+- 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 - 04-01-2026
(04-01-2026, 10:37 AM)Legit Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This forgery theory is not so subtly shifting the burden of proof.
Well I think the "burden of proof" should equally be on everyone, since no one has proved anything, not for 1420 Genuine, not my theory nor any others. We all have varying opinions as to the value of our presented evidence, and the number of good examples, that is of course what we discuss and argue. But I for on heartily reject the idea that 1420 Genuine is somehow the "baseline understanding", or however it has been worded... that we should assume for some reason that is the correct answer, and anyone who has alternate ideas needs some especial evidence if they deign to challenge it. The expression used here has been "Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence".
Well I don't believe that Modern Forgery is an "extraordinary claim" to begin with... bad forgeries (of which I believe this is one), and even good forgeries, are very, very common. And most of them are far better than this one, being far more cohesive and less problematic.
So, to be fair on my part, and as I always have, I think the baseline should be "We do not know what the Voynich is; when it was made after the C14, by whom, or where, or why, nor what it may contain, up and to about 1911". How it ended up becoming popularly accepted as a real thing is, I believe, a progression of early, poor standards which have been accepted far beyond their time; a hope and belief in it being real due to emotional attachment and enjoyment in "the mystery", and the ensuing human ability to put aside distasteful, painful things; an institutional, protective mindset which wrongly attaches the value of collections to the value of that institution; a mistaken notion that the reputation of the object reflects on the reputation of the defenders of it, and many more. You may be new here, IDK, but I recommend reading, if you have not, Thomas Kuhn's You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. which (with almost embarrassing, predictive precision) describes the "structure" of the whole history of Voynich research- us characters, the arguments on all sides, the institution which holds the manuscript, the man who "found" it, everything.
Kuhn describes how science is not a linear progression of discovery and experiment, but rather a progression of paradigms which are formed based on current knowledge. These paradigms are then challenged, and they defend themselves with both proper and improper methods of reasoning, they strive to survive. The challengers are sometimes successful in destroying the paradigm, and a "new paradigm" is then formed. Or, the challengers and challenges fail, and the paradigm continues, roughly unaltered.
Reading this book years ago was very cathartic to me, and explained so much that I didn't understand. I would think "why?" are so many people angry at me? Why do they ignore this evidence, or that? Why do they ignore so many problems and anomalies, and seem content that they remain unanswered? Why do they choose bad evidence over good? And so on. But it all made sense in the structure outlined by Kuhn. The "1420 Genuine European Cipher Theory" IS the concurrent Paradigm, and this is why the people here on the Ninjas believe the Voynich should be treated as a known, genuine, 1420 entity, because they believe in that paradigm, and defend it. The alternative would be to defend and explain each problem dispassionately, on a one-on-one individual basis, but that is not how paradigms are created nor defended.
Quote:To claim a forgery in 1910 (so recent!) please explain how the vellum which would be blank and centuries old could be written on and then weathered and show such distress and use without destroying it.
Two things I would recommend on answering you: You search my blog for associated topics, in which I do explain these things: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
And read as many of the books on my forgery bibliography as you can: "You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.". By doing both you will learn... not opinions, but facts... about how blank materials of all kinds are and have been historically used by forgers throughout history, and how they age them... through physical manipulation, substances, methods like wormholes, and so much more. You will see that there is nothing about the Voynich nor its "weathered" vellum that would fall outside of a forger's usual known practices and abilities (as is often incorrectly claimed is the case).
Quote:You must also explain the required resources needed for this forgery and the strange counter motive choices made.
He would need a master callirapher, but then choose an artist with Picasso levels of creativity and instruct them to illustrate like a gradeshcooler.
Why would he leave out all references to popular esoteric knowlede?
Seriously, the level of genius and stupidity required not to add a single hieroglygh precludes any possibility of this being a forgery from 1910.
Well I do believe I have explained... or, more properly, given my opinion, with my evidence... the things you mention in that paragraph, in my blog. The brief You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. But specifically to your above points, if I "must" explain,
1) I believe the "resources needed" came from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., a vast repository of over 500,000 items, from scrap to treasures.
2) I do not think it would take all that great an ability at calligraphy to recreate the Voynich characters, or, for that matter, better ones, as I and others have done experiments in trying to do so, and seen many manage it- and anyway, in 1910, most educated people were well versed in using pens and quills. Virtually everyone wrote with them! It was part of every child's schooling, and from a young age.
3) Yes the illustrations are bad, I agree, many agree, but I would ask "Why is that a sign of genuine"? In any case, I think the abilities and style of the Voynich illustrations, while bad, do fit the look and methods of Voynich's pretty darned well:
4) "Why would he leave out all references to popular esoteric knowlede?" Not sure what you mean here? First of all, I and others do see possible references to many fields of "esoteric knowledge", such as Astrology, astronomy, magic wheels, possible tincture baths and cures, and much more. Very little abjectly drawn alchemical imagery, but some, perhaps. And so much more, whether you consider the Voynich genuine or not. But maybe I misunderstood you?
5) "Seriously, the level of genius and stupidity required not to add a single hieroglygh precludes any possibility of this being a forgery from 1910." I admit you've stumped me with this one, and maybe it is because I (again?) misunderstood, sorry. But first of all, "Why?" WOULD a forger, in 1910, choose to include hieroglyphics a book which was intended to look 15th or 17th century, and possibly as an herbal or medicinal? Or maybe you don't mean "Egyptian hieroglyphs"? But on the contrary, I think it would have been a very poor choice to include them, in this case, if that is what you meant.
Rich
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - proto57 - 04-01-2026
(04-01-2026, 11:13 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(04-01-2026, 10:37 AM)Legit Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You must also explain the required resources needed for this forgery and the strange counter motive choices made. He would need a master callirapher, but then choose an artist with Picasso levels of creativity and instruct them to illustrate like a gradeshcooler.
I do not think that the Modern Forgery theory is likely, for various reasons. However, skillfully forged medieval manuscripts are a thing.
These are some examples, cited by Google:
Famous Modern Forgeries
- The Spanish Forger (active c. 1900): One of the most successful forgers in history, this anonymous artist created over 200 "medieval" miniatures. He typically painted on genuine 15th or 16th-century parchment from which he had scraped original text. His works were eventually unmasked using neutron activation analysis and Raman microscopy, which revealed modern synthetic pigments like Paris Green and chrome yellow.
- The Vinland Map: Acquired by Yale in the 1960s as a 15th-century map depicting Viking settlements in North America, it was definitively proven in 2021 to be a 20th-century forgery. Scientific analysis identified that the map was drawn with inks containing titanium, which only became available in the 1920s.
- Constantine Simonides (1820–1867): A prolific Greek calligrapher who forged numerous "ancient" documents, including Greek papyrus rolls and Byzantine imperial decrees. [...]
- The Czech Manuscripts: The "Queen's Court" and "Green Mountain" manuscripts, "discovered" in 1817 and 1818, were forgeries intended to bolster Czech national mythology. They were accepted as authentic for nearly 70 years before being debunked.
All the best, --stolfi
Those are good examples, Jorge, I think. And there are a great many lesser known examples of forgeries meant to reflect all eras, all materials, in art, literature, history, which are and have been quite impressive. As I recommended above, one can read more about the history of forgery, and hundreds of fascinating examples in my "Forgery Bibliography": You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
As for The Spanish Forger, it is interesting and telling to me that many of "his" or "their" forgeries, while known to BE fakes, are still not identified as such! for instance the "Columbus Miniature" at the British Library: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. Until well after it was disclosed as being a forgery, they still described it as genuine.
Top, forged map on the back of the "Columbus Miniature", by the Spanish Forger or other; Bottom, the forged Vinland Map.
Since the Morgan put out their book on the Spanish Forger (in the 1970's), the true forger of that miniature was shifted to an "unknown forger". And I just checked and see that the British Library seems to have taken down the page on it... maybe this is (finally) why? Point being, many forgeries still sit in institutional repositories, totally "busted", yet the institutions are highly reluctant to admit it. Such of course was the Vinland Map, which you reference... that dog was defended for decades, ad nauseum, until Yale FINALLY accepted the sorry truth of it (by the way, the "authenticity" of the Vinland Map has been used, in this very forum, as an argument against my own ideas, i.e. (paraphrasing), "The Vinland Map was suspected, but obviously genuine, and the same is the case for the Voynich". Likewise, Benedek Lange, author of a popular book on the Rohenc, told me to my face (before we went on in the same set at the NSA Conference) that (paraphrasing again), "The Rohenc has been suspected, like the Voynich, but it is genuine, so suspected items can be real". Well I strongly disagree with Benedek, and agree with many who argue that is a fake, too. And so on...
TLDR: Yes, I agree that there are a great many very good forgeries, created in all medium, in all times, for all purposes.
All the best, Rich
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - oshfdk - 04-01-2026
(04-01-2026, 10:37 AM)Legit Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.He would need a master callirapher, but then choose an artist with Picasso levels of creativity and instruct them to illustrate like a gradeshcooler.
This part I find no strange at all. For example, if I wanted to forge a medieval manuscript and sell it for $1,200,000 in today's money (as far as I understand, that was roughly the amount Voynich aimed for) the first thing I will have to make sure is that the number of people involved in the project directly or indirectly was as small as possible. I won't "choose an artist" and then risk this artist spilling the beans, I would probably have to resort to making the drawings myself or using some accomplice very close to me. Actually, the final result would look not very much unlike the Voynich Manuscript, I can write reasonably well, but my drawing skills are very poor.
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - Rafal - 04-01-2026
Quote:"The Rohenc has been suspected, like the Voynich, but it is genuine, so suspected items can be real". Well I strongly disagree with Benedek, and agree with many who argue that is a fake, too. And so on...
Out of curiosity, why do you believe that the Rohonc Codex is fake and what do you mean by fake?
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - proto57 - 04-01-2026
(04-01-2026, 08:49 PM)Rafal Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Quote:"The Rohenc has been suspected, like the Voynich, but it is genuine, so suspected items can be real". Well I strongly disagree with Benedek, and agree with many who argue that is a fake, too. And so on...
Out of curiosity, why do you believe that the Rohonc Codex is fake and what do you mean by fake?
Hi Rafal: First of all, my opinions about the Rohonc are not based on nearly as deep a dive as I've made on the Voynich, nor the Vinland map either, for that matter. But yes I think is a fake/forgery/hoax... that is, not a genuine manuscript, but something fake meant to look like one.
My reasons are the general look of it, first of all. It just looks fake to me. Now you or anyone are welcome to dismiss that as unscientific, and baseless in and of itself, and I'm fine with that. But like many here, I've looked at literally thousands of manuscripts, and parts of manuscripts, and this is one of those that stands out as inauthentic. There are other crude illustrations in other works, of course... but true inability is hard to fake. People think it is easy to fake simplicity and innocence and artlessness... I think it is harder to do than to illustrate to one's own skill level. Yes, again, that is only an intuitive sense in the case of the Ronhonc, one which I have no doubt I could not explain to your satisfaction, and I would also understand that. But, you asked, and that is one of the reasons...
So I looked into the book to some extent over the years, and lo and behold I am far from alone. I found the information which Wikipedia outlines as,
Quote:In 1866, Hungarian historian Károly Szabó (1824–1890) proposed that the codex was a hoax by Sámuel Literáti Nemes (1796–1842), a Transylvanian-Hungarian antiquarian, and co-founder of the National Széchényi Library in Budapest. Nemes is known to have created many historical forgeries (mostly made in the 1830s) which deceived even some of the most renowned Hungarian scholars of the time. Since then, this opinion of forgery has been maintained by mainstream Hungarian scholarship, even though there is no evidence connecting the codex to Nemes specifically.
Looking at the known and suspected forgeries by Nemes, and the arguments pro and con for forgery- and I'm sure you know them all- I feel that my first suspicions were probably correct. I agree with many, this is most likely a fake. Ironically, the aforementioned Benedek Láng, who assured me that the Rohonc codex is certainly genuine, also wrote an article about Sámuel Literáti Nemes, and lists his known forgeries. Chapter Seven, page 129 of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. In his article, "The Forgeries of Sámuel Literáti Nemes", Benedek gives pro and con arguments for the Ronhonc also being a forged work by Nemes. And, in reading that, I think the pro-forgery outweighs the genuine arguments. With respect to Benedek, I do not agree with his reasoning... I still think it a fake. You have most certainly read the article, yourself, but for anyone interested in this debate, there it be, linked above.
Also, one of my reasons is the language... I clicked on your account, by the way, because I thought you might be a friend of mine, but see you are not (well not him, not that I wouldn't like to be your friend!), and also see you have suggested translations of the text of the Ronhonc. And I only had a short time to look at your work, so I don't have any idea whether or not I would find it convincing.
But here is the thing: My thinking the Rohonc most likely a fake would have zero bearing or affect of any kind on the validity of yours, or anyone's, translation of the work. This is because most forgeries... the overwhelming number of them.. while fake, still have meaning.
But, of course the opposite is rarely true: Most meaningless documents are actually fakes. And not yours, but I have seen several proposals for translations of the Rohonc, and found them totally unconvincing. I think probably contains some bits and pieces of meaningful material, but is mostly gibberish. Again, from seeing the attempts, and the given results... never fully convincing to me. So, in short, the fact I have not yet seen a translation adds to my belief this is a fake manuscript; and even if it has meaning, it can still be a fake manuscript. Like the Voynich.
And, the provenance... or, lack thereof. Wikipedia again,
Quote:The origin of the codex is unknown. A possible trace of its past may be an entry in the 1743 catalogue of the Batthyánys' Rohonc library, which reads "Magyar imádságok, volumen I in 12" ("Hungarian prayers in one volume, size duodecimo"). Both the size and the assumed content of the volume described fit the codex, but no further information is given in the catalogue, rendering an exact match to the codex impossible.
I've been chastised in the past for suggesting that lack of provenance matters, being told it does not. Yes, for some crazy reason everyone is always desparit to find it! I'm being facetious... of course it matters, especially when you can't find any with a very questionable work like the Ronhonc. It is one of the pillars of authenticity, and if the others do not exist, more weight bears on the remaining, provenance column. And the Rohonc has none. Yes, that reference above is sort of kind of a hopeful one, but not convincing to me at all. It smacks of the 1903 and Wildmann references, claimed to be "of the Voynich", which, by their stark weakness, actually emphasize the abject lack of any convincing Vms provenance, and even, the given provenance working against those items being of the Voynich at all... no, I think it matters for both works, and adds to my belief both are fakes.
What else? I think there is more, but I'll stop there, as those reasons alone have led me to believe the Rohonc Codex is one of those old forgeries/fakes/hoaxes that were often convincing in the past, while actually not being even all that convincing in its own time.
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - ReneZ - 05-01-2026
(04-01-2026, 05:53 AM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But Rene, isn't it your contention that some "scribe" of unknown identity wrote the 1665/66 letter for Marci?
This is actually an easily verifiable fact. I think I already pointed to it before, but just for completeness:
This is Marci's own handwriting, which he used in his first 30+ letters, now in Kircher's correspondence:
This is the handwriting of the letter now in the Beinecke:
This is the handwriting of Marci's last letter, again in Kircher's correspondence:
Not only are the last two clearly different from Marci's handwriting, they are also the same hand.
This alone is sufficient to demonstrate that the Beinecke letter is genuine.
Since Marci dictated the letter, it would still be his Latin. Philip Neal commented that it was a bit cumbersome, but because it was also grammatical, he could translate it correctly. The point was to figure out whose statement it was that the MS was believed to be from Bacon.
Anyway, this question about the 'difficult' Latin is so subjective that it cannot play any role at all, either way.
Just like the different watermarks, which means nothing, or the multiple folds, which rather point to a long history than to a forgery.
The handwriting tells us all we need. If one really wants to believe that this is a forgery, then one automatically has to believe
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
.
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - Jorge_Stolfi - 05-01-2026
(05-01-2026, 05:50 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The handwriting tells us all we need. If one really wants to believe that this is a forgery, then one automatically has to believe You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..
Rene, I am wholly satisfied that Marci's letter is genuine and that the VMS is a book from the 1400s, not a modern forgery. But what is it that you find "incredible" in that blogpost? That Voynich and/or Strickland may have seen the letters from Marci and Barschius in Kircher's Carteggio, before the sale of the books?
All the best, --stolfi
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - Rafal - 05-01-2026
Quote:as those reasons alone have led me to believe the Rohonc Codex is one of those old forgeries/fakes/hoaxes that were often convincing in the past, while actually not being even all that convincing in its own time.
Everyone forgive me for bringing the Rohonc Codex here but there are actually several similarities to Voynich Manuscript.
So I indeed made my solution of Rohonc Codex using results of Kiraly and Tokai. You can check it here: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
I am 100% sure that the text there is meaningful. As for its date of creation I don't have such a strong opinion and generally don't have a horse in that race but I believe it's rather authentic.
There are actually 2 issues both with Rohonc and Voynich:
a) is the text meaningful or gibberish?
b) was it created in the 1400s (Voynich) and 1500s (Rohonc) or quite recently, shortly before its "discovery"
I believe these issues are independent and I hope that you would agree. Because actually many people made a mistake and saw them dependent.
Both Voynich and Rohonc raised a lot of enthusiasm when discovered and nobody initially considered them a fake. Several people tried to read them and failed. The initial theories failed - Voynich being a manuscript by Roger Bacon and Rohonc being some Hungarian nationalistic thing written in a form of Hungarian runes ( You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. )
So people started claiming they are fake - we cannot read them, they don't make sense, they are not the thing we expected them to be so they must be fake.
I would say it's a logical error.
The theory that Rohonc is fake and created by Sámuel Literáti Nemes in an old 19th century theory that nobody really questioned later. The guys who accepted it generally weren't the sharpest pencils in the box. For example they claimed that the script cannot make sense as it has over 800 unique symbols and nobody would be able to remember and use that much fluently. Somebody should really gift them a book in Chinese
But as we said, having sense doesn't mean that something is genuine and vice versa. For example I am closest to opinion that VM is gibberish but is authentic. So it may be a called fake but you must add it's a medieval fake
Both Rohonc and Voynich have some similarities in their histories:
Voynich:
- discovered in the 20th century
- imagery suggests 1400s
- carbon dating of vellum suggests 1400s
- there are some documents that seem to mention its existence before 20th century (Kircher correspondence, De Ricci census)
but they theoretically could be forged or relate to another manuscript
Rohonc:
- discovered in the 19th century
- imagery suggests 1400-1600, to put it safely with wide margin
- watermark on paper suggests 1500s
- there is mention from library census in 1700s but it could relate to another manuscript
I would say Proto57 that you are quite "demanding".
Imagery, used material and possible mentions are not enough for you.
Out of curiosity, if I may ask, do you treat all manuscripts with such cautiousness or Voynich and Rohonc are special?
And what convinces you (if it does) that stuff like Leningrad Codex ( You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. ) is genuine?
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - proto57 - 05-01-2026
(05-01-2026, 05:50 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(04-01-2026, 05:53 AM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But Rene, isn't it your contention that some "scribe" of unknown identity wrote the 1665/66 letter for Marci?
This is actually an easily verifiable fact. I think I already pointed to it before, but just for completeness:
This is Marci's own handwriting, which he used in his first 30+ letters, now in Kircher's correspondence:
This is the handwriting of the letter now in the Beinecke:
This is the handwriting of Marci's last letter, again in Kircher's correspondence:
Not only are the last two clearly different from Marci's handwriting, they are also the same hand.
This alone is sufficient to demonstrate that the Beinecke letter is genuine.
Since Marci dictated the letter, it would still be his Latin. Philip Neal commented that it was a bit cumbersome, but because it was also grammatical, he could translate it correctly. The point was to figure out whose statement it was that the MS was believed to be from Bacon.
Anyway, this question about the 'difficult' Latin is so subjective that it cannot play any role at all, either way.
Just like the different watermarks, which means nothing, or the multiple folds, which rather point to a long history than to a forgery.
The handwriting tells us all we need. If one really wants to believe that this is a forgery, then one automatically has to believe
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
I think you may have missed my point, Rene. Well, maybe not entirely, when you wrote,
Quote:Since Marci dictated the letter, it would still be his Latin.
Well, yes the script is different, no argument there, and that was not my point of course. I just see this as an increasingly complex and convoluted attempts to "explain away" several of the many problems with that letter. The story is getting more and more complicated, as we learn more... first, it was different script, so a "scribe" was invented to explain this... the bad Latin, the different writing. But now, with Mr. Ernsts obviously learned and detailed descriptions, with more specifics, of exactly what the many problems with the Latin are... with examples... I think you have painted yourself in a corner with this line of excuses for the Letter. To explain:
So your contention is that this was still written by an unknown "scribe", but that Marci's poor Latin... as described by Margaret Garber in 2002, as you described previously in this thread, was also copied and reflected by that "scribe":
Quote:In this thesis [M. Garber] literally writes that "Marci did not write in the most efficient of manners".
But there are very serious problems with your speculation here, because we would have to believe that this imagined "scribe" would also have had to copy many unspoken errors in the Latin, such as the improper diacritical marks. As Ernst pointed out, in the example I copied to this thread a few days ago,
Quote:2) “â nullo”, “â se descripta “, “à te” ([5, 7], β). Both the circumflex and the grave accent were used, primarily in printed Latin, to distinguish adverbs and prepositions. In Latin – unlike French – the circumflex was a deictic typographical device to distinguish the ablative case from the nominative: “vitâ functus”, “primâ fronte”, “hâc arte” (letter by Wolfgang Trefler as printed 1754 in the HISTORIA REI LITTERARIÆ ORDINIS S. BENEDICTI, I, 492-496), “nonâ die” (Oliver Legipont, ibid.). The grave was used a) to distinguish adverbs, b) to distinguish prepositions: “citrà”, “adolphvm à glavbvrg” (Tithemius, Polygraphia 1550, ed. Glauburg). In the “Marci-letter”, all three “a” designate the preposition “by” or “from”, and not an ablative. Even if the circumflex in “â nullo” were considered a smudgy grave accent, the one in “â se” is not. Only “à te” is correct. Writers and printers of Latin texts were just as precise about diacritics as writers of modern French are because the diacritics carry as much meaning as the words they are attached to. The Marci-letter has two wrong diacritics and one correct one above the same letter within the space of 29 words.
So for this type of error to have somehow been transmitted from Marci's bad Latin, to the imagined "scribe", then committed to paper again... how, exactly? How do you imagine this "scribe" knew Marci was thinking of the wrong diacritical marks, and dutifully wrote them down for him, that (wrong) way?
And this is not alone in Thomas Ernst's observations for they type of thing that would clearly NOT be so passed down by the "scribe". Perhaps one could still argue that certain incorrect Latin phrasing and grammar (which he also describes), and the invented words (although how would that scribe know how Marci would want these invented words spelled, and without correcting him about them?), and the inexplicable repetitions, and so on... I would argue those, because I would imagine a scribe would be somewhat learned in Latin, and like any editor or secretary might make corrections before transcribing an error-filled Marci letter. But let's, for the sake of argument, accept that premise:
Again, if I did accept that the scribe transcribed Marci's other errors, I cannot accept it at all logical, remotely reasonable to accept that this "scribe" ALSO copied Marci's bad diacritical markings, even if he somehow saw them committed to paper by Marci, and the "scribe" was actually only copying some draft of Marci's. He would have fixed those, of course. And then, even if one were to accept him doing even that, then why did he pick a scribe who wrote in a similar style to Marci's, but badly, and just a bit off? What would possibly be the purpose of this?
No, all the defenses of this letter are highly illogical to me, and compounding into increasingly illogical excuses for it, as more is learned, and when critically examined. Far, far simpler is that this letter is a fake, which explains the different hand writing, seemingly mimicking, roughly, Marci's original; the poor Latin; the different paper; the impossible fold lines; the perplexing seal positioning; not "finding" it for years, and more.
As a related "aside", I would like to, and intend to, read the paper by M.Garber, to determine in exactly what ways she felt Marci's Latin was not "efficient". Would/did she note the same sort of errors that we see in the 1665/66 Marci letter? The ones Thomas Ernst uncovered? Or, was his "inefficient" Latin of a different sort entirely? I mean, using a blanket verdict of "inefficient Latin" to explain away the poor Latin of the Marci letter, BTW as transcribe by the imagined "scribe", is convenient, but is it accurate? People want to know.
A good analogy of the Marci letter defenses have been like the crime where the accused says they never knew the victim, and they were nowhere near the crime. They are told, "We have a picture of you with the victim". "Oh yes, I forgot, I did know him, but I was not near the crime scene". They are then told, "Someone saw you near there". "Oh yes, I was actually there, I forgot, but I didn't do the crime". "Yes, but, we found your DNA on the body". "OH yes, I forgot, I hugged the victim before they were killed, but I didn't do it". "But, his blood is on your body". "Oh yes, I forgot, I tried to save him, and got blood on me".
The defenses of this very poor letter similarly get increasingly impossible, as we learn more about it. It was once, "Marci wrote it, but he was old and sick". People pointed out that the handwriting was too unlike Marci's, and the imagined "scribe" was introduced to the story, to explain that... Now, he was old and sick and needed a scribe. Now it is pointed out the ways and specifics of just how and in what ways the Latin is wrong, and somehow the scribe transmitted the poor Latin from Marci to the paper, somehow copying bad diacritics, and other easily correctable errors, to the paper, in Marci's name.
I think, rather, it would be simple common sense to accept that all the problems are explained far more simply, and logically, that this letter is fake. And, as I pointed out before, if it is fake or real does not affect the Voynich being fake or real. If the Voynich turned out to be genuine 1420, it is STILL perfectly reasonable that this pathetic letter was faked by Voynich (or by someone, for him) to push Bacon. And I don't think this is the hill to die on... so why continue to defend it?
As I also said, I think it is because, even accepting 1420 Genuine, if that letter is fake, almost the entire backstory of the Voynich, carefully crafted over more than thirty years, Marci, Kinner, Baresch, Kircher, the Reuniciation of Italy, the Vatican, and pages and pages of all this... well, about 90%... evaporates with that letter. It HAS to be real in order to buttress all that. If, for instance, the Voynich was found on one of those piles in the Libreria Franceshini in 1910, and Voynich thought it was "close enough" to use the scant references in the Carteggio as provenance, then the investigation into the real backstory of the manuscript would have to start from scratch, and decades of work would be erased.
TLDR: If the scribe copied Marci's bad Latin, which I doubt any scribe would, why would he also know of, and copy, his improper and illogical spelling and error filled diacritics? It makes zero sense. A far more likely explanation is that the letter is a fake.
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - proto57 - 05-01-2026
(05-01-2026, 12:07 PM)Rafal Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Quote:as those reasons alone have led me to believe the Rohonc Codex is one of those old forgeries/fakes/hoaxes that were often convincing in the past, while actually not being even all that convincing in its own time.
Everyone forgive me for bringing the Rohonc Codex here but there are actually several similarities to Voynich Manuscript.
So I indeed made my solution of Rohonc Codex using results of Kiraly and Tokai. You can check it here: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
I am 100% sure that the text there is meaningful. As for its date of creation I don't have such a strong opinion and generally don't have a horse in that race but I believe it's rather authentic.
There are actually 2 issues both with Rohonc and Voynich:
a) is the text meaningful or gibberish?
b) was it created in the 1400s (Voynich) and 1500s (Rohonc) or quite recently, shortly before its "discovery"
I believe these issues are independent and I hope that you would agree. Because actually many people made a mistake and saw them dependent.
Both Voynich and Rohonc raised a lot of enthusiasm when discovered and nobody initially considered them a fake. Several people tried to read them and failed. The initial theories failed - Voynich being a manuscript by Roger Bacon and Rohonc being some Hungarian nationalistic thing written in a form of Hungarian runes ( You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. )
So people started claiming they are fake - we cannot read them, they don't make sense, they are not the thing we expected them to be so they must be fake.
I would say it's a logical error.
The theory that Rohonc is fake and created by Sámuel Literáti Nemes in an old 19th century theory that nobody really questioned later. The guys who accepted it generally weren't the sharpest pencils in the box. For example they claimed that the script cannot make sense as it has over 800 unique symbols and nobody would be able to remember and use that much fluently. Somebody should really gift them a book in Chinese
But as we said, having sense doesn't mean that something is genuine and vice versa. For example I am closest to opinion that VM is gibberish but is authentic. So it may be a called fake but you must add it's a medieval fake
Both Rohonc and Voynich have some similarities in their histories:
Voynich:
- discovered in the 20th century
- imagery suggests 1400s
- carbon dating of vellum suggests 1400s
- there are some documents that seem to mention its existence before 20th century (Kircher correspondence, De Ricci census)
but they theoretically could be forged or relate to another manuscript
Rohonc:
- discovered in the 19th century
- imagery suggests 1400-1600, to put it safely with wide margin
- watermark on paper suggests 1500s
- there is mention from library census in 1700s but it could relate to another manuscript
I would say Proto57 that you are quite "demanding".
Imagery, used material and possible mentions are not enough for you.
Out of curiosity, if I may ask, do you treat all manuscripts with such cautiousness or Voynich and Rohonc are special?
And what convinces you (if it does) that stuff like Leningrad Codex ( You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. ) is genuine?
Hi Rafal: A few points about what you wrote, above:
Quote:So people started claiming they are fake - we cannot read them, they don't make sense, they are not the thing we expected them to be so they must be fake.I would say it's a logical error.
Perhaps "people" do use this line of reasoning, but as I explained to you, I do not. I do not reject either the Voynich nor the Rohonc on the basis of "they don't make sense", or "they are not the thing we expected them to be".
As I wrote, most forgeries do make sense. Think "The Protocals of the Elders of Zion", the "Howard Hughes Will", the "Diary of Hitler", the "White Salamander Letter", "The Oath of a Freeman", the "Vortigern, an Historical Tragedy" (fake Shakespeare play), the 1909 "Autobiography of Shakepeare", and on and on an on. Hundred of them... probably, actually, tens of thousands of forgeries all make perfect, readable sense in some context.
Did you translate the Rohonc? I hope so. That would be really cool. I just haven't examined your proposal, but I in no way contend you did not, nor that you could not, based on my belief the Rohonc is fake. Even if fake, it very well may have readable text in it. I hope you are right, and we can read it.
Now the opposite is somewhat true, because if a text is nonsense, then it is probably fake, which brings me to your point here:
Quote:But as we said, having sense doesn't mean that something is genuine and vice versa. For example I am closest to opinion that VM is gibberish but is authentic. So it may be a called fake but you must add it's a medieval fake
I mean, by definition, if meaningless, it must be a fake of some sort... old or new, hoax, forgery, whatever. And you realize this, by adding the disclaimer, "... you must add it's [the Voynich] a medieval fake". But fake text is fake text, so if you are incorrect, and the Rohonc is gibberish, then yes, that adds to my belief, and the belief of many others, that the work is a fake, and most likely by Nemes.
You have not said if you read Benedek Lange's paper? He lists the known forged works of Nemes, then explains how the family that owned the Rohonc had a connection to Nemes Literati, as he supplied them with books. No, no direct lineage, but it is circumstantially damning, IMHO. Also, the style of illustration of Nemes other forged works is strikingly similar to the (very poor) illustrations and characters in the Rohonc. Lange's defenses of the Rohonc basically amount to there not being a reference to the Rohonc in Neme's writings, as there are for some other forgeries; and also, that the Rohonc is longer than his other forgeries, and a couple of other points like that. But nothing that directly shows that Nemes could not have done it. But I don't want to speak for Benedek, one can read this for themselves, and make up their own minds: "You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.".
Quote:The guys who accepted it generally weren't the sharpest pencils in the box. For example they claimed that the script cannot make sense as it has over 800 unique symbols and nobody would be able to remember and use that much fluently. Somebody should really gift them a book in Chinese.
First of all, implying that those who disagree with you are somehow not smart is a form of false argumentation (demonization... ask me how I know), and undermines your case. Am I also stupid because I disagree with you? As for the stated reasoning you give for their believing it is fake (as it has over 800 unique symbols) I have not personally heard, and like you, but might agree with you it is not a good argument for fake. But the thing is, I have heard many OTHER arguments, and you went to the "low hanging fruit" here. If you want to make your case it is real, take on the tough arguments... such as the stylistic similarities to Neme's work, and his connection as a supplier to the family who owned it. Cherry picking those points you feel are vulnerable won't convince anyone.
Quote:I believe these issues are independent and I hope that you would agree. Because actually many people made a mistake and saw them dependent.
Of course I agree with you. We discuss all of these manuscripts in concert, but only to contrast and compare the evidence relating to each individual case. That is helpful, and why I consider your bringing it up in this thread totally appropriate. Reasoning, testing, forensics, history, decipherment attempts... all these are helpful to compare between even widely dissimilar and independant works. But yes, I absolutely agree with you that whether one is fake or not does not affect the other in the least bit.
That being said, both the Vineland Map AND the Rohonc have been used by others to claim the Voynich is real. In the case of the Vineland Map, right here, in the Ninja forums. I was told "since" it is real, the Voynich is real. Funny how the person who told me that is not now saying "Since the Vinland Map is fake, the Voynich is fake". No, crickets on that. And as I said, Benedek himself has said, in person to me, that the Ronhonc being real tells us the Voynich is real. But no, I am with you, I disagree with both of them that there is any connection like that. They are independent, and even that the Vinland Map being a fake has no bearing whatsoever on the Voynich being fake or real.
THAT being said, it does call into question the whole structure of investigation... the experts, the institutions, the scientists, paleographers, and on and on. Because so many of these cases are rife with considerations far beyond the actual needs of determining the veracity of the item itself. This is not a "conspiracy" claim, it is a fact of life. I often post this quote by Nancy L. Kelker & Karen O. Bruhns, authors of "Faking Mesoamerica":
Quote:"Unfortunately, it is not uncommon to find professionals--- art historians, museum curators, and even well-known archaeologists--- championing these fake works. Some of these erstwhile defenders suffer from the "missing link of history" syndrome, in which the most glaring errors of a forgery are dimsissed in the desire to see a fraudulent work as a legitimate copy of some now-lost, previously unknown, ancient manuscript. The discovery of said manuscript--- or at least its ever so faithful copy--- is guaranteed to plug major holes in scholarship as well as rocket its discoverer to fame, fortune, and guest appearances on the Today Show--- or even better, invitations to weekends at well-heeled collectors' country estates. Those suffering from the "missing link" syndrome are perhaps the most dangerous because their misplaced enthusiasm, coupled with their professional reputations, presents the greatest opportunities for the pollution of science to arise."
In any case, Rafal, I think you have me wrong in assuming I am saying your translation is necessarily wrong, as I have not even examined it very closely. I will, if you want me to, and if you don't mind my giving my opinion. But my believing... not knowing, but believing it most probable... that the Ronhonc is a fake, and probably by Nemes, does not in any way impact the possibility that you have solved the cipher of the book, and that it has meaning you can read. They are separate issues entirely, and I wish you luck with getting the word out there.