+- 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 - 07-01-2026
(07-01-2026, 01:15 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(06-01-2026, 06:02 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.As I wrote before, when investigating the possibility of malfeasance by Wilfrid, we must disregard completely everything that he said or wrote, and every piece of material evidence that he could have forged, adulterated, planted, mislabeled, etc. And, to be safe, do the the same for anyone who may have been his accomplice. Such as Strickland...
When assuming the malfeasance of Wilfrid, one has to do that. This is when it becomes a conspiracy theory.
Well I don't believe there is any reason to label what happened, or what I believe happened, as a "conspiracy theory". I believe that, at most, three or four people may have been "in the know", and that is mostly based on the realization there are probably several "hands" in the writing of the Voynich. But I in no way think that Ethel or Anne Nill knew of, or strongly suspected the Voynich of being fake (even though Ethel questioned Voynich's 'line of reason' in at least one case relating to his Dee fish story). It would not be necessary for Strickland to be directly involved, other than maybe putting Voynich onto the references in the Letters of the Carteggio, or letting him pursue the letters themselves. I do sometimes wonder what Garland knew and didn't know.
But not a "Conspiracy Theory" in the sense it is often used, and has been used to rebut my theory... falsely and mockingly using it to dismiss my hypothesis as a Tin Foil Hat work. And this is how it is usually used... falsely claiming my hypothesis must be impugning Ethel, Anne, Kraus, the Beinecke, many experts, scientists, and on and on. Nope, not at all. It was, I believe, Voynich, and maybe two or three others. I've wondered if Phillipovitch, and perhaps his "white wedding" wife Wanda Krahelska-Filipowicz. The both of them were housed in the Libreria as a "safe house", with Tytus in the position as manager. Just guesses, though, of course.
But no, Rene, while I agree with Jorge that, "... when investigating the possibility of malfeasance by Wilfrid, we must disregard completely everything that he said or wrote", and etc., what he is describing is not a "conspiracy theory", only that it is right to hold the man's words, and those of his associates, with a large grain of salt. That is, he cannot and should not be trusted. I also note that in various arguments against Modern Forgery, depending on the circumstance, Voynich and each of the players is portrayed either as reliable or not... "this" word must be respected, but "that word" must be rejected. That is a form a tailoring the story to fit a desired outcome.
With Modern Forgery, there is one opinion necessary: He lied, he was a liar, he fished for positive opinions, he was a political subversive, his character was to cheat honest (Orioli, 1937) and for all these reasons and more, nothing he said can or should be trusted, and even, strongly questioned.
Quote:When investigating his malfeasance, one has to judge each aspect.
Example: was the Marci letter a good piece of evidence for the Roger Bacon origin of the Voynich MS, worth of all the complications and risk in creating it?
Given that he really wanted the letter to refer to Rudolf I, contemporary of Roger Bacon, and not Rudolf II, my opinion on that is quite clear: he found this letter in the book. Easy explanation. Fits everything we know.
There is a pattern of Voynich making "errors", which then need to be "corrected" by experts, and then, is presents an image of innocence. A similar example might be: "You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.”".
Quote:Others may have different opinions... But I would suggest letting it sink in for a while.
Other example to wonder and ponder about:
The evidence that Marci sent the book to Kircher, beside the Marci letter (which would not have existed if it is a fake), is one line in a letter from an unimportant Bohemian named Kinner, referring to 'our common friend Dominus Marcus', asking about an explanation of 'that arcane book'. How does that connect with a 28 years earlier letter, in another volume, from a completely unknown guy describing a book on his bookshelf in Prague? Which does not mention Marci? The most common themes throughout the Kircher correspondence are books and languages and riddles.
Not one reference by Baresch, Marci, Kinner and Kircher identifies the book they were mentioning, and their descriptions fall far short, and even work against, that book being the Voynich Ms. we know today. The suggestion it was is very thin on its face. So using these references to buttress other references is a form of circular argument. Yes, they seem to be referring to the same book, but that falls far short of any acceptable connection to the Voynich.
Quote:For us, with hindsight this connection is possible, because we know the MS exists, we know what it looks like, and we know that Marci sent it to Prague. All of that would not have existed.
(It is hard to remove this from one's memory.)
In short: in order to create a fake Marci letter, with all the verifiable facts in it, one really should have had the letter in the first place.
You have claimed this before, Rene, but with respect it makes no sense to me. The 1665/66 Marci Letter would only "need"... well not really "need" but does seem to work with the other Letter references in the Carteggio, and the "signature" by implication... but all the information in the Marci letter would be a very simple matter to concoct from whole cloth. Even with the genuine references, and with either a fake or real Voynich Manuscript, all one would have to have is a desire to plant several rumors: Point to Rudolf's court, give a value (vaguely, never say it was bought for 600 ducats, only imply it), point to his desired Bacon Authorship. No need to "know" any of this, it did not, and does not, exist anywhere else.
But ignored in your claim is that the rumors in that letter were inexplicably being revealed in this last Marci to Kircher letter, when obviously they would have been revealed to Kircher by Marci, decades earlier. There is no logical reason for Marci doing this, as his stated hope and desire was for Kircher to help identify the Baresch Manuscript. And in this and all the letters nobody mentions the "signature", which obviously they all would have immediately seen, and would have been of great value to Kircher's determinations. And, for that matter, support the 1665/66 letters internal claims!
These points should be enough to have stopped trusting this letter long ago, in and of themselves. But in concert You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., that have no acceptable answers, it really baffles me.
But lastly I point out that you have not explained to us how you think Marci's bad Latin diacritical marks made it from Marci, to that letter, by the scribe? Why would a scribe transcribe a letter for Marci with all those errors, including written ones?
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - proto57 - 07-01-2026
(07-01-2026, 11:47 AM)Legit Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(06-01-2026, 04:20 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Again, you seem to make my point here. If this work, you feel (as I feel) does not "fit within existing collections", then how does that observation support genuine? You are describing an effect, a result, of making a poor forgery, not a genuine item. Would you or I do it better? Not sure I could, but I would hope it would have been better than this, so people in 2025 didn't say what you just did.
Rich
I should clarify as a work from that period it's very good - that has content that places it in the 15th century and is C14 dated to the 15th century.
So it is good enough to be a genuine work, but it too bad to be a forgery? I think it is is just of poor quality, and you seem to still agree with...
Quote:By poor quality, I'm referring to the skill of the illustrator as an artwork. The shaky hand line work and bad coloring is what makes this a poor document.
OK, well, I agree with you. But the thing is, I see in this a contrary use of differing opinions about the same thing. You used the poor quality of the manuscript as a reason it must not be a forgery, but still seem to suggest it is good enough to be real. And no, it has not been "dated to the 15th century", only the calfskin was, not the inks and paints applied to it. That could not be dated.
Quote:However until we have evidence otherwise, it's reasonable to accept it's what it appears to be - genuine as the default position.
You are welcome to do that, of course. But I would not consider it "reasonable" for me, and never have.
Quote:I've read your blog post: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis. Here is a quote.
"As for this “Magellan Map”, Wilfrid had said he found it in the binding of a 1536 book. I contend that map may be a fake, and that Voynich was aware it was a fake, and that this demonstrates that he had some connection to the world of forgery- at least, to the very active industry in manuscript map forgeries which existed at the time."
This speculation about the Map is claimed to demonstrate a connection - another speculation connecting Voynich to a "forgery factory". If you want to show a connection to other known forgeries, you could have a list of attributes that these forgeries had which were used to identify them as forgeries forming a kind of "forgery fingerprint" which then would need to be correlated to some features of the VM. This would add much needed weight to your arguments.
In that you misstate, and misunderstand, I think, the "connection" I intend. It has NOTHING to do with any attributes of the "Lost Chart of Magellan" itself. So there would be no need for me to look for, or "form" a "forgery fingerprint" in the way you mean it. There are different aspects of how forgeries were historical treated at this time, how booksellers treated them, how Voynich treated his and answered for them, the history of map forgeries (very common at that time), where the "forgery factory" may have been (it is not me who first proposed this, it has been suspected about a hundred years), and much more that you would have to learn about the history of forgery for you to understand the points I make in my various posts about that map.
But there is a bigger picture here you do not know about, because it is a long "work in progress", and I only hint at it. So you may think I "need" to do this or that, to convince you... really, though, are you interested in being convinced? And do I want to convince you? I can answer for myself, "no". I only discuss these things for the interest of those truly interested in these things I find interesting, and again, to save them the trouble of believing and disbelieving things that simply are not true.
Anyway, back to the Lost Chart of Magellan... there is a great deal to this story, and much I still have to learn about it. When I do decide to write about this, at length, I hope you, too, will find it interesting. But for now, what I know for now, it relates more to the way Voynich 1) explained things, 2) fished for expert opinions, 3) either related or created provenance, 4) how questionable items have and are accepted by the scholarly community... all I can think of, at the moment.
As for your "fingerprint" suggestion, in a way my "Forgery Red Flags" list, prepared for the NSA Historical Cipher Conference lecture in 2017, is something like that. I compiled it from reading a couple of dozen books on cipher, and much internet research. Here is a copy of my ppt slide from the talk:
I argue that the Voynich arguably exhibits, with varying levels of certainty of course, 1 through 12 on that list, only missing #9... as we know where the Voynich is today. The point to listing these forgery features is to make the point that most other forgeries only trigger maybe 3, maybe 5, on that list. And by the way, the Fabulous Impossible One-of-a-Kind Lost Chart of one of the Most Famous Expeditions in the History of Mankind, the Magellan Chart, does fulfill #9, as it is lost. Luckily only a dozen or pages of the Voynich are lost. And it only hits maybe four or five on my list, including #9, so it has fared much better!
But still, I think, another fake.
Quote:The speculation on top of speculation makes it hard to accept it to be anything other than a fictional story. While we're speculating we should definitely implicate Voynichs wife Ethel who continued to try to sell the VM after his death, and their secretary Anne Nill who succeeded in selling it. Perhaps the encoded text is Polish or Russian since Ethel spoke and translated both of these languages.
You see you can do that, if you want, but you know I don't... so what is the point to those other speculations? Of course, for a false impression that my ideas are foundationless. Rather, you should stick to what I really believe, if you want to argue my actual hypothesis, and not strawmen.
Quote:Ethels claim that Voynich confessed it's true origin to be the Jesuits at Frascati could be used to speculate that she was complicit in the conspiracy to forge and sell the VM. The claim for the Jesuit origin comes not from Ethel herself but from a letter (presumably written by Ethel) to Anne Nill. Why would Ethel reveal this only in a letter to Anne? Perhaps Anne Nill forged that letter from Ethel. After all, she was the one who was successful in selling the VM. Perhaps there was a love triangle. The possibilities are endless.
Again, you are creating an implausible set of conditions I in no way believe in, or have ever stated. Why? If my actual hypothesis is weak, you should stick to that, and not grow your own low hanging fruit to pick.
That being said, there are many reasonable explanations, and some really ridiculous ones, as to why Ethel would reveal the Mondragone source in that sealed letter. I don't know which I would consider most plausible, but it does not much matter... the included information, whether true or not, involved people long dead by the time it was opened. Many of the actions of these people will never be known.
Rich
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - Mauro - 07-01-2026
(07-01-2026, 07:30 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But lastly I point out that you have not explained to us how you think Marci's bad Latin diacritical marks made it from Marci, to that letter, by the scribe? Why would a scribe transcribe a letter for Marci with all those errors, including written ones?
And why would Voynich the master forger use bad Latin diacritical marks in his fake? The bad Latin is unexpected both if the letter is original and if it was faked by Voynich. It's unexplained in both cases.
At the very best for the Modern Forgery Theory (a fortiori) I can concede it's slightly more probable on the fake hypothesis, maybe with 1.2 to 1 odds: a very weak evidence. But for me the odds are 1 to 1, and the bad Latin is no evidence for, nor against, MFT (nor for, or against, the 'ancient Voynich' theory).
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - ioannestritemius - 07-01-2026
(06-01-2026, 12:05 AM)RobGea Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Thank you, I think ... If I understand the logic of the comment "Isn't the manuscript itself the cornerstone that supports its authenticity" correctly, it is the same thing as stating that a fake-Rembrandt, for example, is the cornerstone that supports its authenticity??(05-01-2026, 11:50 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Isn't the manuscript itself the cornerstone that supports its authenticity?
Isn't that a paradox ?
To return to Voynich's forged letters in several PUG-volumes, allow me to deconstruct Baresch 16390427. Incidentally, I do not understand why, in a predominantly English speaking forum, the Kircher-correspondence keeps being referred to by the Italian word "carteggio". To over-inflate its importance? In plain English, a "carteggio" is a "correspondence".
Re 16390427, PUG 557, f. 353rv, Jiří Bareš (Georg Baresch) to Kircher. I suggest that the interested reader consult neither the English translation, nor the English summary, and especially not the Latin transcript, but the original text which is available at [You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.]. The same scrupulousness bestowed on the VM itself should also be applied to its supporting documents, i. e. its "certificates of authenticity", meaning the two letters Baresch 16390427 and Marci 16650819.
I have transcribed all of PUG 557, f. 353rv but for the sake of expediency will limit myself to the most obvious proof of forgery, the diacritics over the "u", "ú", and "ù" (yes, there is more than that). Background: in humanist Latin, scribes occasionally used "ü", not as a modern trema, but to visually distinguish lines of neighboring letter-shapes, e. g. "adinüentionis" (Trithemius, letter to Germain de Ganay, 1515, not autograph). The "sharp" accent" (accent aigu) "ú" was used predominantly in print to indicate the ablative case; the "grave" accent (accent grave) "ù" to indicate an adverb, e. g. "lectúque", "minùs" (Historia rei litterariæ Ordinis S. Benedicti, 1754). In Latin, "ú" was not used to distinguish the sounds /u/ and /v/ or to mark diphthongs. The custom to put a little "flourish" above the "u" to distinguish it from "n" was limited to German handwriting. And Latin diacritics did not have the same meaning as those, for instance, in modern French: in "à côté" the grave is semantic (distinction from the verb "a"), the circonflexe is etymological (vestige of Latin and old French "s", "costa", "coste"), while the accent aigu is phonetic in that it indicates the sound of the long vowel [e:]. – To return to Latin: whichever convention a Latin writer or printer followed, he applied or not applied diacritics to the written letter "u" with 97.8543 percent %regularity.
Follows the smorgasboard of u-diacritics Voynich used in his forged Baresch-letter of 1639. Voynich was familiar with the appearance of the diacritics but had no understanding of their meaning. It helps to read the words. The diacritics are not only wrong or misapplied, they follow no pattern at all. No writer or printer of a Latin text at whatever point of the existence of the language, in this case the 54-year-old Baresch or even an ignorant and underpaid amanuensis in the year 1639, would have applied such a completely nonsensical array of diacritics and non-diacritics to just one letter – unless he was a forger. If you, the reader, are sincere about exploring the provenance of the VM, please provide just one written or printed Latin document – no, texts in the "carteggio" will not do, since Voynich forged at least dozens of letters in it, at least the entire "correspondence" from Jonny Lichtenstein, Marci, Martinic, Schega – with an identical array of diacritics. If yo[u|ú] can find any a) grammatical, b) phonetic, c) etymologic, d) semantic rhyme or reason in this, yo[u|ú] are a ling[u|ú]istic geni[u|ú]s. The diacritics in the fake-Baresch letter were applied by a person familiar with their appearance in Latin texts, but not familiar with their reason. Please cross-check possible mistakes in the following transcript against the original:
Obsequijs, Aúthore, Nactús, út, secum, obtinúi, quibús, reúocaretúr, scriptura, quædam, Moretum, Cujus Scripturæ, fúit, caúsa, Postquam, públicum, mundo, inno=túisset, aúxiliares, aúgenda, sui, lúcem, omnibús, qui, aliqúid, qúo, opús, queat, postúlasset, dúbitaúi, qúin, múlti, tantum, ejúsmodi, diúitijs, onústas, expediúerint, comparúerint, ut, obseqúium, conatibús, Repub:, susceptis, laboribus, qúasi, supra, úires, humanas, Authoris, congratúlarentúr, Qúi, núncius, gratissimús, cùm, perúenisset, solum, illiùs, lùcem, súo, proditúri, vtinam, qúantocius, breúem, edocúisset, inaú=dita, qúoque, Sphingibús, obscúrissimarum, scriptúrarum, cúmque, Scriptúra in=cognitorúm, character[u/ú]m, inútiliter, occupasset, locum, júdicaúi, soluendum,Traducta ali=qúa, scriptura, qúodam, úetústo, cújus, ocularis, præsentium, scripturam, sesquialterúm, annúm, út, inúesti=gatione, aliquod, indústriæ, súo, qúatenús, occúl=tatæ, communi, Librúm, ipsum, longinqúo, pericúlis, consúl=tum, Siquidem, illúd, qúod, úice, missúm, fúit, perúenit, ut, quod, tractú, re=scriptúm, Quapropter, dúxi, repetendum, qúod, appúlisse, súpradictus, Moretús, retúlit, qúo, úehe=menter, gaúisus, sum, gaúdebo, prædictús, reclu=sús, fúerit, út, ejús, pictura, herbarum, quarum plúrimús, númerús, imaginúm, diúersarum, Astrorum, aliarumque, rerum, chymicorum, arca=norum, referentium, totum, qúa, salutem, núlla, humano, salúbrior, Opús, indignúm, conatú, virtúosi, vúl=garis, út, júdicari, qúod, caúsa, plebeiorúm, occultandorum, indústria, aúthor, úsús, fúisset, Qúin, ali=qúem, virúm, bonúm, úeræ, cùm, partibùs, Eúropæis, vulgarem, methodum, parúm, frúctúosum, thesaúros, mo=númentis, librorúm, túm, conversatione, cum, talibús, Augent, volumine, hominúm, partibus, subterfugientes, qúod, qúæ, públicum, bonùm, qúod, characteribús, sepúltúm, commúni, promoúere, dedignabitúr, siquidem, subeúndo, sufficiens, útpote, obscúritati, quæ, singúlare, ingenium, modum, aliquem, requirat, qúo, obligatús, tantúm, qúod, opús, illúd, quicqúid, aliúd, Adiungo, aliqúot, scriptúræ, reúocandum, similiúm, characterúm, prosperum, exitúm, laborúm, Vúlgariúm, Deús, Reipúb:, conserúet, diútissime, Vniúersitate, datúrús, obseqúia, Peroratissimús, Georgiús.
Please do not ask me how and why Voynich forged so many other letters not bearing directly on the VM, and how he injected them into the respective PUG-volumes, and why no one has noticed these forgeries so far. Forgers, as is documented with some better known cases in the art world, tend to be obsessive. The letters referred to above scream outloud "we are forgeries, and very poor forgeries" to anyone actually reading the originals. If my math is correct, it took 492 years to decipher the liber tertius of the Steganographia, 409 years to figure out a forged Steganographia of 1591, 380 years to decipher Ferdinand's III zifra picolominea, 317 years to crack Wolfgang Ernst Heidel's cipher from 1675. Some things take a little time. But appr. 110 years of the Voynich-nonsense should be enough. Would you like me to serve up few more forgeries from the Kircher-correspondence? Some of them are so bad, they are funny, like pseudo-Martinic 16400317 (yes, that is the Martinic of defenestration-fame), or pseudo-Lichtenstein 16411023, a brief, almost postmodern text that literally is about nothing?
Writing in this much detail is exhausting. Thank you for your patience. Iam satis est, as Ferdinand III occasionally concluded his letters.
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - Koen G - 07-01-2026
Well no, what I'm saying is that the manuscript itself offers sufficient evidence to call it a genuine 15th century document. Just like real Rembrandts may come without any provenance, but a specialist could still tell you that it's very likely real for these and these reasons.
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - ReneZ - 08-01-2026
(07-01-2026, 09:25 PM)ioannestritemius Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I have transcribed all of PUG 557, f. 353rv but for the sake of expediency will limit myself to the most obvious proof of forgery,
What do you mean with 'forgery' in this case?
Not written in the 17th century? Written by someone else? Much later? Even Voynich himself?
This is the only piece of writing we have from Barschius. Who knows... perhaps that was just how he wrote.
More importantly, it is bound into a volume and listed in the original index to that volume.
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - ioannestritemius - 08-01-2026
(07-01-2026, 09:25 PM)ioannestritemius Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(06-01-2026, 12:05 AM)RobGea Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Thank you, I think ... If I understand the logic of the comment "Isn't the manuscript itself the cornerstone that supports its authenticity" correctly, it is the same thing as stating that a fake-Rembrandt, for example, is the cornerstone that supports its authenticity??(05-01-2026, 11:50 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Isn't the manuscript itself the cornerstone that supports its authenticity?
Isn't that a paradox ?
To return to Voynich's forged letters in several PUG-volumes, allow me to deconstruct Baresch 16390427. Incidentally, I do not understand why, in a predominantly English speaking forum, the Kircher-correspondence keeps being referred to by the Italian word "carteggio". To over-inflate its importance? In plain English, a "carteggio" is a "correspondence".
Re 16390427, PUG 557, f. 353rv, Jiří Bareš (Georg Baresch) to Kircher. I suggest that the interested reader consult neither the English translation, nor the English summary, and especially not the Latin transcript, but the original text which is available at [You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.]. The same scrupulousness bestowed on the VM itself should also be applied to its supporting documents, i. e. its "certificates of authenticity", meaning the two letters Baresch 16390427 and Marci 16650819.
I have transcribed all of PUG 557, f. 353rv but for the sake of expediency will limit myself to the most obvious proof of forgery, the diacritics over the "u", "ú", and "ù" (yes, there is more than that). Background: in humanist Latin, scribes occasionally used "ü", not as a modern trema, but to visually distinguish lines of neighboring letter-shapes, e. g. "adinüentionis" (Trithemius, letter to Germain de Ganay, 1515, not autograph). The "sharp" accent" (accent aigu) "ú" was used predominantly in print to indicate the ablative case; the "grave" accent (accent grave) "ù" to indicate an adverb, e. g. "lectúque", "minùs" (Historia rei litterariæ Ordinis S. Benedicti, 1754). In Latin, "ú" was not used to distinguish the sounds /u/ and /v/ or to mark diphthongs. The custom to put a little "flourish" above the "u" to distinguish it from "n" was limited to German handwriting. And Latin diacritics did not have the same meaning as those, for instance, in modern French: in "à côté" the grave is semantic (distinction from the verb "a"), the circonflexe is etymological (vestige of Latin and old French "s", "costa", "coste"), while the accent aigu is phonetic in that it indicates the sound of the long vowel [e:]. – To return to Latin: whichever convention a Latin writer or printer followed, he applied or not applied diacritics to the written letter "u" with 97.8543 percent %regularity.
Follows the smorgasboard of u-diacritics Voynich used in his forged Baresch-letter of 1639. Voynich was familiar with the appearance of the diacritics but had no understanding of their meaning. It helps to read the words. The diacritics are not only wrong or misapplied, they follow no pattern at all. No writer or printer of a Latin text at whatever point of the existence of the language, in this case the 54-year-old Baresch or even an ignorant and underpaid amanuensis in the year 1639, would have applied such a completely nonsensical array of diacritics and non-diacritics to just one letter – unless he was a forger. If you, the reader, are sincere about exploring the provenance of the VM, please provide just one written or printed Latin document – no, texts in the "carteggio" will not do, since Voynich forged at least dozens of letters in it, at least the entire "correspondence" from Jonny Lichtenstein, Marci, Martinic, Schega – with an identical array of diacritics. If yo[u|ú] can find any a) grammatical, b) phonetic, c) etymologic, d) semantic rhyme or reason in this, yo[u|ú] are a ling[u|ú]istic geni[u|ú]s. The diacritics in the fake-Baresch letter were applied by a person familiar with their appearance in Latin texts, but not familiar with their reason. Please cross-check possible mistakes in the following transcript against the original:
Obsequijs, Aúthore, Nactús, út, secum, obtinúi, quibús, reúocaretúr, scriptura, quædam, Moretum, Cujus Scripturæ, fúit, caúsa, Postquam, públicum, mundo, inno=túisset, aúxiliares, aúgenda, sui, lúcem, omnibús, qui, aliqúid, qúo, opús, queat, postúlasset, dúbitaúi, qúin, múlti, tantum, ejúsmodi, diúitijs, onústas, expediúerint, comparúerint, ut, obseqúium, conatibús, Repub:, susceptis, laboribus, qúasi, supra, úires, humanas, Authoris, congratúlarentúr, Qúi, núncius, gratissimús, cùm, perúenisset, solum, illiùs, lùcem, súo, proditúri, vtinam, qúantocius, breúem, edocúisset, inaú=dita, qúoque, Sphingibús, obscúrissimarum, scriptúrarum, cúmque, Scriptúra in=cognitorúm, character[u/ú]m, inútiliter, occupasset, locum, júdicaúi, soluendum,Traducta ali=qúa, scriptura, qúodam, úetústo, cújus, ocularis, præsentium, scripturam, sesquialterúm, annúm, út, inúesti=gatione, aliquod, indústriæ, súo, qúatenús, occúl=tatæ, communi, Librúm, ipsum, longinqúo, pericúlis, consúl=tum, Siquidem, illúd, qúod, úice, missúm, fúit, perúenit, ut, quod, tractú, re=scriptúm, Quapropter, dúxi, repetendum, qúod, appúlisse, súpradictus, Moretús, retúlit, qúo, úehe=menter, gaúisus, sum, gaúdebo, prædictús, reclu=sús, fúerit, út, ejús, pictura, herbarum, quarum plúrimús, númerús, imaginúm, diúersarum, Astrorum, aliarumque, rerum, chymicorum, arca=norum, referentium, totum, qúa, salutem, núlla, humano, salúbrior, Opús, indignúm, conatú, virtúosi, vúl=garis, út, júdicari, qúod, caúsa, plebeiorúm, occultandorum, indústria, aúthor, úsús, fúisset, Qúin, ali=qúem, virúm, bonúm, úeræ, cùm, partibùs, Eúropæis, vulgarem, methodum, parúm, frúctúosum, thesaúros, mo=númentis, librorúm, túm, conversatione, cum, talibús, Augent, volumine, hominúm, partibus, subterfugientes, qúod, qúæ, públicum, bonùm, qúod, characteribús, sepúltúm, commúni, promoúere, dedignabitúr, siquidem, subeúndo, sufficiens, útpote, obscúritati, quæ, singúlare, ingenium, modum, aliquem, requirat, qúo, obligatús, tantúm, qúod, opús, illúd, quicqúid, aliúd, Adiungo, aliqúot, scriptúræ, reúocandum, similiúm, characterúm, prosperum, exitúm, laborúm, Vúlgariúm, Deús, Reipúb:, conserúet, diútissime, Vniúersitate, datúrús, obseqúia, Peroratissimús, Georgiús.
Please do not ask me how and why Voynich forged so many other letters not bearing directly on the VM, and how he injected them into the respective PUG-volumes, and why no one has noticed these forgeries so far. Forgers, as is documented with some better known cases in the art world, tend to be obsessive. The letters referred to above scream outloud "we are forgeries, and very poor forgeries" to anyone actually reading the originals. If my math is correct, it took 492 years to decipher the liber tertius of the Steganographia, 409 years to figure out a forged Steganographia of 1591, 380 years to decipher Ferdinand's III zifra picolominea, 317 years to crack Wolfgang Ernst Heidel's cipher from 1675. Some things take a little time. But appr. 110 years of the Voynich-nonsense should be enough. Would you like me to serve up few more forgeries from the Kircher-correspondence? Some of them are so bad, they are funny, like pseudo-Martinic 16400317 (yes, that is the Martinic of defenestration-fame), or pseudo-Lichtenstein 16411023, a brief, almost postmodern text that literally is about nothing?
Writing in this much detail is exhausting. Thank you for your patience. Iam satis est, as Ferdinand III occasionally concluded his letters.
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - nablator - 08-01-2026
I have never paid attention to Latin diacritics. Variable conventions and inconsistent. Nothing to get excited about. Anything else? Some abbreviations?
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - ioannestritemius - 08-01-2026
(08-01-2026, 12:28 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(07-01-2026, 09:25 PM)ioannestritemius Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I have transcribed all of PUG 557, f. 353rv but for the sake of expediency will limit myself to the most obvious proof of forgery,
What do you mean with 'forgery' in this case?
Not written in the 17th century? Written by someone else? Much later? Even Voynich himself?
This is the only piece of writing we have from Barschius. Who knows... perhaps that was just how he wrote.
More importantly, it is bound into a volume and listed in the original index to that volume.
I apologize for my perhaps unclear wording, but I cannot express what I said more succinctly. The Barschius-letter was forged by Wilfrid Voynich, with the intent to validate/authenticate the VM, and Voynich forged many other letters in some of the PUG-volumes, too. The most obvious proof are the diacritics as explained by me. Not to mention the weird, ungrammatical Latin. No writer or printer of Latin would have used the diacritics exemplified by me, or even written such a text. It is not a matter of handwriting or personal choice or the dwindles of age: no one writing in Latin would have written such a letter. If this is the only letter by Barschius, then no letter by Barschius survives. That the letter a) was bound, and b) is listed in an index is secondary, or circumstantial evidence. The text proves by and itself that it was forged, because no one would or could have "written like that." Any Latin handwriting expert or paleographer will attest to this. Would you accept such a third person's "attestation"? Kind regards, T. E.
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - Jorge_Stolfi - 08-01-2026
(08-01-2026, 02:42 AM)ioannestritemius Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.no one writing in Latin would have written such a letter.
This is not true. People had to use Latin for certain correspondence, just like today people have to use English on certain forums. Whether they were fluent like Cicero, or could only scratch a macaronic pastiche.
Barschius was Czech and not a priest. His Latin could be arbitrarily bad.
All the best, --stolfi