The Voynich Ninja

(09-11-2025, 03:54 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.the vast majority of forged documents actually DO have meaning. Think the forged "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", the "Howard Hughes Will", the "Hitler Diaries", the "Oath of a Freeman", and a great many others.

Yes, but even though their contents have meaning and may have been composed with care, those forgeries are "uninteresting" because they do not provide any useful information about the alleged subject or anything else.  The contents may reveal who forged them, when, and why, and sometimes that may be interesting.  But nowhere as interesting as the contents would be if the books were genuine...

All the best, --stolfi

(09-11-2025, 04:44 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(09-11-2025, 03:54 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.the vast majority of forged documents actually DO have meaning. Think the forged "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", the "Howard Hughes Will", the "Hitler Diaries", the "Oath of a Freeman", and a great many others.

Yes, but even though their contents have meaning and may have been composed with care, those forgeries are "uninteresting" because they do not provide any useful information about the alleged subject or anything else.  The contents may reveal who forged them, when, and why, and sometimes that may be interesting.  But nowhere as interesting as the contents would be if the books were genuine...

All the best, --stolfi

Well, it might not be interesting to historians. But in this case, it would be very interesting to cryptologists since whatever technique was used would have successfully eluded everyone completely for over a hundred years.

Rich, in response to your request, I have read your rebuttal to Why the Voynich MS is not a modern fake, by René Zandbergen, and your arguments haven't convinced me at all. René's reasoning is so overwhelming that it leaves little room for doubt. Every matter related to the past leaves unresolved gaps, and I think what you're doing is sowing doubt by taking advantage of those gaps. Your way of thinking resembles that of conspiracy theories, but fortunately you don't harm anyone by thinking the way you do.
  
   I sincerely believe that your arguments are very weak, too weak to attack the reputation of a man like Wilfrid Voynich, who, although dead, has the right to have his honor respected. There is no evidence that he forged anything, nor are there any contemporary accusations or suspicions. He was even under FBI scrutiny for espionage purposes, and his life and work were supposedly thoroughly investigated.

  However, I believe you are not a fraud, that you truly believe what you say, and that driven by this passion you disregard irrefutable evidence, such as codicological and other evidence. W. Voynich was convinced that the codex was a work by Roger Bacon. If he commissioned the forgery, he would have ensured that no anachronisms remained, such as the fashion for zodiac figures, which came more than a century after Bacon. And certainly, obtaining in the 20th century the skin of 60 or 70 calves sacrificed at the beginning of the 15th century to make the codex seems like a superhuman feat.

(10-11-2025, 08:50 PM)Antonio García Jiménez Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Rich, in response to your request, I have read your rebuttal to Why the Voynich MS is not a modern fake, by René Zandbergen, and your arguments haven't convinced me at all. René's reasoning is so overwhelming that it leaves little room for doubt. Every matter related to the past leaves unresolved gaps, and I think what you're doing is sowing doubt by taking advantage of those gaps. Your way of thinking resembles that of conspiracy theories, but fortunately you don't harm anyone by thinking the way you do.

Well thank you much for taking a look. I respect your disagreement, while disagreeing with it! Anyone else who is interesting in seeing if they agree with Antonio, or not, here is the page he is writing about:

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

If you could explain, though, why you believe my "thinking resembles that of conspiracy theories", I'd like to know, as I do not think any conspiracy was involved here. Not in the creation of the Voynich, which I think had, at most, Voynich and a couple of other people involved (the "hands"), and not in the belief that the Voynich is real. I mean, many people think it is real, and old, but I don't think they are part of any "conspiracy". They, and you, genuinely believe this, but are not conspiring in any way.
  

Quote:I sincerely believe that your arguments are very weak, too weak to attack the reputation of a man like Wilfrid Voynich, who, although dead, has the right to have his honor respected. There is no evidence that he forged anything, nor are there any contemporary accusations or suspicions. He was even under FBI scrutiny for espionage purposes, and his life and work were supposedly thoroughly investigated.

You are not the first person to be upset with me for "attacking" Wilfrid's reputation. Some people have gotten really mad at me. But I can't worry about any of that... the Voynich is what the Voynich is, I cannot change that. I can't be swayed by the possibility of hurting any dead people's reputation, if I truly believe this is a forgery... and I do. And I still think a very nice person could be a forger... in fact I am sure of it, there are many cases of people who were forgers, but otherwise extremely nice people. So my thinking he was a forger, or sold forgeries, should not of itself bother you. It is not that bad an accusation, I mean.

That being said... and somewhat unrelated TO any forgery he may or may not have made or sold, I don't think Voynich was a very nice person at all. He was a liar, we know that beyond any doubt. He was a political subversive and revolutionary... maybe, if one believes in the causes he fought for, they may excuse him that, but I don't. He used his Florence shop as a "safe house" for other revolutionaries. And through various statements, repeated by others, such as Sowerby's relations of actions and things he said, and her fear of his temper, and his working with other book dealers to subvert auctions (they would decide who wanted what book, then the others wouldn't bid on them; then, what he told Orioli, how to cheat religious institutions out of valuable works, trading them worthless books in exchange... and many more... I believe he was not a very good nor ethical person at all.

I think he was an arrogant scoundrel, with low ethics. Sorry.

Quote:However, I believe you are not a fraud, that you truly believe what you say, and that driven by this passion you disregard irrefutable evidence, such as codicological and other evidence.

Everyone is going to have different standards of evidence. Yours are different than mine, but I do believe in mine. Thanks for not thinking me a "fraud", though, I do appreciate that. As for disregarding evidence, that sounds much like the charge against me that I "Don't Listen to the Experts", when, in fact, I do. Modern Forgery, in fact, accepts far more expert opinion than 1420 genuine, if you really think about it. This is because all the very many varied and contrasting opinions, both pre- and post- C14 dating, I agree with. I do believe it has many of the clues which experts have noted, from the 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, that it is all in there, that they are not wrong.

Modern Forgery explains all this varied expert and amateur opinion, while 1420 Genuine needs to discard a great deal of it in order to work.

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

In short, I could ask you the same thing you have, me, "Why do you disregard the irrefutable evidence of Charles Singer, Jules Janick, Brumbaugh, O'Neil, Steele, Author Tucker, who all realize and realized that the Voynich has all the elements, styles, plants and animals they saw? Many are dead... would it be dishonoring, for instance, the once great reputation of the eminent herbal expert, Charles Singer? Of course not, but you are challenging his judgement, if you believe the Voynich 1420. Along with many others, not here to defend their positions. 

Quote:W. Voynich was convinced that the codex was a work by Roger Bacon. If he commissioned the forgery, he would have ensured that no anachronisms remained, such as the fashion for zodiac figures, which came more than a century after Bacon. And certainly, obtaining in the 20th century the skin of 60 or 70 calves sacrificed at the beginning of the 15th century to make the codex seems like a superhuman feat.

You are taking Voynich's word for this, and so much, to believe this. And not only are there anachronisms for Bacon's time, there are a great many from later times... even admitted by Yale, and listed in my NoFake page, which you read. I didn't say it, they said the foldouts were "highly unusual for the time". They were... along with many other things they noted. I listen to Yale, too...

Also, you are very wrong about the number of calves needed, first of all. It would have taken only 14 or 15, not "60 or 70" (I think, the estimates vary). But the number is irrelevant, in the sense you mean it... if you really think about what you wrote. In my scenario, which you are referring to, those calves were already dead for many hundreds of years, as you point out. So then, how is it "sacrificing" them if one were to turn them into a very expensive and interesting manuscript? Sold blank, they would have brought a few British pounds, at most. Rather than "sacrificing" them, he would have been turning them into the modern equivalent of millions of dollars. And, also, entertaining thousands for well over a hundred years and counting. I doubt we would all be having these colorful and interesting discussions over a blank pile of old dead calfskin. Their "sacrifice" was NOT in vain!

Anyway, thanks for the feedback, I do appreciate your taking the time. And remember to keep an open mind.

Rich

Just jumping in to say that I have been working on the question of the number of skins and have landed at only 10 or 11, so roughly in agreement with Rich. You have to use material evidence to establish how the bifolia were laid out and cut from the skin: 2, 4, or 8 per skin, on a grid. And that all depends on where the spinal cord can be seen. If it is in the gutter (that is, the fold of the bifolia), then there must have been only two bifolia per skin (that would be a very young or very small animal, and the poor quality of the parchment suggests an older, tougher animal). If there were four per skin, the spinal cord would be along the upper or lower edge. If eight, the spinal cord would be visible on the outer edges of the bifolia. The third option is the correct one - you can clearly see, for example, the spinal cord as a dark band along the outer edge of folio 4. At any rate, there were at one point 49 standard-sized bifolia (43 currently + six missing); so that's six skins with one left over for the seventh skin. Add another three or four for the nine foldouts, and that gets you to ten or eleven skins.

Like this (just a mockup example, not an actual reconstruction of which bifolia were cut from a single skin):

[attachment=12180]

This is an important question because it speaks to the resources of whomever created the manuscript. We have no way of knowing, of course, if the makers of the manuscript purchased processed skins or slaughtered their own animals to prepare the parchment. We also have no way of knowing if any bifolia were lost before the foliation was added. So all we can actually do is estimate the number of skins required for the manuscript in its current state.

(11-11-2025, 02:29 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Just jumping in to say that I have been working on the question of the number of skins and have landed at only 10 or 11, so roughly in agreement with Rich. You have to use material evidence to establish how the bifolia were laid out and cut from the skin: 2, 4, or 8 per skin, on a grid. And that all depends on where the spinal cord can be seen. If it is in the gutter (that is, the fold of the bifolia), then there must have been only two bifolia per skin (that would be a very young or very small animal, and the poor quality of the parchment suggests an older, tougher animal). If there were four per skin, the spinal cord would be along the upper or lower edge. If eight, the spinal cord would be visible on the outer edges of the bifolia. The third option is the correct one - you can clearly see, for example, the spinal cord as a dark band along the outer edge of folio 4. At any rate, there were at one point 49 standard-sized bifolia (43 currently + six missing); so that's six skins with one left over for the seventh skin. Add another three or four for the nine foldouts, and that gets you to ten or eleven skins.

Like this (just a mockup example, not an actual reconstruction of which bifolia were cut from a single skin):

This is an important question because it speaks to the resources of whomever created the manuscript. We have no way of knowing, of course, if the makers of the manuscript purchased processed skins or slaughtered their own animals to prepare the parchment. We also have no way of knowing if any bifolia were lost before the foliation was added. So all we can actually do is estimate the number of skins required for the manuscript in its current state.

That is really interesting, Lisa, thanks for that. It is a "keeper". I wasn't aware that the spinal cord marks were there to be seen and considered as additional clues to the layout of the skins, along with possible scar lines, etc..

Rich

(11-11-2025, 02:29 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.We also have no way of knowing if any bifolia were lost before the foliation was added.

That has always been a "known unknown".  Before it was bound, the VMS may have had any number of additional bifolios that went their own way and have not been found yet.  MS408 could be just the only surviving volume of a 50-volume encyclopedia...

Just reconstructing the layout of the current bifolios on the original hides is all we can hope for now, but it will be already a great advance.  If most of the bifolios of a quire can be traced to a small number of hides, it would suggest that the Author bought them from a small-scale maker.  But it is possible that the Author bough cheap second- or third-grade vellum pieces from a large-scale maker or trader that were downgraded due to defects or irregular edges.  In that case, we should expect almost one bifolio from each hide...

And, in the first case, if the final layout for a quire turns out out to require a few more hides than the minimum, it would suggest that there have been other bifolia, now missing.   

Makes sense?

All the best, --stolfi

I had mentioned the description of Voynich, by G. Orioli, to Antonio. Most here know of it, but for general interest... and again, not in relation to an forgeries, or not, on Voynich's part... but this is a snapshot into the man's character, which coincides with various other tidbits we know about the man. Of course Orioli got Voynich's religion incorrect, and also, it sounds somewhat bigoted on his part... but here it is:

"As to Voynich--he was a Polish Jew, a bent kind of creature and getting
on for sixty. I liked his shop in Shaftesbury Avenue; it was full of books
and well kept, and Voynich himself was most obliging to me. He gave me one
of his excellent catalogues to study, begging me to note the prices: 'Always
keep the price as high as possible, if you ever have a book to sell,' he
added. Then in a squeaky voice and in an accent which I even then recognized
as not being English he told me that he had bought a bookshop in Florence
called the 'Libreria Franceschini.'"

  "'I know that shop,' I said."

  "'Well, it is full of incunabula. Absolutely crammed with incunabula.'"

  "'Surely a bookshop ought to be full of books?'"

  "He laughed heartily at my ignorance, explained what incunabula were, and
went on in his enthusiastic fashion:"

  "'Millions of books, shelves and shelves of the greatest rarities in the
world. What I have discovered in Italy is altogether unbelievable! Just
listen to this. I once went to a convent and the monks showed me their
library. It was a mine of early printed books and codexes and illuminated
manuscripts. I nearly fainted--I assure you I nearly fainted on the spot.
But I managed to keep my head all the same, and told the monks they could
have a most interesting and valuable collection of modern theological works
to replace that dusty rubbish. I succeeded in persuading the Father
Superior, and in a month that whole library was in my hands, and I sent them
a cartload of modern trash in exchange. Now take my advice: drop your
present job and become a bookseller.'"


Of course Orioli DID become a bookseller, and a long time partner of Irving Davis. They ended up having a shop just a pleasant walk from Voynich's Libreria Franceshini.

But one (of many) takeaway from that quote is the fact that Voynich claimed the Libreria was, "'Well, it is full of incunabula. Absolutely crammed with incunabula.'"

And, except for this one quote by Orioli, and Zimmern's description of the place in her 1909 article, Voynich seems to have kept the value of the contents of the Libreria pretty much a secret. I wonder, in fact, if his amazing sale of about 150 books of rare, including some previously unknown, incunabula, to the British Library in 1902 (was it 1902? 1906?), may not have virtually ALL come from the Libreria.

I have long suspected that, long before Voynich bought the place, in 1908, he used it as a source of many of his great "finds". Ethel may have even put him onto it, as she spent much time in Florence, I think writing her Gadfly there... and she was in the circles of the revolutionary crowd there, and of course Franceshini held underground meeting in the Libreria. It is not so wild a guess that this is how they knew of the place, perhaps Wilfred was there, too, pre-bookseller days.

But that, like everything else, is educated speculation, hanging on the skeleton of the known activities and movements of both. At least, we know he knew of the Libreria, and bought it from Franceshini's son two years after the old man's death.

Yes, Voynich has a reputation for sniffing out rare and valuable books from all over Europe. And I've no doubt he was very good at it. I think he networked extensively*, and had people coming to him to let him know of potential deals. But with the mentions of the "Millions of books, shelves and shelves of the greatest rarities", and the number of incunabula he found there, I believe it probably that the Libreria accounted for a major part of his finds, and fame. Which fame, as I point out in my assembled timeline, had begun to peter off at the time Ethel's rose, and that balance between the two of them was only tipped back in his direction by the fortuitous "find" of the Voynich.

* We all do this, and know of this.. a phenom almost required before the internet. One case I can relate, personally, is knowing the author of a famous book on Carousel Horses. He was an authority on the subject, and his book a valued reference. His livingroom had several rare horses, antique and hand carved in it! So I called him from a shop in which I saw what appeared to be an important German horse, and he ended up buying it... for, I think, half of its market value ($3,000 springs to mind, but this was the 80's). He gave me a signed copy of his book.

Collectors and dealers relied heavily on networking, and Voynich was very good at it. We see it in his correspondence, and other descriptions of his life and activities. I believe it plausible that someone "tipped him off" to the mentions of the manuscript in the Carteggio (if it was a manuscript), maybe by Strickland, or through a resident Jesuit at the Villa Mondragone, the Torliona, or wherever it was stored.

Hello Rich

You have now painted a more sympathetic portrait of W. Voynich than the one you painted previously, where you depicted him as a heartless man. He seemed to be a good businessman in his field, and I suppose he had the same weaknesses as most of us. I don't rule out that he did some less-than-exemplary things, but who hasn't done them at some point?

 In any case, a man who suffered years in prison in Siberia for fighting for the freedom of his country deserves respect.

Rich, the idea that Voynich competed with his wife for fame sounds like something out of a novel. I see you have a knack for storytelling.

(11-11-2025, 07:34 PM)Antonio García Jiménez Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Hello Rich

You have now painted a more sympathetic portrait of W. Voynich than the one you painted previously, where you depicted him as a heartless man. He seemed to be a good businessman in his field, and I suppose he had the same weaknesses as most of us. I don't rule out that he did some less-than-exemplary things, but who hasn't done them at some point?

 In any case, a man who suffered years in prison in Siberia for fighting for the freedom of his country deserves respect.

Well you can disagree with my opinions, of course, but not the facts behind them. I only reported to you the facts of the matter... what he had done, and said, and his words as reported to Orioli, and so on. I didn't make these things up, nor do I leave anything out. My blog is rife with the factual evidence we have, about the man... of course Rene's site goes into further details. Based on all of this, though, you, Rene and I, and anyone else, is welcome to form their own opinions on the man. That is our right to do so.

But, for instance, Orioli said what he said, and in the context of the entire book... did you read it?... my opinion is that Orioli was not lying (although wrong about him being a Jew), he was trying to be accurate.

But you seem to actually agree, in that you then excuse his personality and actions because he spent time in prison. OK, that's fine... maybe prison hardened the man, I would consider that possible, too. And maybe his pre-prison life was a noble one, fighting injustices, and maybe I would agree, even, with some of his tactic which led him to prison in the first place (twice, I think). So really, you now seem to agree, somewhat, with my assessment, only you give him an allowance due to his previous hardships. That is a valid alternative take to mine, then. It is the old "nature/nurture" question.

Point being, I stand by my statement, my opinion, that his words and actions point to him being a liar, a scoundrel and somewhat unethical, for whatever reason he was that way, I don't entirely know. Maybe you are right. And I do respect much about the man... even in my case, in which I believe he was clever enough to pass off a pretty bad forgery, one which sustains its percieved authenticity down through generations. That is quite an admirable feat, so I do give him that.

Quote:Rich, the idea that Voynich competed with his wife for fame sounds like something out of a novel. I see you have a knack for storytelling.

Again, the basis for my opinion here is based on facts. I researched the life of Ethel in detail, as many of us here have. She was really an amazing woman, one who deserves far more recognition than she does. But back in the late 1800's through early 1900's, she had a certain fame and celebrity... as a humorist, bestselling novelist (the Gadfly was required reading in many Russian schools, and sold hundreds of thousands of copies there), translator. She was also a respected and accomplished composer!

Her father was the famous Boole, who died when she was only 11. Her mother was an artist and illustrator, and publisher. They both befriended the famous "Ace of Spies", Sidney Reilly (AKA Rosenblum), of the Darcy Affair... and the two of them traveled the Continent as "friends", leading to some rumors. You ought to read You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. I don't recommend the similarly titled book by Robin Bruce Lockhart... that one is full of errors.

I could go on. But the point remains that Voynich, for a long time in their relationship, had a reputation that, while admirable to some extent, paled by comparison to hers. Those are all facts... read the books, read the newspaper articles... he was in the background of her dazzling life, in at least one merely being inaccurately described as a "Polish Count". It was not until the announcement of the famous Roger Bacon Cipher Ms. that his name began to meet and even eclipse hers, until the name "Voynich" came to be associated WITH the ms, and no longer, Ethel.

Now, as I said, those are all facts. The opinion part only comes in with my assumption that this would have irked a man of his times, considering the differing views as to the expected and pervasive views of the roles of the sexes were at that time. I think the term "marital hegemony" applies here. I think that in order for you to think that assessment of mine is a "novelization" requires either ignoring the reality of their relative and unequal fame; and/or applying modern sensibilities of our views of gender relationships to a time that saw them very, very differently.

Anyway, you triggered a fun memory... I joked that Ethel, in being a friend and associate of Rosenblum, and Rosenblum being one of the influences for the character James Bond, and Ethel even using his life and backstory as an influence on her protagonist Arthur Burton in the Gadfly... I suggest that this made Ethel the first "Bond Girl". I hope that does not offend your sensibilities... it is a joke, and I don't think it undermines my great respect for the woman. In fact, there are those who theorize that it was Rosenblum who adopted her characters backstory, and not the other way around... I think everyone respected and admired her. I do, too. You ought to read all her books... they are really good, and hold up even today.

[attachment=12213]