think he, or whomever made this, did it alone. The drawings, at least the animals, do seem to me to be a product of his hand, to me.
[
attachment=11298]
Since you cited my theory, Koen, here is a link to the bare bones version for anyone interested:
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
That being said, I do think that all the previous posts do apply to my theory to some degree, in that anyone who might have made the book for any non-genuine reason may have had the same motivations that Wilfrid may have, if he did it or was involved: Elevate his prestige (worked); appeal to the wife he loved (worked); money (didn't work); thumb his nose at the literary establishment (worked); draw attention to his book business (worked)... etc..
But no, he would not have wanted to convince others of his prowess in medical areas, and other possibles from an earlier era.
(21-08-2025, 02:35 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The history of forged/fake/hoax/fraud books goes back practically to the invention of the book, and it was done for every motivation one can conceive of, and probably many that would elude us today: Recognition, politics, money, an expression of artistic skill, personal satisfaction... and really any combination of those. And, at every cost, and every skill level imaginable, on any material, old and new, and at every level of time and effort, for all the reasons we can imagine, and not.[ ... ] Every type of fake book and document was made for every single reason at every level of cost and time and every level of expected return from zero to a great fortune. [... ]Here is my "Forgery Bibliography" You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. [ ... ] Here is one of my own examples of an "homage" book, made at great expense of materials, time and effort, simply for personal satisfaction. [ ... ] You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Great post and great resources! But still... all the motives that you found for creating fake books can explain the creation of thousands of fake books of all types, I still don't see how they could explain the creation of the VMS specifically.
I would guess that the "fakiness" of the vast majority of the fake books in your bibliography is very obvious to us today. That includes the "out of novel" or "out of game" fan-books, the alchemical herbals, that Chittenden book, the Codex Seraphinianus, and many more. The cases where the fakiness is not obvious to us today are either forgeries which were skillfully made to look like some real but lost book (like the Hitler diaries) or which were incomprehensible for centuries but turned out to be not fake at all (like the Rohonc codex and the Soyga tables).
The VMS clearly does not belong to the first two categories above. I still believe it belongs to the third one...
All the best, --jorge
There are no thousands of fake books. There are thousands of fake items.
One can split these fake items up in two ways (or more, but let's just look at these two).
Split 1: perpetrated less than 150 years ago vs. more than 150 years ago
The vast majority is from the last 150 years, especially when it concerns art (including books and individual leaves).
I did not really check, but I believe that the examples from Rich are all from the last 150 years.
Split 2: the faked items are complete books, or they are something else
The vast majority of these fakes are not complete books. Yes, they exist, but I am aware of fewer than 10 in total, and these are all from the last 150 years.
Counter examples are really welcome, as far as I am concerned!
I think that one main point from Rich's longer post was that fakes aren't necessariy perpetrated for monetary gain.
This is certainly correct, and this was also part of the argument of the first post in this thread.
People who are looking at sales prices of manuscripts, and consider these a motivation for a fake, are omitting more than half of the equation.
Sale price does not equal profit.
Creating a fake manuscript is very difficult and costs money.
There is the risk of being caught.
There is the risk of the thing not being sold.
It is illegal or at least morally unacceptable (yes this matters to many people).
Direct question to Rich: do you consider that the book(s) sold to Rudolf for 600 gold pieces is/are a fake?
(22-08-2025, 11:30 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There are no thousands of fake books. There are thousands of fake items.
One can split these fake items up in two ways (or more, but let's just look at these two).
Split 1: perpetrated less than 150 years ago vs. more than 150 years ago
The vast majority is from the last 150 years, especially when it concerns art (including books and individual leaves).
I did not really check, but I believe that the examples from Rich are all from the last 150 years.
Split 2: the faked items are complete books, or they are something else
The vast majority of these fakes are not complete books. Yes, they exist, but I am aware of fewer than 10 in total, and these are all from the last 150 years.
Counter examples are really welcome, as far as I am concerned!
I think that one main point from Rich's longer post was that fakes aren't necessariy perpetrated for monetary gain.
This is certainly correct, and this was also part of the argument of the first post in this thread.
People who are looking at sales prices of manuscripts, and consider these a motivation for a fake, are omitting more than half of the equation.
Sale price does not equal profit.
Creating a fake manuscript is very difficult and costs money.
There is the risk of being caught.
There is the risk of the thing not being sold.
It is illegal or at least morally unacceptable (yes this matters to many people).
Direct question to Rich: do you consider that the book(s) sold to Rudolf for 600 gold pieces is/are a fake?
Another split (for forgeries in general in the modern age) is: either extremely skillful (like the Spanish Forger's work) to fool experts for a high potential payout; or quite intentionally shoddy, to only hook gullible marks.
The VMS mostly fits neither category: it is too shoddy to sell as greatly skilled, but it is too long and too elaborate to produce for fooling someone once. The 'reusable prop' theory helps explain why it's right in the spot where few fakes exist, though it still has lots of difficulties.
I think any Wilfrid related theory is fraught with the difficulty of the discovered corroborating letter. The quantity of parchment is also wholly improbable: if Wilfrid found this much untouched parchment it would honestly be worth more to sell it to other con-men as supplies, or produce smaller fakes inviting less attention. It could be that he had other reasons for crafting it the way it is, but the quality of the finished product doesn't support this.
(22-08-2025, 12:24 PM)dexdex Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I think any Wilfrid related theory is fraught with the difficulty of the discovered corroborating letter. The quantity of parchment is also wholly improbable: if Wilfrid found this much untouched parchment it would honestly be worth more to sell it to other con-men as supplies, or produce smaller fakes inviting less attention. It could be that he had other reasons for crafting it the way it is, but the quality of the finished product doesn't support this.
And why he took the pain to unbind and then rearrange and rebind the manuscript, cutting out leaves, adding new quire marks... a lot of evidence better explained by a manuscript with a long history.
It also leaves open the big question of how the text was created, with all its baffling statistical properties.
Also: Wilfrid tried to sell this for a long time, and failed. If he was the perpetrator of the scam, one would expect that having failed to find a proper mark to sell the book he would not hesitate to start 'adding' things to it in an effort to increase its value. Easy additions such as this would be adding occult imagery, improving the detail on the illustrations, or adding more tractable 'cribtext' that would give some hope of decryption. There are, to my knowledge, no indications of this; in fact, many of the chronologically late additions make the manuscript worse. The only exception might be the de Tepenes signature - which is entirely in keeping with someone adding some extra provenance to an already authentic product. This was generally the modus operandi of the Spanish Forger. And, of course, the signature might also be genuine.
We have a You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. for discussing points specific to the
modern hoax/"Wilfrid did it" theory.
(22-08-2025, 12:32 PM)Mauro Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.And why he took the pain to unbind and then rearrange and rebind the manuscript, cutting out leaves, adding new quire marks... a lot of evidence better explained by a manuscript with a long history.
It also leaves open the big question of how the text was created, with all its baffling statistical properties.
Here's a silly idea, incorporating the oriental ideas to my hypothesis: a con artist really did go somewhere oriental or met someone oriental, maybe even learned a few medicinal tricks. He then starts selling his knowledge; then, he stumbled on the idea of creating a manuscript, starting with a simple bifolio or two. He poorly mimics how an oriental language sounded to him with a simple system of word generation. Why? Perhaps he also had a system to 'read it' aloud and sound plausibly oriental.
It starts working well; and around him, quack medics with entire herbals abound, as attested to by Toresella. So he then mimics entire genres of manuscript with his nonsense words, though rather poorly, since they don't need to be that ornate to fool people coming for aid. Perhaps he hires or receives help from others: the point is not for the book to be good, but pass cursory inspection with people who might be interested, be undecipherable, and long enough to suggest mountains of knowledge. The sections naturally vary in quality, since he's familiar with herbals foremost. As a result, you have a somewhat logical sequence of events of an iteratively created tome with the properties we see.
I think this is wildly improbable and the inclusion of the oriental influence is completely unnecessary - the word generation is more likely to mimic oriental languages by pure accident in my mind. But still, a fun idea