The Voynich Ninja

(22-08-2025, 11:30 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I did not really check, but I believe that the examples from Rich are all from the last 150 years.

Well the samples I posted are just a drop in the bucket. Forged books go back to the 5th century BC, and there are a great many which have been made in all the time since. From Wikipedia and AI:

"Onomacritus (c. 530 - 480 BCE): This Greek compiler of oracles is considered one of the earliest known literary forgers. He created prophecies and attributed them to the poet Musaeus.

"Axiopistus (4th century BCE): He created forgeries attributed to the 5th-century BCE writer Epicharmus of Kos."

... which would have been scrolls, I think, as the concept of a modern bound book came centuries later. 

Quote: Counter examples are really welcome, as far as I am concerned!

My linked "You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view." is rife with examples in literature and art. 

Quote: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.

Yes and I don't also discount Dexdex's original suggestion, I do think it very possible that... if from the past... the Voynich very well could have been made for the reasons he suggests. 

Quote:Direct question to Rich: do you consider that the book(s) sold to Rudolf for 600 gold pieces is/are a fake?

There are several answers I could give to that, depending on some variables. First, for the sake of argument, assuming that the 1665/66 Marci Letter is genuine, AND that the book referred to IS the Voynich we know today:

- The wording, which we have all discussed at length, some decades before I was on the scene, does not specifically state that the 600 Ducats was in payment for the book(s), but rather was given to the owner of the book. It is not clear, that is, if other goods or services were included.

- Besides which, it is related as a second hand rumor, decades after the fact.

- Also, the relative value of 600 Ducats has been argued endlessly... years ago it was the "value of a small farm". I've heard less, I've heard more. I don't know really, except to accept, which I do, it was a lot of money.

- All the above, besides which, as I pointed out, desired compensation is not really any indication of an item's genuineness. Fakes have been make for nothing, as well as for a great deal of money.

But if I were to accept that the Marci letter were genuine, and refers to the Voynich, I don't personally think the amount could imply or indicate whether or not the book were genuine. It could be that Rudolf II was fooled, and thought it were real, or it is real, and he... really, one has to stop there... No, I don't think there is anything in that version of the story that will help us determine the genuineness, or not, of the work.

But, Secondly, although the question of whether or not the Marci Letter is genuine does not effect my hypothesis one bit, I strongly believe that letter is a fake, and for the reasons I give in my blog post titled, "The 1665 Marci Letter: A Forgery?": 

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

In short, among my reasons for believing this are: The fold lines make no sense; the position of the seal marks don't work; the problematic Latin; Wilfrid's supposedly not noticing such an important letter for some time; the letter making it out of the Villa with the other books; the paper is different than the other letters; and the signature is a practical overlay (tracing) of a genuine letter. I think it is fake, and was created to reinforce a desired provenance by Wilfrid.

[attachment=11303]

Thirdly, if that Marci letter is genuine, again, it does not affect my hypothesis, as I do not think the other letters... also seemingly referring to the same book... are referring to the Voynich at all. That being said, the references to the book are very dissimilar to the Voynich; much important information was left out; they didn't seem to see the "signature" or they would have mentioned it; and some parts of their descriptions actually work against it being the Voynich. I call the book they all were actually describing the "Baresch Manuscript". We do know it was that.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

All that was necessary to explain my answer to you, Rene, when you ask me, "... do you consider that the book(s) sold to Rudolf for 600 gold pieces is/are a fake?" In short, "I don't think the book referenced in the 600 Ducat claim is the Voynich, but whether or not it is, the value alone would not, to me, be a sufficient indication of whether it is fake or real. To me, given only that, the question would be entirely open".

(22-08-2025, 12:24 PM)dexdex Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.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.

A few things about those points: Actually, blank ancient materials have not been, and are not, worth an awful lot. Back in 2011 I did a deep dive to see what blank vellum was available, and it turned out that there are many cases in which unused vellum sat for up to hundreds of years, and when available for sale was relatively inexpensive: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

That being said, we also know that Voynich acquired a vast repository of materials, possibly as many as half a million items which had been squirreled away for 40 years by the owner of the Libreria Franceshini, which Voynich had purchased in 1908. I explain this in my post, "Something Sheepy in the State of Denmark":

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

So we know it probable that Voynich did have a great deal of materials at his fingertips (and BTW, I also suspect that the Libreria was known to Voynich long before his purchase, and might be the main source of Incunabula he famously sold to the British Museum in 1902).

[attachment=11304]

But also, we actually know that Voynich sold blank materials, and cheap! According to Millicent Sowerby, in her autobiographic account of her life in books, she related that Voynich did this... presumably from the vast piles he acquired in 1908, but he was also known to disassemble books in poor shape. Sowerby related how the famous engraver, James McBey, would come to the shop to purchase blank materials for his engravings. And in his autobiography, McBey also relates how he searched out ancient, blank materials for his prints (in one case, he found Rubin's actual, personal scrapbook at a street fair, and bought it for a pittance!).

And lastly, we also know that blank materials have been used for forgeries since like forever. Think about your own statement, in fact, "... if Wilfrid found this much untouched parchment it would honestly be worth more to sell it to other con-men as supplies"... well, what if he were the "con-man"? Would it not be far more valuable to him, once converted into a forgery, than we know he sold those same materials for?

But we don't have to guess... every ancient material has been used... or re-used, for forgeries: Paper, vellum, even bark for MesoAmerican forgeries. And look at the famously forged Vineland Map, which used blank vellum from the Speculum Historale and the Tartar Relation. The volume of the Speculum, in fact, was one of a larger set of several, large volumes, which could have provided even more material, for more forgeries.

So while I do agree with your speculations as to the cost and availability of materials... I, myself may have similarly assumed the same things you have... but when you look into it, it turns out that such materials were and are available, were and are relatively inexpensive, and arguably, Voynich had mountains of the stuff by 1908.

(22-08-2025, 05:08 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.A few things about those points: Actually, blank ancient materials have not been, and are not, worth an awful lot. Back in 2011 I did a deep dive to see what blank vellum was available, and it turned out that there are many cases in which unused vellum sat for up to hundreds of years, and when available for sale was relatively inexpensive: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

That being said, we also know that Voynich acquired a vast repository of materials, possibly as many as half a million items which had been squirreled away for 40 years by the owner of the Libreria Franceshini, which Voynich had purchased in 1908. I explain this in my post, "Something Sheepy in the State of Denmark":

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

So we know it probable that Voynich did have a great deal of materials at his fingertips (and BTW, I also suspect that the Libreria was known to Voynich long before his purchase, and might be the main source of Incunabula he famously sold to the British Museum in 1902).



But also, we actually know that Voynich sold blank materials, and cheap! According to Millicent Sowerby, in her autobiographic account of her life in books, she related that Voynich did this... presumably from the vast piles he acquired in 1908, but he was also known to disassemble books in poor shape. Sowerby related how the famous engraver, James McBey, would come to the shop to purchase blank materials for his engravings. And in his autobiography, McBey also relates how he searched out ancient, blank materials for his prints (in one case, he found Rubin's actual, personal scrapbook at a street fair, and bought it for a pittance!).

And lastly, we also know that blank materials have been used for forgeries since like forever. Think about your own statement, in fact, "... if Wilfrid found this much untouched parchment it would honestly be worth more to sell it to other con-men as supplies"... well, what if he were the "con-man"? Would it not be far more valuable to him, once converted into a forgery, than we know he sold those same materials for?

There is still the issue of being much more useful for a smaller fake with a much better effort level.

(22-08-2025, 05:08 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But we don't have to guess... every ancient material has been used... or re-used, for forgeries: Paper, vellum, even bark for MesoAmerican forgeries. And look at the famously forged Vineland Map, which used blank vellum from the Speculum Historale and the Tartar Relation. The volume of the Speculum, in fact, was one of a larger set of several, large volumes, which could have provided even more material, for more forgeries.

So while I do agree with your speculations as to the cost and availability of materials... I, myself may have similarly assumed the same things you have... but when you look into it, it turns out that such materials were and are available, were and are relatively inexpensive, and arguably, Voynich had mountains of the stuff by 1908.

Very interesting, though there are many other hurdles in the Wilfrid theory. But it's quite interesting to hear old parchment is not *unheard of*.

(22-08-2025, 05:45 PM)dexdex Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Very interesting, though there are many other hurdles in the Wilfrid theory.

Is there a theory of the Voynich does NOT have significant hurdles?

(22-08-2025, 06:29 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(22-08-2025, 05:45 PM)dexdex Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Very interesting, though there are many other hurdles in the Wilfrid theory.

Is there a theory of the Voynich does NOT have significant hurdles?

No, but some have many more of them than others.

While there are certainly significant issues with an early 15th century fraud hypothesis (the later ones are too unrealistic to consider until further evidence emerges in my opinion), it should not be dismissed out of hand. Many of the counter-arguments based on cost and effort, return on investement, sellers and buyers etc. require a high degree of rationality from all actors. I would counter: A attempt of fraud which was generally unsuccessful during the time of its creator(s) is more logical than one that went according to plans. If the book did not sell at all until the late 16th century, it is hardly surprising that no one recreated the project or that there is no earlier archival evidence of it. Imagine a small group of scribes and/or scholars seeing that some foreign manuscript fetches a significant price or draws attention from important people, decide to create something similar, but fail to match the quality or relevance of what they tried to copy.

Some kind of fraud hypothesis also work in combination with the best attempts to recreate the manuscript's statistical properties, such as T. Timm's autocopist theory or M. Greshko's naibbe cipher, even if the latter is not intended in this way. Of course, it is basically impossible to prove and almost as hard to find supporting evidence beyond these very general observations, because most 'nonsense'-explanation leave fewer clues to work with than any language/cipher-theories.

(22-08-2025, 05:45 PM)dexdex Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Very interesting, though there are many other hurdles in the Wilfrid theory.

(22-08-2025, 06:29 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Is there a theory of the Voynich does NOT have significant hurdles?

(22-08-2025, 05:45 PM)dexdex Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.No, but some have many more of them than others.

True. But the thing with hurdles is that the heights are more of a problem than the quantity. For example, any single piece of anachronistic content is a higher hurdle than a speculation on the availability of old parchment, or the potential motivations of the authors, or the gullibility of buyers, etc.

(22-08-2025, 04:41 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view."Onomacritus (c. 530 - 480 BCE): This Greek compiler of oracles is considered one of the earliest known literary forgers. He created prophecies and attributed them to the poet Musaeus.

"Axiopistus (4th century BCE): He created forgeries attributed to the 5th-century BCE writer Epicharmus of Kos."

These are actually interesting examples. Both do not appear to have anything to do with 'sale for profit'. 
They bring me back to the point about terminology, and people will have different understandings of the words 'hoax' and 'fake'.

If 'just' the contents are deliberately not true, we should call it a hoax, but do we consider it a fake?
The above are not all that dissimilar from the Grimm fairy tales, but nobody would consider that a hoax or a fake. They were (probably) not intended to mislead.

(Using singular for typing and reading convenience.)
Anyway, these provide some examples of what the original Voynich MS creator may well have had in mind, which was the original point of this thread.
Suppose he wanted to show that he possessed an important book from ancient times, in an ancient language, and knew its contents. The parchment dating tells us nothing. He could have only used contemporary parchment and could have made it look old by making it look 'used'. If he wanted to.
Paper would have been a bad choice for such an old book.

While most people seem to agree that a hoax or fake at this time for sale at a profit is quite unlikely,
who knows, perhaps he even managed to sell it to someone. We just don't know anything about this.

However, the pros and especially cons that have been mentioned earlier on in this thread remain.

Another interesting possibility is not relatable to modern times, because now we know some things better than in the late Middle Ages.
In Isidore's Etymology, he teaches that the main known writing systems were invented by
specific persons:
- Hebrew was invented by Moses
- Syrian/Chaldaean was invented by Abraham
- Egyptian was invented by queen Isis, daughter of Inachos
- Greek was invented by Cadmos
- Roman was invented by the nymph Carmentis

This has led people in the past to try to 'get their name on this list'.
An example is a certain Aethicus. He has been mentioned here already I think. I don't remember too much about this story, but one can check online sources.

Our Voynich creator may have been such a person too, and this allows for all options:
- meaningful content by converting known texts to this writing
- meaningless content
- his own personal language, meaningful only for him

My personal take here: I'm very much open to the idea that the VMS was created in furtherance of some kind of fraud, but even in this context, it would stand out as a singular artifact.

First, the weight of evidence favors the VMS being an authentic 15th-century artifact and not a 20th-century forgery by Wilfrid Voynich, so if we're going to entertain the fraud hypothesis, it has to be treated as a 15th-century fraud. For instance, as Koen and Marco convincingly presented at VMD, the marginalia handwriting and radiocarbon dating of the parchment both independently point to the early 15th century. That would be quite the coincidence if the VMS were really the product of Voynich cannibalizing old bits of parchment he had collected, especially considering that Voynich was marketing the VMS as a 13th-century creation of Roger Bacon's.

From the Donation of Constantine to the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., many well-known medieval forgeries were meant to be read: that is, that the whole reason to create a forged document in the first place was to increase one's claim to power and land through a falsified trail of charters, proclamations, and so on. Even the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., which seems to have been a 15th-century text concocted You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., is a legitimate ciphertext that's also partially in plaintext. In this context, the VMS is singularly inscrutable.

And if the VMS is a forgery of some kind, it's also uniquely long. Lengths for the VMS vary depending on the transliteration, but it's on the order of 35,000-40,000 tokens long, spanning more than 200 pages. The Libro del Tesoro is less than 27 pages long. The Privilegium Maius's five core forgeries add up to fewer than 4,000 words. The Donation of Constantine is less than 3,000 words long. There is a scale and length to the VMS that is commonplace for actual medieval books and, as far as I'm aware, exceedingly rare among known medieval forgeries. As such, I'm inclined to think that if the VMS were really meant to be a forgery, it'd be shorter than it is.

Of course, the VMS's length could also be argued as being a sign of the VMS's creators putting in the extra effort to convince a mark. It also suggests to me that consistent with Rugg, Timm, and Schinner's ideas, the medieval fraud hypothesis for the VMS would favor rapidly made gibberish over a ciphertext. Why go through all the trouble of making a complex cipher if you could sell the book just as easily with it saying nothing at all?

(23-08-2025, 07:51 AM)magnesium Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.My personal take here: I'm very much open to the idea that the VMS was created in furtherance of some kind of fraud, but even in this context, it would stand out as a singular artifact.

For sure.

(23-08-2025, 07:51 AM)magnesium Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.First, the weight of evidence favors the VMS being an authentic 15th-century artifact and not a 20th-century forgery by Wilfrid Voynich, so if we're going to entertain the fraud hypothesis, it has to be treated as a 15th-century fraud. For instance, as Koen and Marco convincingly presented at VMD, the marginalia handwriting and radiocarbon dating of the parchment both independently point to the early 15th century. That would be quite the coincidence if the VMS were really the product of Voynich cannibalizing old bits of parchment he had collected, especially considering that Voynich was marketing the VMS as a 13th-century creation of Roger Bacon's.

From the Donation of Constantine to the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., many well-known medieval forgeries were meant to be read: that is, that the whole reason to create a forged document in the first place was to increase one's claim to power and land through a falsified trail of charters, proclamations, and so on. Even the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., which seems to have been a 15th-century text concocted You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., is a legitimate ciphertext that's also partially in plaintext. In this context, the VMS is singularly inscrutable.

And if the VMS is a forgery of some kind, it's also uniquely long. Lengths for the VMS vary depending on the transliteration, but it's on the order of 35,000-40,000 tokens long, spanning more than 200 pages. The Libro del Tesoro is less than 27 pages long. The Privilegium Maius's five core forgeries add up to fewer than 4,000 words. The Donation of Constantine is less than 3,000 words long. There is a scale and length to the VMS that is commonplace for actual medieval books and, as far as I'm aware, exceedingly rare among known medieval forgeries. As such, I'm inclined to think that if the VMS were really meant to be a forgery, it'd be shorter than it is.

Agreed, except if it was some sort of passion project.

(23-08-2025, 07:51 AM)magnesium Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Of course, the VMS's length could also be argued as being a sign of the VMS's creators putting in the extra effort to convince a mark. It also suggests to me that consistent with Rugg, Timm, and Schinner's ideas, the medieval fraud hypothesis for the VMS would favor rapidly made gibberish over a ciphertext. Why go through all the trouble of making a complex cipher if you could sell the book just as easily with it saying nothing at all?

If it was for sale, definitely. The effort is in the wrong place for this. But if it's meant to look like a typical, commonplace herbal (& a prop), it could explain the relatively poor quality and maybe even that there's some 'system' to the glyphs so you can pretend to read it and it sounds/looks different than 'bababooey' nonsense. Still a stretch, but at least it's an explanation instead of shrugging shoulders and saying "i dunno, could be tho" ... and, it eliminates many systems.