+- 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 - eggyk - 02-02-2026
(02-02-2026, 04:45 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.As I've said earlier -- and you also said indirectly by referring to "normal science" -- it is indeed natural to fill in some gaps with speculative explanation. But I think that his point (at least part of it) is that there is a practice by opponents of his theory to not only come up with plausible explanations for various discrepencies (in the counter-theory), but to twist some facts as needed to do so. And to do this persistently regardless of what evidence - or how much of it-- is presented. If it does not align with the standard version of the story (i.e. the 15th century theory), then just devise yet another explanation to save the theory. But the aim of speculations within the "story" for a theory should be to assess if there are plausible explanations for a discrepency -- not to just save a theory (nor to act as evidence for a theory,)
I said "normal in science". In science, it may be natural to fill gaps in with speculation, but it isn't scientific at all unless that speculation is testable or provable. It's also very usual for new data to come out, causing the various aspects of a theory to be questioned and then for the theorist to justify, adjust or "save" their theory (like dark matter and MOND).
Many of his examples did not lend themselves to that type of testable speculation (for the other side). Like asking why the signature wasn't mentioned; you can't ever answer that in a way that will be objective unless theres a personal note from voynich stating why.
So adjusting the theory is normal, to a point. Addressing discrepancies with plausible answers is normal too, and doesn't mean that things are being twisted.
What facts that have been twisted?
(02-02-2026, 04:45 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.No, you obviously weren't suggesting that anyone literally said "that's why". But the point is that your argument is asymmetric. The examples that proto57 listed were dealing with potential inconsistencies affecting the standard (genuine 15th century) theory and the speculative explanations that are put forth for each. But you then list examples that are not discrepencies in the MFT theory, but rather statements of his evidence -- and you then apply the "that's why" phrase to them as if the two sets of examples are of the same kind.
You are essentially pulling a 'switcharoo' to equate the two different things, And conveniently implying in the process that each piece of evidence is being claimed to support his theory all on its own, which is a misrepresentation.
I understand what you're saying now. It may have been more fair if I said something like "That's a reason why the traditional theory may be wrong", or something similar. In my mind, these two theories are effectively black and white (its either a forgery or it isn't) so I conflated the denial of one with the attempted proof of the other. That's my fault.
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - proto57 - 02-02-2026
Well that has been a huge flurry of interesting activity... many questions, points, counter points. I'll try to answer Rene's here, succinctly, but I will probably fail, as I tend toward the verbose. But as always, I mean to answer them all... I don't feel any need to skip over and points made, and never want to. If I miss anything let me know...
(02-02-2026, 03:21 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(01-02-2026, 02:26 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.We know a possible motive, which was to prevent the Italian government from knowing of the existence of that pile of books, which they might confiscate. But didn't that motive cease to exist in 1929? Was that the real motive, or just a convenient excuse for the lies?
Voynich was definitely told that he could not tell anyone where he got these books. This collection was hidden, secret, and there are piles and piles of documents and records from before, during and immediately after, that make this clear beyond all doubt... [shortened by me to try and consolidate this comment, as it is very long. But it appears only a few points back, and anyway, I don't disagree with Rene's findings, only with his opinion as to their implications] ... This library should have owned the entire Jesuit library, and she expressed her opinion to me that the Jesuits had been quite dishonest in keeping all these books. But that seems to be it for now.
Yes but again, Rene, no one disputes any of this, and granted you have done much admirable work on all of this. BUT it remains, still, that there is ZERO known connection between these other books, and these other sales of Voynich's, and the Voynich Manuscript. None of this other activity is evidence of that the Voynich was among these other books, and actually, the lack of any of the documentation you carefully relate only decreases the possibility it was among them.
I know you are also giving this as the "reason he lied" about a supposedly genuine Voynich. But this, again, we do not know. It is equally plausible that he intended to "insert the Voynich" into this stream of genuine provenance, and as such, it would be attached to any reasoning that was associated with those other works. But this is speculation on your part, entirely. There is still zero evidence the Voynich was among any of these other books. None. That is the point you are not addressing, because factually, it cannot be addressed. It is a problem.
One of the excuses of this lack is that it is "normal" to not find provenance, as many books have no provenance. But it is not really entirely normal in this special case... you want the book to have been among these books, which mostly DO have provenance to varying degrees; but then excuse it as normal the Voynich does not. You agree it has no label, as many of the others had. I, too, saw that neat pile of Beckx Ex Libris labels, and the written description labels, which Voynich had removed from many books. To me, it is damning. It is a red flag that the Voynich has no label, no real provenance, no mention anywhere, and not on any lists of the sales of these other books.
There is nothing connecting the Voynich with any other sale, and won't be connected, no matter how carefully you detail those other sales. It is 100% an orphan. You say that is "normal" to have no provenance, yet at the same time insist there is this invisible connection to those other books. Obviously you also realize the Voynich's complete lack of any reference older than 1912 IS a problem, as you are trying hard to convince us the Voynich was among those other sales. If it didn't matter, you would not care.
(02-02-2026, 05:13 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Let's have some evidence that Voynich did anything that is presented as part of him faking it.
Well the way I see it, there are different types of evidence, which, while associated, have different implications, and so, different uses and value. Some overlap. But generally:
1) Lack of evidence for authenticity:
The Voynich has no provenance, as it is mentioned nowhere in history with a credible description. It is not on any list, even though supposedly among those works which to some extent DO have provenance. It is not in several places it "should" be, such as any list of books Kircher owned (if sent to him, as the Carteggio mentions say it was). It has no contemporary (to the claimed date of creation) other manuscript, not in script, style, content. It is a complete and utter unique orphan, only appearing to history when Wilfrid told us it appeared, in 1911/12.
Yes I know we are told "provenance does not matter" (while everyone is furiously searching for it, and claiming the barest mention of other books as possibly being it!). But no, I object, provenance does matter, both in general, but specifically for the Voynich. Why? Because we are told, over and over, exactly where it was and exactly who owned it. I mean, if it were found in a random attic somewhere, yes, we might say it is like other manuscripts and just another stray. But think of it: On the one hand, we are told EXACTLY where it was, and that place and ownership was among many other well catalogued (for the most part), well labeled books. This makes the Voynich's lack of provenance stand out all the more starkly. If real, in this claimed circumstance, it SHOULD have some provenance, yet, still has none.
There is no valid provenance, and the given provenance works against it. There is no other contemporary manuscript to compare it to. There is no evidence this is genuine, none.
"Genuine 1420" also has no context. As a real item, there is not any cohesive whole definition which explains it, especially for the early 15th century. There were no compendiums like it. If it appeared anything like other herbals of the time, it would have context, and this might be seen as evidence of genuineness. But, it is a what? An herbal/astrological/medicinal/celestial/cipher manuscript? So this goes both ways... it is evidence of forgery, as it is anachronistic, but also fails to provide evidence in the form of comparative, similar definition.
But another VERY important point about "lack of evidence for authenticity", one which has been increasing cropping up... although it has long been there: It is this constant substitute of actual evidence, for, instead, invisible, wished for, and imaginary evidence. For instance: We are to believe the anachronistic foldouts are normal, because even though there are no other examples contemporary to the VMs calfskin date, such cases may be out there in the the un-found manuscripts. There is no provenance, as above, but for this and that reason it has not been found, but it is out there... or, unnecessary (for some reason). There is no similar manuscript out there, but "we just have not found it". For that matter, there is no translation, but "we know it has meaning", we are told. Well, maybe it will have meaning, which is not proof of genuine to begin with... but the hope for meaning is really to avoid it being nonsense, because most nonsense items are fakes. Almost all of them. But we are to imagine it has meaning, and are told because of this, it is not fake. No, meaning does not mean genuine, gibberish does, and there is no proof this thing has meaning anyway, and even some studies imply it does not, and cannot, have meaning. So evidence of "lack of nonsense" is so far illusory, yet often still used as evidence of genuine...
There are also points used to claim as evidence for authenticity, but they are usually "tailored" to make them seem like that, when they originally, clearly are not. One example is the false claim that, (paraphrasing) "The expert opinions of age matched the eventual dating of the calfskin by C14, and since Wilfrid could not have predicted the advent of C14, it is evidence the Voynich is genuine". But this claim is based on a gross manipulation: No, the expert dating did NOT match the C14 dating, but a factor of about 12 to 2. And it still does not, post C14, as many experts see plants that are far too new for it. So this is evidence for forgery, which only becomes supposedly evidence for authenticity, but only by ignoring the reality of it.
Another would be the "combining" and averaging of the those C14 results, so that the inconvenient truth of a spread of dates of over 60 years could be manipulated into a more palatable range of 1404 to 1438. There are many examples of this, and to some degree or another, in some way or another, most evidence given for genuine does, on critical examination, serve nothing of the kind.
In summary, we are told that evidence the Voynich is real is out there, we have just not found it yet; and while we cannot find it, we are offered imaginary reasons we cannot. No, this does not substitute for evidence of genuine, it is a place holder for things needed to do it, but which do not exist. And most of the remaining, scant evidence for genuine needs to be adjusted to seem as such, instead of its actual, original, common sense importance, as anomalous or anachronistic.
2) Evidence supporting forgery:
As in my list of the "Red Flags of Forgery", I have long noted that of the twelve I compiled from the history of known forgeries, the Voynich, to varying degrees, the Voynich hits on 11 of them! Most forgeries might have been revealed with only three or four... some, only one of these. The list is:
So you claim, as many do, that I "have no evidence that Wilfrid forged this", but that is absolutely not true. You object to my evidence, but I do have evidence. We both offer evidence, and each object to the value of what is offered.
The most important aspect to all the comparisons noted by me, and by many others (whether they think the Voynich is fake or real), is context. I have context, in that all the things noted by me and others fit within a very narrow, suggested purpose. I mean, if I proposed an automobile and a ferret and a clown and a toothbrush in there, I would not have context to explain them all. But the New World plant and animal comparisons, the proposed optical devices (why I was asked to be interviewed by you in the ORF documentary, as you know), the astrological and astronomical imagery, the medicinal, the strange plants, the "glossolalia-like" script, and so on, for a list of probably a hundred or so items, all fit within the context I believe explains it all: As a work meant to appear it came from the Court of Rudolf II, as described by Bolton's book "Follies of Science in the Court of Rudolf II", one of Wilfrid's admittedly favorite books, in which, by the way, appears Jacob Horcicky, who's imaginary brother Christian predominantly figures. And of course, by coincidence?... no, by context it is not at all coincidence, it fits... Jacob "signed" it.
And so on down my list, I do have evidence for each and every item, and explain the instances of implications of each of them, and I can link them and their importance to other forgeries: For instance, number 6: The anachronistic foldouts, binding type with paper, and covers. The inks having unexplained binders, metals, compounds. And more.
I won't go down the list, you know my arguments for each. But the point is, it is incorrect to remotely imply I "don't have evidence". You might not like my evidence, that is fine... but it is evidence, and lot of it, and, as I wrote, most importantly, it has a unifying, reasonable, cohesive context.
There are also points which I have formulate after compiling my Red Flag list, which relate to it somewhat.
(02-02-2026, 06:44 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I have only seen:
- "he could have acquired old parchment...."
- "he could have seen the Barschius letter"
- "he could have seen a genuine Tepenec signature"
- "he could have copied the handwriting of Marci's scribe"
This is not what I would call evidence of Voynich actually doing any of these things.
Anyway, the sort of 'evidence' you are looking for simply does not exist for the majority of old manuscripts around the world. There is no need for it to prove that any book is genuinely old.
Well of course you actually seen more than your list, above. But yes, these are supporting arguments coming under categories such as "motive and opportunity". It is fair to point these out, it is a part of any attempt to judge the validity of any hypothesis. Furthermore, they are in answer to challenges to that hypothesis... not in all cases supporting arguments FOR forgery, but rebuttals to others. For instance, it used to be claimed, among many things, Voynich could not have gotten the vellum; he could not have known of the descriptions; the signature if authentic; the Marci letter is real, and so on. The things you list are the result of my own work, which has obviated, or addressed to varying degrees, those "complaints" about my theory. Your claiming they are the only work I have done, or meant as supporting forgery, are somewhat inaccurate. But mostly, it is cherry picking from the whole of my work those few things, while ignoring the bulk of it. The list is actually far longer than those few items you picked, and you should know that.
Quote:Finally, this has to be bit of a tongue-in-cheek request.
Any such evidence will simply get the 'Barschius letter treatment', namely:
"That refers to the original book that Barschius owned, and which is now lost. The Voynich MS is a different book, which is a modern fake."
Well, yes... although you meant that "tongue-in-cheek", yes, it is pretty obvious to me that the Barshius and the Voynich Manuscript are two different items. The descriptions simply do not match, and I cannot be gas-lit into believing they do. There is no reasonable explanation why the Voynich we know today would be described in the spare and incomplete terms the Men of the Letters used, and why, if it were the Voynich, they would not have mentioned the nude women, the Zodiac, the Baths, and so much more... let alone leaving off the "signature". Maybe if I were tortured on the rack I would agree, but left to my own common sense, no. They were different books, whatever the Voynich actually turns out to be.
Well this got very long, as I needed to address many different points. And I've probably missed many... but, not my intention, as I wrote. Unlike the 1420 Genuine European Cipher Herbal theory, I need to leave out nothing, ignore nothing. Yes, you may not like my answers, nor ever accept them, but I will always do my best to answer completely.
Rich
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - Typpi - 03-02-2026
(02-02-2026, 02:48 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Why would Voynich bother?
Why wouldn't he? He stood to gain a lot of money, no?
I agree with a lot of your other points but these aren't very strong.
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - proto57 - 03-02-2026
Hi Lisa: I look forward to the opportunity to address your points, here. Of course I have had commented on your ideas during a few of your online Lectures, but having all your positons in one place make it possible for me to give my opinions on all of your theory's major claims.
Maybe someday it would be possible to have a formal debate, in person. I think it possible that some venue would be interested in this, as it would perhaps generate some publicity. A university, maybe? It think it could be fun and informative for people to hear the main side of this forgery/genuine issue. And yes of course you are correct that,
Quote:I know that there are those among you who will now respond point-by-point to make your increasingly-complicated case.
Although I always want to make my case, as you and others supporting the 1420 Genuine theory, I would reject the notion my particular theory is at all complicated, or getting "increasingly" so. Quite the opposite, my theory is dirt-simple: Voynich buys the Libreria in 1908, he has vast literary knowledge and source material stacked like walls around him. He is a chemist, he hangs with his spy-buddy, Rosenblum, another chemist. And, he has the time and desire to "get one over" on the bourgeois establishment, which he despises. Also, make some huge money. So, he sits down, probably with the help of some of his buddies at the Franceshini, and in the spare time he has for a couple of months, pens out a sloppy and atrocious pop-culture representation of what his imaginative mind thinks an early 17th century botanical might look like. Nothing complicated about it. No more than a Jackson Pollack, where we have the choice of over analyzing the "genius" that went into deciding the final form; or understanding that that form is a result of some pretty free-form and light hearted, whimsical decision making. In any case:
(02-02-2026, 02:48 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I have made the case for authenticity numerous times elsewhere in this forum, but there are some new folks in this thread who may not have seen my previous posts.
I have handled the Voynich Manuscript more than a dozen times. Over the course of the last 35 years, I have handled hundreds of other manuscripts, if not thousands. There is absolutely NOTHING about the materiality of the Voynich Manuscript that could possibly make anyone suspicious about its authenticity.
1) parchment is authentic 15th-century parchment. Yes, I know, that's doesn't prove anything: Voynich could have found piles of old, unused parchment...possible but unlikely.
Then, we agree that he could have "found piles of old, unused parchment". Actually the fact that you even write this reflects progress on my part, because for well over a decade, this was said to be "impossible". As for "unlikely", I disagree: Voynich bought the Libreria Franceshini in Florence in 1908, and in that repository was over 500,000 items of all types, materials, and qualities. It is plausible that he found his blank parchment there. But, old, blank parchment has been long available, even up and until modern times.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
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:2) inks and pigments do not have any of the chemical signatures one would expect in a modern forgery (such as, for example, traces of arsenic in the green pigment). I know the counter-argument: Voynich was a chemist and could have make the inks and pigments using authentic medieval recipes. Sure, that's possible. Here's my rebuttal: Why would he bother? The spectrometric x-ray-based testing done by McCrone in 2009 did not exist until the 1980s. Why would Voynich go to the trouble of crafting "authentic" ink and pigments when there was literally no way any of his clients could possibly have known the difference? And yes, I know that the McCrone findings include a few otherwise-insignificant outliers that they weren't able to easily explain, but none of these outliers raise suspicions about authenticity.
Yes, Voyich being a chemist is one of the (and my) arguments. Another is that his friend Sidney Rosenblum was, also, and took out a book on Medieval ink formulas from the library. And I see you agree "that's possible". But as for your rebuttal, "Why bother?"? I would rebut your rebuttal by saying, "why not?". A person does not have to imagine future tests in order to follow a recipe. I mean, if you mix the ingredients, and try to control what is in there, it would be a non issue. In this case, I think you would need oak galls and iron sulfate. I have some nice oak galls in a zip lock bag, and hope to use them. If I did, and made an ink out of them, in order to create a forgery, my only concern would be to do it fairly cleanly. I would know that doing so would have the best chance of passing for any iron gall ink, of any age, and I would not even have to worry about what tests there may be now, nor in the future. So whether or not he would worry his "clients would know the difference", or in the future something he didn't put in there wouldn't be found... why? I am... he was... just mixing the ink. I mean, think of it the other way: Mixing it to formula would make it pass any test, so what substances is he avoiding adding so as not to pass... those tests?
That being said... and again, I see you agree to some extent, there are "outliers". These would be "slightly unusual copper and zinc" (McCrone's words), a binder they could not identify, as it was not in their "library" of binders, including Gum Arabic, which is usual. They suggested testing the binder to learn what it actually is, even. And the Titanium Compound... which is unexplained as of yet. Over trace amounts it is highly unusual to find in any Medieval inks. The fact that all these remain unexplained means we don't yet know if they are suspicious, or not. I mean, without knowing what these are, and how they may have gotten in there, it would be wrong of me, or you, to assume that they are not important. But what we do know is that it is wrong to claim the Voynich's ink is without problems.
One more thing: The ink is actually worse than some inks made by some forgers, such as made and used by Mark Hoffmann, forger of several works, including the "Oath of a Freeman". That ink was apparently perfectly indistinguishable from genuine 17th century ink. In fact, it fooled McCrone himself! So here I see the argument that the Voynich ink is perfect, with no suspicions; yet the Voynich ink does have unexplained substances in it, while there are actual forgers inks with NONE, and which, while purer than the Voynich ink, still passed as genuine. So would it not then logically follow that the less pure Voynich ink should not be cleared on the basis of how pure it is, if the premise is that a forger would have made worse ink?
Quote:3) sewing structure: The flax cords and threads that bind the manuscript are authenticly medieval in style (with the exception, of course, of the threads added by Kraus' book conservator, which are clearly modern white thin thread, quite distinct from the original cords and thread). The sewing structure is a Gothic binding structure. The wormholes at the beginning and end tell us the manuscript had once been bound between wooden boards. The style of the limp-vellum covers is that used by the Jesuits in their nineteenth-century rebinding campaign. Again, how and why would someone fake all of that evidence, especially since, again, Voynich's clients wouldn't have known the difference?
Here you have left out several problems with the binding materials and methods, and also simply excused any anachronistic portions of that binding by assigning them to Kraus. I do not believe, however, that Kraus claimed to have had it rebound, first of all. Correct me if I am wrong, but that seems to be a convenient assumption, probably used to explain this find. Likewise, the later covers are explained by a Jesuit "rebinding campaign". I'm not sure how this is known to have been done, other than using the age of those covers to write an explanation for them. I see these as a common practice in the Voynich saga: If something is too new for it, say it was added later. But if it couldn't have been added later, then it is not what you think it is, you are mistaken.
This is to me different than usual scientific practice, in which we let what we find tell us what the object is. We don't dismiss inconvenient finds in order to maintain a desired outcome, or fill a pre-conception. If the materials, bindings, styles, content, and more, were all actually used to tell us what the Voynich is... if we actually listened to it... well, you know what I think that tells us.
But there are many more problems with the binding and its materials. I won't repeat them all here, but in my rebuttal to Rene's "NoFake" page... his complete argument for why the Voynich is not a fake... I wrote "Rebuttal to NoFake". In it I describe the actual finds, in Yale's own words, and how that actually describes a binding and construction with many anomalies and anachronisms. It covers... they cover... the points you made, above, and many more:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Quote:4) Provenance evidence: There is no doubt that the evidence of the manuscript's history is largely circumstantial. Here's my rebuttal: So is the provenance for just about every single medieval manuscript in North America. The fact that the provenance is uncertain is not suspicious. If Voynich were trying to make a convincing fake, the smartest thing to do would have been to create a more convincing provenance, instead of making contradictory statements about his source. And what about that? Why would he make up so many different stories? Because he was an early twentieth-century rare-book dealer, and they were all cagey about provenance and their sources. Again, this neither surprises me nor makes me suspicious. It would have been more suspicious if he had laid out a crystal-clear chain of ownership.
Well we partially agree in the first part, but rather than "largely", I would say the case for provenance is 100% circumstantial. And you and I have had a discussion about the importance and meaning of provenance. As many do, I see a dichotomy of opinion as to its importance, something like, "Provenance does not matter, but here is the important provenance, which we defend". Also, as I explained to Rene, elsewhere in this thread, yes, generally, manuscripts may on the whole often lack provenance. BUT we are told that these Jesuits held it, in these places, in those libraries, protected by confiscation by these guy, hundreds of years after owned by Baresch, then Marci, and then, it was sent to Kircher.
So, this is not just any old provenance-less manuscript sitting in an unmarked box. If, as (strongly and frequently) claimed, it was in all these places, owned by all these people, and with books that DO have that provenance, and often, labels even.. and appear in lists and catalogs... then it shines a stark spotlight on the Voynich, supposedly cheek to jowl to binding with all those others, since for some reason, our Ugly Duckling avoided being likewise recorded. That is, the case is very different than all those unnamed orphan manuscripts, because of the insisted upon... 100% circumstantially created... provenance, while not sharing any of the same evidence of those others. That makes it a very different case, and very suspicious, to me. It is actually almost like it wasn't there with them in the first place, and anyway, there is zero evidence it was.
As for your case of "what Voynich should have done", I see this claim often. But the thing is, it is often spoken by those who accept the things that are... so that is proof, if fake, he did exactly the right things, no? In this case, that he "made contradictory statements about his source". Well which is it? Did he make bad statements which cast suspicion, as I contend they imply; or were they good enough to put people off his scent? It is another case where suspicious items, behavior, statements, W/E are dismissed because "a forger would have done better", while still defending those things as not suspicious in the first place; but then claiming anything one decides is done "right" is also evidence it is genuine (your "It would have been more suspicious if he had laid out a crystal-clear chain of ownership". No, if it had that, of course everyone would point out it was not suspicious... nobody would say, "Too perfect, might be a forgery". I know of no case of that. It is not both, to me: I feel we ought to accept suspicious behavior for what it is, "suspicious", and lack of suspicious behavior a sign that something might be real.
Quote:5) Earlier provenance: The Marci letter's wax stains line up perfectly with the wax stains inside the front cover. I know the counter-argument: What about the folding pattern? Indeed, that is a currently-unresolved question. The next time I am with the manuscript, I'll work with my own facsimile of the letter (from the Siloe edition) to see if I can resolve this. Stay tuned. And there are many reasons that could explain the letter being overlooked by the Jesuits - the manuscript was likely stored in one of the library collections for hundreds of years. If no one was looking at it, which seems likely, how would they have found the letter?
But Lisa, from everything I have seen, and many have pointedly noted, those wax stains (if that is what they are- have they been tested?) do NOT line up well at all, let alone "perfectly". I even saw someone note this recently, again, in this very thread.
I am glad you agree the "folding problem" is as of yet unexplained. You know I am the author of that discovery? And I would be interested in seeing the results of your experiences with the Siloe replica letter. But I did make an accurate representation of the letter, and a couple of others that were (supposedly) contemporary with it, and it was obvious to me that the 1665/66 Marci letter does not fold properly along the existing fold lines.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
But there is a whole host of problems, large and small, with that letter. These simply should not be. I mean, it is already not supposed to be there, for several reasons, but then it "happens" to not fold, and have "wrong" seal positions, and that bad Latin, a perfectly aligned (traced?) signature, a "5" turned into a "6", and then, it was supposedly noticed? And more? I mean, this idea that each problem with it might be kinda-sorta explained in some way or another, albeit not very satisfactorily... but remember, it has all these problems together! Like you, I have examined many thousands of era letters, myself... they do not have these problems. Why does this one? I think, the answer is clear... it is not real. But anyone new to this discussion, check out my blog post on the subject, in which I make my arguments: "The 1665/66 Marci Letter: A fake?": You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Quote:6) More provenance: There is significant provenance evidence on f. 1r. The Tepenecz signature is authentic and matches several of the signatures identified by Rene on his website. The Tepenecz inventory number "19" is not otherwise used in Tepenecz books. How would Voynich have known to use that number? Why would he then erase the signature only to pour sulfuric acid ("liver of sulfur," the likely reagent he used) all over it to make it visible, only to leave a permanent stain that then made the signature invisible again? Light-based techniques for reading faded oak-gall ink on parchment had not yet been invented, so why go to the trouble when no one would be able to read it?
Good point about the use of the "19", and I could only guess: Perhaps he had, at one time, the book that numbered signature came from? He cut up lots of books and covers, when he found them of little value. But your point just sparked a question, which maybe you can answer: Is there any rhyme or reason to Tepenecz's numbering system? I mean, could one determine a category, or acquisition date, or something, to the use of that number?
At any rate, when I found the "pre-treatment" You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. photograph (which others must have seen, long before me, and despite its importance, never mentioned?), it made it clear that the signature would have been visible to Voynich. So I can only guess, along with you, as to the reasons he would have messed around with it. And, I believe, his stories about why he did that, and how, varied. So, you and I and anyone can only speculate as to his motives. Did he try to erase it? Do we know that? I wondered, but never heard that we know he did.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
My thoughts on the "signature", first off all... I agree with Jan Hurych that the signature is fake. I link his paper to the first signature link, above. Secondly, I believe it is there because Voynich wanted to give the impression that the Cipher Ms. came from the Court of Rudolf II... which, many believe was the case, partly because of that signature. But I also think that, when he tried to switch to a Bacon authorship, he no longer needed it... until he concocted that whole Dee Fairy Tale to explain it... again. He knew the Dee story was fake, and that the book Arthur Dee had described as owned by his father was actually the Book of Dunston.
But the thing is, "if" he could not obliterate that signature, he would have had to explain it in some way. The Dee lie, along with a forged 1665/66 letter would do that... "place" the Voynich back into the Court again.
Not implausible, nor (I can hear the complaint forming) complicated. What is complicated is the tangle web of investigations, debates, and endless dead end trails which were woven by those two, simple acts: Place that signature, then point to a story to explain it, with that letter. Then, hope no one but Rich ever notices that Marci never mentioned that signature, EVEN though he was supposedly describing the possibility that the BOOK IT WAS WRITTEN ON ended up in the Court of Rudolf II. Sort of an important oversight, I think. Unless Marci never saw it to begin with...
"Origin of the Dee Myth" (man there are a lot of myths, and new ones every week!): You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Quote:7) More provenance: My own research identified the alphabets in the right-hand margin of f. 1r as having been written by Marci himself. Why would Voynich fake a second piece of provenance on f. 1r using Marci's handwriting, when it doesn't match the handwriting in the Marci letter? Rene identified that letter as actually having been written by Marci's secretary. The hand on f. 1r is Marci himself, not his secretary, identified in earlier letter he wrote himself. Again, why go to the trouble? Also, that ink has a different chemical profile in the McCrone report - recent XRF testing (not public yet) identified a zinc signature in those alphabets that marks it as NOT a medieval iron gall ink. Why would Voynich use a 17th-c. ink recipe to forge those alphabets and then ersae them, when tests to authenticate or debunk the ink wouldn't exist for another 80 years?
Well I have not yet studied your reasoning for believing that those letters are most definitely Marci's, first of all. I know that virtually every handwriting comparison is debatable to some degree. But even if it does match Marci's, as you suspect, isn't your theory that Marci had the manuscript in his possession? And if that was the assigned provenance by a forger, as I suspect was done here, wouldn't it be correct for a forger to add notations in the handwriting of one of the "desired" owners? This is and has been done all the time by forgers. But again, I don't necessarily accept that this is Marci's hand, I'm only pointing out that I don't see the problem for forgery if it is. And also, didn't Marci supposedly own the Voynich decades before the 1665/66 letter? Why would a forger write it in his secretaries hand, long before he (supposedly) needed said secretary? Of course he would try to copy the actual hand of Marci. As for, "Rene identified that letter as actually having been written by Marci's secretary", this is the danger of stating opinions as fact. To my knowledge, this is Rene's opinion, based on several assumptions by him and others, and used to explain away, in part, the bad hand of that letter. I don't believe, I mean, that Rene or anyone "identified" that that letter was written by a scribe, it is an assumption, speculation, based on a need to explain a problem, a difference, with that letter, as compared to his other letters... which, curiously, safe in the Carteggio, were not written by this (invented?) scribe.
As for the distinction you make with the ink, as being 17th century, rather than Medieval. But here is the thing: The main inks, and other inks, while (for the most part) proper for the early 15th century, are ALSO proper for the 17th. It would therefore be yours, and others, distinction between the inks. For me, finding a 17th century ink in a faux 17th century forgery would not be a surprise to me, I mean. And my answer for "why?" anyone would mix a 17th century ink formula for a faux 17th century forgery, I can only point out the there would be no reason for them to predict, nor care about the possibility, that any testing of that ink would reveal the ruse... they would simply... mix the formula for 17th century ink. I pointed this out before... I can't understand why people think this is an issue... as though, if the ink was forged, it "must have" detectable anomalies in it. No, it would be: Find old recipe, gather ingredients, mix ink.
As for the erasure... how do we know it is erased? Are there erasure marks? My understanding is that ink is removed from parchment by scraping, and scraping leaves marks. Are there marks? How do we know it is not faded, or worn? And that being said, I don't understand why, erasure, fading, or not, it is an issue of any sort?
Quote:8) Five scribes: Why would Voynich bother?
He needed help? Bored residents in the Franceshini "safe house"? Any reason for a genuine manscript to need multiple scribes would also apply to a forgery, no? It would not be a "bother", but a help.
Quote:9) Evidence of misbinding (my own forthcoming work): Why would Voynich bother?
I can't speak for others, but my hypothesis states that Voynich decided to change the authorship/ownership from Tepencz to Roger Bacon, for various reasons I outline. When he did so, he felt he needed to remove several pages which were too "un-Bacon-like", or too early 17th century-court-of-Rudolf-origin like. He left things he thought would still pass muster, like the crappy armadillo... and he was right! And as you know, many early experts still believed this was a late 16th, early 17th century work. I propose that what was removed was too obvious for him to leave in there.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
"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. At some later point (by about 1910/11?), the intended author and time was changed to Roger Bacon and the 13th century, probably by removing many of the now missing pages (which may have run counter to a Roger Bacon claim). Sometime later, the 1666 Marci to Kircher letter was forged, in order to strengthen this new, intended, Bacon authorship."
Quote:10) Later additions: Why add later-style quire numbers and even-later-style folio numbers? Why add the inscriptions on 17r and 116v?
Remember, these things are "later additions" to anyone whose nexus is 1420... and so need to claim certain anachronisms were "added later". A forgery meant to look 17th century would have no such need.
I would point out about the marginalia: Marginalia is usually, almost always, readable. Why would this not be readable, and yet in a differnt hand and style and lettering? And why would the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. marginalia, while in a different hand and style and content (which before McCrone was said to be added later, BTW) be written in the same ink as the main text? Was it a different scribe borrowing the inkwell of the Voyich author? No, I think these problems imply that this marginalia was added for "effect", so examiners would say, "Why [would a forger] add the inscriptions on 17r and 116v?". Forgers have many tricks up their sleeves, they do stuff like this all the time. Real marginalia would probably be readable, and in a different ink than the author.
And by the way, you may know my old theory that what I named the "Bird Glyph" on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is very similar in form and position to the "calderon", or paragraph marker, used in some New World post-Columbian herbals:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Well interestingly, from one of those codices that has Voynichesque calderons, also has this marginalia:
Quote:11) Its uniqueness: Some argue that the very fact of its uniqueness and our thus-far inability to decipher it MUST mean its a fake. The argument falls apart as soon as you consider the numbers: only 5-10% of medieval manuscripts still exist today, and a tiny fraction of those have been catalogued, and an even tinier fraction have been digitized. There is a lot that doesn't exist anymore and there's alot out there still that is not known or studied. It may turn out to indeed be unique, but I don't find that a convincing argument for concluding it's a fake.
But Lisa, you have tried to cover both cases here, again: "If we don't find one like it, it does not mean there is not one like it, so it is real; but if we never find one like it, that does not matter, and does not prove it is fake".
And anyway, I do not know anyone, including me, who argues, "... that the very fact of its uniqueness and our thus-far inability to decipher it MUST mean its a fake." I mean, I would not use "MUST". What I would actually say is different, "The complete uniqueness means that those who believe it is genuine lack the supporting evidence of a like-manuscript".
I don't think uniqueness alone is a sign of forgery, not at all. There are plenty of unique things in the world that are absolutely real. And the same for the inability to decipher it: Well, not entirely. If it is indecipherable that would be, yes, obvious evidence of it being a forgery, because while most forgeries have meaning, the opposite is also true: Most nonsense creations are forgery... or art, or something else... but not, in this case, a genuine manuscript. Well, with a disclaimer, which many who feel it is genuine also hold, and that would be the case of an old nonsense work, meant to impress others of arcane, important knowledge, but not meant actually SAY anything. But I strongly believe it is not that, for... reasons.
Quote:And on and on.
It is one thing to forge a single document or painting, when all you are worrying about is the substrate and the inks/pigments. To forge an entire book, there are simply too many ways to go wrong: substrate, ink, pigments, sewing thread, binding, and provenance, must all be convincing and unassailable. There is absolutely nothing about any of those physical components that lends credence to the "modern forgery hypothesis." There's a reason why the Vinland Map was a forged map on a single sheet of authentic parchment, not a bound manuscript (the manuscript it is associated with was never suspect). There's a reason why the Spanish Forger painted on medieval parchment or wooden panels...when he tried to forge an entire manuscript (recently acquired by Harvard as an example of a forgery), the fake was so obvious that no one but an amateur collector could have been fooled by it. I saw it a few weeks ago - it is a laughable attempt.
It's unique, that's for sure. But again, if a forgery, it has and is fooling many, so it worked... long as it is. One of the great risks of discovery of a forgery is, as you point out, length. The longer you make it, the greater the risk. So what would be the way to avoid this? Make everything unidentifiable, so that nothing could directly compare to anything real, not well enough, anyway, to say it is really supposed to "be" that thing. That way, no chance of making an error. If it is meaningless, no chance of making a content error, either, as happened with many forgeries, including the Vinland Map.
So my answer to your point would be: The length is a factor deciding it's completely enigmatic nature, which, by design, gives safety, insulation, from possible detection through obvious and increasingly unavoidable errors.
Quote:I know that there are those among you who will now respond point-by-point to make your increasingly-complicated case. Until there is convincing scientific evidence identifying the manuscript as anything other than an authentic early fifteenth-century manuscript, you won't convince me. The case for forgery requires a truly implausible series of events. With each piece of the forgery argument, the improbabilities multiply. It is simply not plausible.
Well, to you of course. I find forgery the simplest, least complicated, most obvious and apparent answer, with a context which explains every speck of it. On the contrary, I find arguments for genuine need to be vastly complex, internally contrary, needing to selectively ignore and accept evidence of varying standards, and relies on massive amounts of "evidence" that has still not been found. It needs to apply mismatched standards in order to explain the content it needs to exist: A bad artist; a good artist. Accurate content to fit 1420; deemed inaccurate when it does not. It needs an honest Wilfrid here; a dishonest Wilfrid there. It needs to move the historical location of the manuscript around as forgery closes in on it, in its last known location. It needs to manipulate raw data to palpable results that fit the 1420 genuine preconception. It needs to ignore and make excuses for anachronisms and anomalies, stating anything "too new" was added; and if it could not be added, it simply is ignored, or not what it looks like.
I see it as a huge, complex massive set of convoluted excuses, all needed to "defend" the Voynich against a simple, obvious, conclusion: It is just a sloppily made, somewhat careless, inaccurate and whimsical fake. As I often say, I think that if it were found today, and not saddled with the archaic standards of acceptance of the early 20th century, it would have quickly been laughed off the stage of scholarly, literary examination.
Quote:What IS plausible is that the manuscript was created by an unknown community for an unknown purpose in the early 1400s, likely in Central Europe or Italy (based on the script, illustrative style, clothing, and zodiac). We don't really know where it was for the first few centuries, although the month names are a nice clue that it was in Western Europe at one point. In the 1600s, it appears in Prague (possibly - but not definitively) sold to Emperor Rudolf by Carl Widemann from Augsburg in 1599. In Prague, it passes to Tepenecz, Baresch, and Marci before being sent to Kircher in Rome in 1665. It stays with the Jesuits in various collections in Rome until Voynich buys it in 1912 and brings it to London and then to America. After he dies, it passes to Ethel, and from Ethel to Anne. Anne sells it to Kraus in 1961. Kraus spends a few years trying to sell it, but in the end gives up and donates it to Yale in 1968. The end.
Well, while I respect your opinion, and your right to state it, I strongly disagree this is the case for the reasons I give. It would be nice, it would be colorful, fun and exciting, all that... the castles, the travels, the noblemen, the secret formulas and cures... but I think it is nothing of the kind. It was meant to evoke all that, and in that, as poor a work as I think it is, it certainly does its job.
All the best, Rich
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - Jorge_Stolfi - 03-02-2026
Just for the record, here are my probabilities for the various candidates to previous owners of Beinecke MS 408 through time:
- Wilfrid Voynich - 99.99%
- The Jesuits guarding the Kircher Carteggio - 90%
- The Gregorian Pontifical University - 87%
- Athanasius Kircher - 83%
- Marcus Marci - 80%
- Georg Baresch - 77%
- Jacobus Tepenecz - 40%
- Rudolf II - 10%
- Widemann - 5%
- John Dee - 0.1%
My probs decrease from (2) to (6) because I think that there is a nonzero possibility that MS 408 got substituted for the original book by mistake along all those translations. The 3% drop per step may be too much... but may also be too little.
My prob of (7), Jacobus, is so low because I still think that there is a non-negligible prob that Wilfrid forged that signature. He definitely had the necessary means, opportunity, motivation, ability, and lack of scruples.
My prob of Rudolf is only 20% (generously) because I read Raphael's remark in Marci's letter as just a wild guess based on hearsay of the purchase. It would be the first Crazy Voynich Origin theory on record. (Baresch's own theory, of course, was not crazy.
) Apart from that claim, I don't see any reason to even think that MS 408 could have been in Rudolf's library at some time. Even if I assumed that Jacobus was indeed an owner before Baresch (that is, even if I set (7) to 100% instead of 40%).All the best, --stolfi
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - LisaFaginDavis - 03-02-2026
Not sure how you got these numbers, but I certainly agree that the certainty decreases as we work backwards in time! In fact, in the book I'm writing I narrate the provenance in reverse chronology for just that reason.
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - Jorge_Stolfi - 03-02-2026
(03-02-2026, 04:49 PM)LisaFaginDavis Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Not sure how you got these numbers
A probability is just a numerical way to express one's degree of confidence in some claims. One cannot measure probabilities, or obtain them in any objective way. They are inherently subjective; so ideally one should always say "my probability" rather than "the probability" -- because the latter does not exist.
Probability theory teaches only how to keep your probabilities consistent with each other, but leaves open the choice of basic values from which others are derived. For example, if my probability of tomorrow's lottery number ending in 4 or 8 is 40% each, then probability theory says that my probability of the last digit being less than 7 should be no less than 40% and no more than 60%. Setting it at 30% would be irrational, because it would be logically inconsistent with my other stated probabilities.
The numbers in that post express my confidence on the various owners, and are based on the facts I know and on how I think the world works. Including my assessment of the character of Wilfrd and the other persons involved.
All the best, --stolfi
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - asteckley - 03-02-2026
(03-02-2026, 05:16 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[The numbers in that post express my confidence on the various owners, and are based on the facts I know and on how I think the world works. Including my assessment of the character of Wilfrd and the other persons involved.
Which is also to say, they are a set of "priors" suitable for a systematic Bayesian analysis.
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - proto57 - 03-02-2026
(03-02-2026, 05:16 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Including my assessment of the character of Wilfrd and the other persons involved.
I often equate problems like this with the rules and practices of law and law enforcement. I find that in legal cases, in a fair system, we have distilled many factors down to essentials, in order to render just and accurate verdicts, because people's lives depend on it. We don't want to make mistakes!
In this case, your judging the character of Wilfrid, I agree it is a factor. Or lack thereof is a factor. And your pointing this out reminded me of the time in the 1980's when I was the Foreman of a Jury in a Federal trial of two police officers. The prosecutor was a brilliant young lawyer, a woman who worked in Guiliani's law team, when he was DA.
The instructions from the judge, before we retired to the jury room, included the admonition that (paraphrasing) "If you find that a witness or defendant lied about one aspect of their testimony, you are free to throw out all of their other testimony along with it".
Well that prosecutor deftly eviscerated a couple of key witnesses for the defense, by demonstrating how they had lied in the past... even in issues unrelated to the trial at hand. One of them confronted a witness with an old tax return, which had on it... I think it was 13 "dependents". Children. She asked him to name them. He could not. So, as jurors, we where then allowed to discard all his other testimony as unreliable.
If this was a case up for trial, us witnesses would be allowed to throw out all of Wilfrid's testimony, as he was a proven liar. I only "trust" as far as it can be proven correct, which is not too often. But with all such witness testimony, it often reveals information that the originator never intended... so it can be useful to some extent, but not for it's truthfulness.
Well we do this, ourselves, in day to day social interactions. That friend who brags about how they rip everyone else off all the time? We don't leave them around our own possessions. The one who likes to talk about how high they get? Not gonna babysit for us. Behavior and reliability and truthfulness in one area rightly affects our judging a person in all areas... whether fair or not, it is practical, common sense.
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - ReneZ - 03-02-2026
Strictly speaking, the ownership by Tepenec does not depend on any of the people above him, so his probability does not have to be less than theirs.