+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: Theories & Solutions (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-58.html)
+--- Thread: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis (/thread-5008.html)
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - proto57 - 05-11-2025
(04-11-2025, 11:14 PM)davidma Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(04-11-2025, 10:51 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
But here is another problem with that... the overwhelming majority of experts, of all backgrounds, did not think this was penned in the 15th century... not until the results of the C14 came back did all the opinions begin to abandon those later theories, and begin to drift towards early 15th century. I've NO doubt that if that C14 dating happened to be different than it is, the opinions would drift to THAT date, too. And so on.
Why can I say that? How could I know that? Because I trust those experts. For instance, Charles Singer. Well I have heard so many excuses, post C14, as to why he wasn't the "right" expert, and that is why he "got it wrong". And all the others... I trust them. I even trust the two who hit the C14. I think they were all right. I think all the stuff they "saw" in there, is in there. And there is only one way that could have happened.
But in any case, in order to hold the position that, "Everything we know is explained quite well by the hypothesis the VMS was penned in the XVth century...", one has to ignore the great number of expert opinions, and evidence, that says it was not.
That's simply not true, take D'Imperio's Elegant Enigma, page 9: the overwhelming majority of experts placed it sometime between 1400 and 1550, consistent with the C14 dating.
Thank you, Dave, but those two lines are a simplification of the whole group of experts used. I also used D'Imperio to come up with my numbers, but I went through, page by page, looked at every one of them, and the actual, specific date ranges that each one theorized. Here is the graph I created in order to show where the ranges landed:
You can see that only Lehmann-Haupt, a book cataloger, was in the range of the C14 results (yellow band). There is a second, if you take in Panofsky's first impression, after he was with the Voynich for 2 hours. But he later changed his mind, and moved to the early 16th century. Rene knew of third, who I don't think is in D'Imperio... who hit the C14 dates in a letter, or in a meeting and was quoted, or something like that.
So I am unclear how they compiled the two lines you copied here, but it does not reflect all the experts mentioned in D'Imperio. And also, note that it does not make a breakdown for each range, as I have.
Anyway, it is actually very surprising how UNPOPULAR the date range was, before it was found that the calves died then. Then it became all the rage!
Here are my two blog posts on the subject, if you, or anyone is interested in this subject, in the order I wrote and posted them:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - proto57 - 05-11-2025
(05-11-2025, 12:13 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The "Voynich faked it" theory has evolved over time, and at present, in essence, it says [with some comments in square brackets]:
The Voynich MS was intended to represent a herbal written by Jacobus de Tepenec, around the year 1600.
[Sorry, who???? And someone used valuable old parchment to fake a document that would with certainty have been written on paper??]
Thank you for accurately stating what I actually do contend in my hypothesis. Here is the actual wording I use for the part you describe:
"I further propose that is was created first as a Jacob Horcicky botanical, which was meant to appear as though it was created in the Court of Rudolf II in the early 17th century, and as such was falsely “signed” by him." From: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
As for "Sorry, who????", I assume means "why?" would someone sign the name of an unknown onto this book. Well, we both know that a few years earlier the book "Follies of Science in the Court of Rudolf II", by Carrington Bolton was published, and became a best seller. It would be a good bet to "find" a book from that Court, one that reflected all the bizarre activities, sciences, experiments, astrology and astronomy, and more, that that book contained. Then, have it "signed" by the Court botanist and physician, as icing on the cake. And it accurately writes his title at the time intended, when the Court was in full swing:
"In 1607 he was named imperial chemist by Emperor Rudolf II. In return for curing the emperor of a grave disease, he was ennobled with the title "de Tepenec", presumably after the medieval Tepenec Castle (destroyed in 1391) near Olomouc."
... if a forger had signed it "Jacobus Sinapius or Jacobus Horcicky", the gig would have been up. Later, it would be a simple matter to "discover", through that inquiry to Prague, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..
I'm not sure the objection to using "valuable" parchment, instead of more appropriate paper for the time, use? I think that is splitting hairs... and plenty of parchment herbals exist from this time. It would not have raised any eyebrows, I don't think. But as for value (and of course you and I have been going back and forth about most of these issues for what... 15 years? But for new people, and Ninja people unfamiliar, it is worth it)... as for value, I believe the whole "quality valuable parchment" issue has long been discarded. Not only would it not be all that valuable, but 1) Voynich probably had piles of the stuff in his Libreria purchase, and 2) He wanted as much as the equivalent of over five million dollars today. What could he have sold that parchment for, if blank? A few pounds? I'd say that would be a pretty good return on his investment...
Quote:It was then changed, in order to make it more valuable, into an autograph by Roger Bacon, of the 13th century. To do this, some pages with incompatible material were removed.
[Though, inexplicably, the armadillo, acceptable for Tepenec but not Bacon, was overlooked].
Yes. Why leave the armadillo? I think that if every bit of such un-Bacon evidence had been removed, he would have ended up with a four page herbal pamphlet! I suppose the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. animal is an armadillo, while yes, it gives away the ruse... but maybe he left it there figuring it was obscure looking enough to pass. And if he did think that, the guy was pretty good at judging people... because it is still working to this day, with every excuse under the Sun to dismiss the poor animal:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Quote:Following is all my comment.
As a result of this erratic behaviour, the book cannot be distinguished, even using all modern forensic testing, from a late medieval manuscript, with parchment from the start of the 15th century, clothing from the early 15th century, a 15th century zodiac.
Well the problem with that assessment is that, in order to make these claims, all alternative evidence simply needs to be ignored, explained away under weak premises, and supportive opinions stated as fact rather than AS opinions. In just the case above, you have left out the forensic testing which showed anomalies and anachronisms in the materials, construction, and inks, and simply stated "cannot be distinguished from the start of the 15th century". And you have, again, dismissed the pre-C14 expert dating... and some post-C14 experts, too... who didn't and don't agree. You have needed to, in order to claim this, ignore the clothing and other evidence which does plausibly show later dating. And also, remember, any early iconography can be placed in a modern work, while obviously new content cannot be place on an old work. So the zodiac, if 15th century, does not support genuine, while the sunflower, armadillo, and many other plants, and some animals, and many other things, should not be in a 15th century document.
The whole 1420 Genuine European Cipher Herbal relies on omission to exist, not inclusion. My hypothesis needs to exclude nothing in order to exist.
Quote:So that's the hypothesis. In order to believe it, one has to:
1) find this acceptable
2) find the description of the Voynich MS in the Barschius letter not acceptable
Well I don't find your version of it acceptable, but of course I do like mine. And the Barshius letter (and the others, except that black sheep 1665/66 Marci letter), of course I find them acceptable... but I think for brevity you meant "acceptable provenance", and then, no, for the reasons I've given.
Quote:I see that as a judgment issue. (I'm not into biblical quotes but the one with the splinter comes to mind).
I am not all that familiar with the Bible, I'll have to look that one up. I do know the one about false idols, though.
Quote:Note also that the Barschius letter does not exist in a vacuum, but is part of a larger context.
Marci's book, published in 1662 and definitely genuine, mentions Barschius as his close friend, and Marci also writes that he had just inherited Barschius' library.
That's cool, and I did know that... thanks to you, probably. You have done amazing work on all these people, and it is much appreciated. I learned so much about Drebbel and the time of Shakespeare and Francis Bacon, back when I was exploring those eventual dead ends. But I don't regret the study of those people and times, even though they do not relate to the Voynich at all. That's a comfort.
Quote:A (definitely genuine) letter from Kinner to Kircher in early 1666 says that Marci had just sent an illegible book to Kircher, which he had asked to be translated. This shows that 'the Marci letter' should exist, and Barschius' book should have made its way to Kircher's library in the Roman Collegium Romanum. It is not just some book in Prague in 1639.
That sounds logical, and of course one might... and I have begun... to look into all known books which Kircher owned, to see if the Barschius Manuscript might be among them. As you know, the Voynich is not among them.
Quote:Demonstrations that something is a fake are actually quite interesting.
There are a few examples in literature.
These demonstrations are also very difficult, because any aspect that can be explained in a normal way (like all of the above) is not valid evidence for a fake.
Not sure exactly your point, so I can't really comment. Except I strongly recommend my own forgery bibliography... the history of forgery is really fascinating, and most of it is really not generally known. Here is a link to my "You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.". But here is an overall very interesting point, which is real "food for thought: When people tell me that there are only this or that many forgeries, of this or that sort, and therefore it is rare, they are missing the fact that any forgery they know about is one that was discovered. The undiscovered ones are not counted. They were good enough to NOT be discovered.
But read those books, and you will realize that it is possible to create perfect forgeries, and museums, collections and libraries must have many. Then there are the fairly poor forgeries, which could not and would not exist as real, but their faults are excused and ignored for many reasons unrelated to its physical self.
Quote:It is valid to wonder if the Voynich MS could be a fake.
One can also believe that the Voynich MS is a fake.
That's where we are.
Well sometimes definitions can confuse intent, and I was once criticized for saying I "believe" it is a fake, because the reader had seen this as a "religious-like" statement. But sure, I do believe it is a fake, in a hopefully scientific sense. But I also am willing to have my mind changed, even by you or the posters here, Rene. In fact it was vigorous debate on previous theories of mine which caused them to abandon them. But I have not yet had that happen so far, in this case.
Thank you for the interesting debate, Rene, as usual...
Rich
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - asteckley - 05-11-2025
(04-11-2025, 07:45 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Just to make sure that I understand correctly. When you say the entire pre-Wilfrid provenance depends on our correct assessment of the Baresch letter, you are implicitly also assuming that the Marci letter did not belong to the VM, correct? Otherwise I'd guess we would fall back to that for our earliest provenance (hence my confusion).
That is correct. I’ve previously mentioned why the connection between the Marci letter and the VMS is weak. Let me expand:
1. Timing of Wilfred’s mention
Wilfred did not mention (anywhere I can find) the Marci letter until nine full years after he claimed to have acquired the manuscript. In his own words (which are apparently the only evidence up until 1921 that the letter was collocated with the manuscript at all):
“It was not until some time after the manuscript came into my hands that I read the document bearing the date 1665 (or 1666), which was attached to the front cover. Because of its late date I had regarded it as of no consequence, and therefore neglected it during my first examination of the manuscript.”
He could be telling the truth, but frankly, it stretches credulity. It would mean:
- From his purchase of several items, he obtains the manuscript in 1912.
- This manuscript is obviously very unique—remarkably strange and very old—and he naturally takes a huge interest in it for its potential monetary value, if not historical value.
- “Attached” to the manuscript is a letter. Given his background (and the period) he could probably read Latin easily enough, but even if he couldn’t, he could easily see and understand the signature and the date.
- He thinks (certainly after at least some period of thought—it wouldn’t be an immediate knee-jerk conclusion) that the manuscript is possibly over 500 years old. But meanwhile he can see that the letter—again, “attached” to the manuscript—is nearly 250 years old.
- Yet he wants his audience to believe that, for many years, it didn’t occur to him to even ask, “Gosh, I wonder if this letter might say something useful about where this mysterious manuscript came from?”
2. What did he mean by “attached”?
Obviously, it wasn’t stapled. And it doesn’t sound like the word one would use if the letter were simply slipped between the pages (or the cover) of the manuscript. The letter has wax residue on it. But as Lisa confirmed recently, those residues don’t line up with any markings found on the front cover of the manuscript where he says it was attached. (In fact, I don’t even see any candidate markings on the front cover in the digital images, but maybe Lisa could see something of that nature on the actual manuscript. In any case, they don’t line up with the letter’s wax markings.) There are no holes in the letter through which a string might have been used to tie it to the manuscript—and that would be a very strange way to try to attach the two anyway. So it seems, for some reason, Wilfred was not describing things accurately in some way.
3. Even if the letter was “with” the manuscript...
If, nevertheless, the letter was indeed “with” the manuscript (which I would say was more likely simply folded and placed between the front cover and the first page, and probably not physically attached as Wilfred claimed), then there is the question of how likely it was placed there at the time of Marci/Kircher—and not by error at some much later time. There were 250 years (246 to be precise) during which the letter and the manuscript were in various hands and locations—possibly together (as the conventional theory supposes) or possibly separately. All it takes is for the two items to cross paths and be together in the same location and in the same custodial hands at some point during that quarter of a millennium. Suppose you are one of probably dozens of people who happened to have some responsibility—perhaps for no longer than a day or two—for the care, storage, inventorying, or transport of the documents, and you notice the Marci letter and the manuscript. How natural would it be to think, “Oh, this letter must be referring to this manuscript… let’s put them together so they don’t get separated again”? Is that a speculative scenario? Yes, of course. But it is so natural and plausible that one cannot rely on it being wrong in order to be certain that the letter and the manuscript were always in proximity to each other and that the one necessarily referred to the other. (And that plausibility is increased given the above points #1 and #2.)
Considering the other side of the argument (from how the letter came to be “with” the VMS if it did not refer to it): there is the question of how the letter came to be "separated" from the hypothetical other manuscript to which it truly did refer. That, too, might fall under the custodial-error scenario I just described. But as I write this, something occurs to me. There is in my library (to echo Baresh’s words to Kircher) a facsimile of the Voynich Manuscript. I obtained it just a month or two ago along with a facsimile of the Marci letter—they came to me together. Yet the letter and the manuscript are currently located in two different rooms of my home. This is because, as I wanted to peruse the manuscript, the letter was kind of in my way. So I set it aside. (And given my habits of piling up research material, it is plausible that the two may never get re-united.) So if it is that easy and explainable as to how two items could become separated within two months of being within a single home, I guess it is not surprising if two such documents could become separated during the course of 250 years.
So—returning to the main point—it is hard to argue (though I know you will) that the Marci letter, with its opening words of “This book,” was necessarily talking about the Voynich Manuscript. It would help, of course, if the Marci letter included further identifying description—even to the degree of the Baresch letter—but that isn’t really needed. I think it would go a long way if we could simply identify that it was in fact “attached” to the manuscript (as Wilfred claimed) at the time he obtained it in 1912. That could still mean it was attached erroneously some time earlier, but at least it would bolster the assumption that it is connected to the Voynich Manuscript.
By the way, regarding the lack of wax markings on the manuscript: it doesn’t take a long time (months, maybe years, but not decades or centuries) for wax seals to leave a mark on parchment when it is in constant contact with it. Yet, although there seem to be transfers of wax residue or grease from one location on the Marci letter to another due to its folds and storage, there is as I said no transfer from the letter to the manuscript. Why not?
And, to be clear once again—I am not trying to make the case that any of the above alternate history scenarios are true. Only that, after uncritically repeating certain claims over and over, we tend to start accepting them—and whole scenarios that depend on them being true —as if they are more factual than the evidence actually indicates.
I look at the scenarios above in this spirit: If, tomorrow, the Voynich Manuscript were discovered to be a fake after all, would we look at these scenarios and say, “That’s still not plausible”? Or would we say, “Oh, crap—of course that makes sense. Why did I ever think otherwise?”
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - Battler - 05-11-2025
(04-11-2025, 09:37 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(04-11-2025, 06:27 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Given that you don't accept the text in the Barschius letter to be an adequate description of the Voynich MS, finding one that does fit seems like an impossible task.
Well, there are a few other seemingly encrypted manuscripts that, at the time, were known but not deciphered. Like the Tables of Soyga. The Rohonc codex even had mysterious illustrations.
And those are famous because of their material history, not so much because of themselves. So I bet that there are quite a few more "mysterious undeciphered manuscripts with unidentified plant and astronomical drawings" that have escaped public attention, because thy lack an interesting history, and are just sitting on obscure shelves.
All the best, --stolfi
To be fair, there could easily be a manuscript that was unintelligible to Baresch, Marci, and possibly even Kircher, but that is intelligble to us now because it's in a language and/or writing system that has since been deciphered, or even in something that we now know is quite mudane, but was completely unknown to them. For example, imagine if they owned a Korean manuscript entirely written in hangul (which certainly existed in the 17th century), it would have been illegible and mysterious to any of them but perfectly legible and mudane to a modern audience. Or, for something geographically closer and more likely to have ended up in Europe - some Persian herbal written in the pahlavi script. In fact, from what we see from their correspondence - even something as mundane as glagolitic would have been bafflingto Baresch and Marci and that was still in active use in what is now Croatia at that time. So what Baresch talked about, could be some manuscript that's completely mundane and nondescript to us but would have been mysterious to them.
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - proto57 - 05-11-2025
(05-11-2025, 05:15 AM)Battler Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.To be fair, there could easily be a manuscript that was unintelligible to Baresch, Marci, and possibly even Kircher, but that is intelligble to us now because it's in a language and/or writing system that has since been deciphered, or even in something that we now know is quite mudane, but was completely unknown to them. For example, imagine if they owned a Korean manuscript entirely written in hangul (which certainly existed in the 17th century), it would have been illegible and mysterious to any of them but perfectly legible and mudane to a modern audience. Or, for something geographically closer and more likely to have ended up in Europe - some Persian herbal written in the pahlavi script. In fact, from what we see from their corresponse - even something as mundane as glagolitic would have been bafflingto Baresch and Marci and that was still in active use in what is now Croatia at that time. So what Baresch talked about, could be some manuscript that's completely mundane and nondescript to us but would have been mysterious to them.
I agree, Battler, and I tried to make the same point in this post: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
The point I was making (in an especially clumsy way... I had trouble articulating my thought) is exactly what occurred to you. As I wrote,
"... the difference between what scholars knew, or would have known, in the 17th century, compared to what they knew by 1912. The two are obviously vastly different, I think everyone would agree. A majority of what was considered “mysterious” and “unknown” in previous ages was, by the turn of the 20th century no longer a mystery."
So the claim that, of all the scripts unknown to the men of the letters, Voynich just happened to find one of the very few that would STILL be unknown in 1912? I know you are not directly saying this, not using it this way, and that you are only pointing out that the Baresch Manuscript, if not the Voynich, could simply be something which has not been unknown for centuries, like your chose of Hangul, or Pahlavi.
But I also see this situation implying that, to fulfill the "need" to match the description of "unknown", a 1910 forgery would have to make one up... because there were none, anymore. And if not, and the Voynich is real, what are the odds that the Ms. he found just happened to be, still unknown?
Rich
Rich
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - Jorge_Stolfi - 05-11-2025
(04-11-2025, 11:30 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The argument is now, that book 'B' is a modern fake created by Voynich
That is Rich's theory, which I find extremely unlikely too.
My alternative proposal is that Voynich somehow got hold of Marci's letter to Kircher (or maybe just a copy that Marci kept for himself?). The mention in it of a "Bacon" book which would be worth millions prompted Voynich to search Kircher's carteggio for it (personally, or through some friendly Jesuit). He did not found book A, but instead found Baresch's letter. Or he found book A too, but it was obviously not a Bacon original and would not be worth a case of Pilsen.
But by luck he managed to find somewhere else an old book B that roughly fitted Baresch's description (although it had some additional notable things that were not specified in the letter), and thought he could pass it for book A. The date of B could not be determined at the time, but it could have been written in the late 1200s. So he attached Marci's letter to B. Perhaps B had been owned by Jacobus and has his signature, or perhaps Voynich just forged the signature, to provide a barely plausible explanation for how the book could have gone form Rudolf's library to Baresch.
As I said, I don't find this version likely either. But is there significant evidence against it?
One bit of evidence for it is the lack of any evidence that the VMS had ever been owned by Rudolf, and the unlikelihood of a manuscript that Rudolf paid "600 ducats" for having ended up on Baresh's shelf. And the fact that neither Marci nor Baresh mention Jacobus as the previous owner, in spite of his signature being still visible on f1r; and that Baresh did not mention Bacon to either Kircher or Marci.
The "Modern Fake" theory would have a big impact on our studies, because it would make it very likely that the text is meaningless gibberish generated with the benefit of modern statistics and linguistics. But the alternative above would not make much difference for us. It would only remove some of the late historical attributes that made the VMS famous. Instead of "a bizarre and undeciphered manuscript from the 1400s that Rudolf once bought for a fortune mistakenly thinking it was Bacon's", it would be just "a bizarre and undeciphered manuscript from the 1400s", period...
By the way, another distinct but vaguely similar theory is that book A got lost after Kircher received it, and the unrelated book B somehow ended up in the Collegio Romano's library, and some Jesuit found Marci's letter and assumed it referred to book B, and he attached it to the book. Again, this theory would not impact our studies. (Reminds me of the old theory that Shakespeare's plays could not have been written by such an obscure commoner, so they must have been written by another obscure commoner with the same name...)
All the best, --stolfi
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - Jorge_Stolfi - 05-11-2025
(05-11-2025, 01:57 AM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.So if it is that easy and explainable as to how two items could become separated within two months of being within a single home
Indeed I would think that, when Kircher received the book (A or B, or whatever) from Marci, he filed the letter together with all other letters, and put the book on a shelf among with all his other books. Leaving letters attached to books and other physical objects he received would have been an extremely disorganized way to manage his collection. No?
All the best, --stolfi
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - proto57 - 05-11-2025
(05-11-2025, 07:43 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(04-11-2025, 11:30 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The argument is now, that book 'B' is a modern fake created by Voynich
That is Rich's theory, which I find extremely unlikely too.
My alternative proposal is that Voynich somehow got hold of Marci's letter to Kircher (or maybe just a copy that Marci kept for himself?). The mention in it of a "Bacon" book which would be worth millions prompted Voynich to search Kircher's carteggio for it (personally, or through some friendly Jesuit). He did not found book A, but instead found Baresch's letter. Or he found book A too, but it was obviously not a Bacon original and would not be worth a case of Pilsen.
But by luck he managed to find somewhere else an old book B that roughly fitted Baresch's description (although it had some additional notable things that were not specified in the letter), and thought he could pass it for book A. The date of B could not be determined at the time, but it could have been written in the late 1200s. So he attached Marci's letter to B. Perhaps B had been owned by Jacobus and has his signature, or perhaps Voynich just forged the signature, to provide a barely plausible explanation for how the book could have gone form Rudolf's library to Baresch.
As I said, I don't find this version likely either. But is there significant evidence against it?
One bit of evidence for it is the lack of any evidence that the VMS had ever been owned by Rudolf, and the unlikelihood of a manuscript that Rudolf paid "600 ducats" for having ended up on Baresh's shelf. And the fact that neither Marci nor Baresh mention Jacobus as the previous owner, in spite of his signature being still visible on f1r; and that Baresh did not mention Bacon to either Kircher or Marci.
The "Modern Fake" theory would have a big impact on our studies, because it would make it very likely that the text is meaningless gibberish generated with the benefit of modern statistics and linguistics. But the alternative above would not make much difference for us. It would only remove some of the late historical attributes that made the VMS famous. Instead of "a bizarre and undeciphered manuscript from the 1400s that Rudolf once bought for a fortune mistakenly thinking it was Bacon's", it would be just "a bizarre and undeciphered manuscript from the 1400s", period...
By the way, another distinct but vaguely similar theory is that book A got lost after Kircher received it, and the unrelated book B somehow ended up in the Collegio Romano's library, and some Jesuit found Marci's letter and assumed it referred to book B, and he attached it to the book. Again, this theory would not impact our studies. (Reminds me of the old theory that Shakespeare's plays could not have been written by such an obscure commoner, so they must have been written by another obscure commoner with the same name...)
All the best, --stolfi
I've heard and thought about similar lines of reasoning to yours, Jorge... and accept that, if the Voynich is genuine, it is another possible way to explain the problems with the Carteggio descriptions, and why they are probably of and for another "book A".
And if this possibility were at least better known, and open for discussion... as it is, here... as a serious alternative, it would then free up the Voynich, again, to be discussed under a far wider set of plausible origins, meanings, and so on. The way it is now, with most people accepting that the Baresch, Marci, Kinner and Kircher references all mean the Voynich, they are locked into a very ridged set of possibles for it. If it is something else, from some other time, this will end up stalling the investigation.
But about this, "The "Modern Fake" theory would have a big impact on our studies, because it would make it very likely that the text is meaningless gibberish generated with the benefit of modern statistics and linguistics."
Remember that the vast majority of forgeries do have meaning, so I'm not sure it makes gibberish, in the forgery case, the most likely outcome. And secondly, from various studies it seems that "off the cuff" human generated gibberish, written and spoken, may reflect the structure of the creator's native language... I mean, if I understood you correctly, I am not sure that creator/writer, if writing nonsense, would have to know about, or care one whit for modern statistics and linguistics to produce Voynichese with some hints of underlying meaning or language traces as has been sometimes claimed.
But in any case, I do agree that even if the Voynich is something genuine, and from some time after 1404, that it would be a good idea to keep in mind it may have nothing to do with Baresch, nor any of the vast corpus of information attached to him. It would be very helpful to open this up a bit, so other possibilities than 1420/Baresch/Marci/Kinner/Kircher can be properly investigated.
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - R. Sale - 05-11-2025
In Post #110, @ReneZ said about the VMs: "As a result of this erratic behaviour, the book cannot be distinguished, even using all modern forensic testing, from a late medieval manuscript, with parchment from the start of the 15th century, clothing from the early 15th century, a 15th century zodiac."
Those are not the only the only examples. The so-called "Oresme"-type cosmos is dated c. 1410 in BNF Fr. 565. There is also better evidence of time and place. The C-14 dating helped to focus historical research and some of those investigations have produced results.
Clothing: sleeves: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
And as far as the ridiculous armadillo splashing in a puddle...
@Proto57 said in Post #112: "Yes. Why leave the armadillo? I think that if every bit of such un-Bacon evidence had been removed, he would have ended up with a four page herbal pamphlet!"
Even the Agnus Dei in the Apocalypse of S Jean of 1313 [BNF Fr. 13096] is anachronist to Roger Bacon (d. 1292).
So, what's with all the anachronisms? Is WMV thumbing his nose as if he can fly? Does he even know what is there on the pages? A historical reference to the mid 13th C., presented in VMs White Aries, was never recognized. If WMV was involved in VMs creation, how was he so knowledgeable and audacious and so uninformed at the same time?
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - Mauro - 05-11-2025
(05-11-2025, 12:22 AM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You can see that only Lehmann-Haupt, a book cataloger, was in the range of the C14 results (yellow band).
Actually, the graph shows 11 experts out of 15 are in the range of the C14 results (it's just needed their estimates overlap the yellow band). I was wrong.