The Voynich Ninja
The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - Printable Version

+- 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)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - rikforto - 02-11-2025

(Yesterday, 02:24 AM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(Yesterday, 01:59 AM)rikforto Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.... I notice that you have been very vocal and combative on this thread about the bounds of discourse and how people should engage
So -- you see how this works Rich?
You dared to make a reference that was relevant to a thread's ongoing discussion and which was no more "off-topic" than hundreds of other references, BUT it alluded to an idea that was deemed to be taboo. So that thread was shut down and you were banished to this thread ... dedicated to your theory... but where people are apparently free to go off-topic in order to criticize YOU and dwell further on your perceived misbehavior and to go on about how the discourse is to be bounded. And if you have the audacity to then respond and defend yourself, well hell -- you are just being "vocal and combative"! 
How dare you!

Thank you, this sheds a good deal of light on how we might better prove Voynich's intent under The Modern Forgery Hypothesis all while showing your commitment to addressing specific ideas rather than succumbing to discourse drift. Thank you for taking the time to clear that up

RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - proto57 - 02-11-2025

(Yesterday, 01:59 AM)rikforto Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(01-11-2025, 03:26 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I apologize if this is repetitive, but to that point, I doubt this was created as a Bacon work to begin with. 

And I have noted that this hypothesis relies on degrees of freedom in Voynich's actions when it hits a snag like this one. Perhaps---and not even implausibly!---he changed tact in the middle of his scam. I would very much like some evidence for that which is not deduced from the conclusion it is meant to support before I give it any more weight than any of a number of other conjectures on this forum. And even if that is established, I will repeat that the question of his thinking behind the (pseudo?) cipher is a genuine puzzle and a loose end that would speak to his shifting motivations and potentially open a new line of evidence for modern origins if it could be answered. Why this hoax? is to my mind a very live question even if you establish through other means it was a hoax. I was hoping my original interlocutor would take that more seriously when I jumped into this thread.

I'm a bit unclear specifically what you are asking, maybe? I want to answer you, but I think we might be misunderstanding each other on these points. I thought I had answered with my take on his motivations, or "why?" possibly gibberish, or... ? I am really interested in your question, and do want to answer it.

As for my opinion, speculation, whatever, on "why?" he would shift to an unlikely Bacon authorship, and what I use as a basis for that idea, or more importantly how I got to that idea, it like this, and not necessarily in this order. This is a group of thoughts and observations that came together over some period of time. I'll give my reasoning after listing them:

- The Voynich is nothing like a Roger Bacon work, of course
- But Voynich promoted it as such, and even roped poor Newbold, and set him on Bacon's trail
- Voynich claimed to have found the letter well after purchase of the ms., which is You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. In this case, I feel he would have noticed it right away. This and the other reasons in my linked blog post, it seems he created that letter to point to Bacon.
- The Voynich, again, to me, very much looked like an early 17th century notebook from the Court of Rudolf II. This is long before I read Bolton. My first theory, in fact, was based on the (now mostly discredited) belief that John Dee sold him the book in the late 16th century. And I thought, and still think that many cylinders are supposed to be microscopes, not jars, and Drebbel was in Rudolf's court around this time. Drebbel is credited with the invention of the first complex, twin lens microscopes (sorta, long story). So I wrote the article for Renaissance Magazine in 2007, "The Voynich: Drebbel's Lost Notebook?". But after abandoning Drebbel, I nonetheless felt the ms. was connected with the Court of Rudolf II, for content in the Voynich, and the "signature", as Horcicky is Sinapius is DeTepencze, and his name appears on f1r, of course. 
- I studied the reasons for the "Dee" connection, and found evidence that You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., but promoted this path anyway. Why? It was as though he wanted everyone to LOOK to the Court for answers
- Voynich WAS thinking of the Court, for one thing, in the chicken/egg problem of his list of 19 names, which Rene found, names which were in the order of Bolton. Did Voynich turn to Bolton's Follies for answers; or, conversely, did Voynich use Follies to create the Voynich? In either case, we knew Voynich considered that book important, and "knew it by heart". But to me, it was still as though he wanted people to think Rudolf's Court, and coincidentily, through Bolton, knew that a chief person of the Court also "signed" his ugly duckling.
- And, as outlined elsewhere in this thread I point out that You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., seems disingenuous to me. Well he used the answer, and this is also another instance where Voynich seems fixated on Rudolf's Court, and wanting people to consider it...
- Then, he shifts gears, and it is all Bacon, Bacon, Bacon.
- It is possible that he sought feedback, well before 1912, and was not happy with the results. There is evidence that, as early as 1905, but possibly as late as maybe 1908-1910 (and I favor '10, because for other and related reasons I feel that is when it was created), it seems to have been in the Frankfort bookshop of Joseph Baer, where Charles Singer, the eminent herbalist and botanist, may have seen it. See: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
- Also, as I've previously stated, Roger Bacon was becoming big news, as his 700 anniversary of birth was coming up in a few years. Perhaps he wanted to ride that wave of publicity

So, as to my reasoning as to why I think he changed the origin and author from the Court of Rudolf II, and Horcicky, and started promoting it as a Roger Bacon: In part because a Roger Bacon work would be fabulously valuable, like $160,000, he thought, while an average 16th century herbal at the time, maybe 1,000 pounds. Also, perhaps he was he was unhappy with the verdict of Baer. And then this may also be the time the ms. got rearranged, and rebound, and lost pages. I also wonder if, at this time, he attempted to remove the signature... for we know his little secret, it WAS visible to him, and yet he poured crap on it. But that signature, as a "Bacon", would now be problematic... the Marci letter solves that, though... taking a Bacon, and now "putting it" into the Court (again?), where Tepencz's signature also made sense.

Perhaps, while changing its origin and author, he removed those pages that were absolutely NOT "Baconesque"? I mean, the remaining pages are enigmatic, but I and other have, and do, see more of a late 15th, early 16th century "vibe" and content. I tend to dismiss post C14 theories as to age and origin, as they were "after the party" of decades of expert scrutiny before that, and one can literally trace the alteration of post-C14 opinion to align with that one test.

In short then: Voynich introduced the Voynich about 1911/12, and seemed to want people to look at the Court of Rudolf II as the origin. Then, about 1913/15, he stated he found this letter that pointed to Bacon. By 1920, there was no more Court, it was all Bacon.

I hope that answered your question as to my reasoning on this "why Bacon" question...

Quote:You can continue to cite other lines of evidence and reasoning to establish plausibility, but I've been quite clear that I see your telling of Voynich's actions as speculative rather than implausible. If you cannot directly address the gaps in what we actually know about Voynich's motivations, and such a thing is admittedly difficult to do, then I would go back to my original point and say that I think the oddity of Voynich's supposed actions under the hoax theory should be taken seriously and this will be my last communication with you on that point. If you have been withholding direct evidence for how and why Voynich made this forgery, I'll be happy to consider it. Given that you already spoke to the great many uncertainties in the text, I think you should agree that this gap exists and recognize why many of us take it seriously when evaluating conjectures about Voynich's supposed motivations.


Oh... that should actually be over my set of reasoning for the Court to Bacon timeline. But as to "direct evidence", I'm afraid none of us have that, not for genuine, not for modern hoax, not for Wotan, Averlino, Akam, Temple of Isis, not for anything. We are all working with the same manuscript and tests, and little else. All anyone can say for certain stops shortly after "Manuscript on 15th century calfskin, with goatskin 17th century boards, with odd pictures which could have been applied anytime from the 15th to early 20th century, with a text containing some Latin letters, and unidentified unique characters, with we cannot read". Everything other than that is all speculation. No exceptions. 

Quote:Finally, I notice that you have been very vocal and combative on this thread about the bounds of discourse and how people should engage, and I have found that very frustrating next to your attempts to refocus my point towards tangential lines of evidence I have not weighed in on and have indicated an unwillingness to expand the scope of our conversation towards. I don't want to debate the semantics of derailing exactly as that conversation...

I think you may have mixed up my posts which responded to various moderators who took issue with me. I never came close to suggesting any "bounds of discourse and how people should engage", certainly not in a combative way. Another clue to your mixing me up with my unhappy moderators is your mistake in thinking it was I who first injected the charge of derailing... that was actually Koen, and I only defended this charge against me.

And quite the opposite of the above, I've been championing a more open attitude from the moderators, and suggesting less bounderies, and allowing MORE open discourse, not less. And I think our discussions have been a great example of that... along with Jorge, RobGea and Magnesium. I lament that the posts you object to might have might have made you reluctant to discuss these things, and also, may now have clouded the wonderful debates we have all engaged in, on actual "forgery or not" topics. I would rather they had not come into this forum to post those things, but it is not my forum.

In short, I agree with you, but it was not me. I believe in open debate, no holds barred.


Quote:... would have been on the right thread by being here, but I have had to do a fair amount of work to keep this discussion from becoming a broad-ranging debate of every point you've ever made, all the while having limited success getting you to address my particular concern head on. Questions of how and where the moderators should intervene aside, I will ask you to consider why this kind of rapidly expanding and drifting scope might be frustrating for people trying to follow a specific point that does not readily fit your ideas about how best to approach the document.

Well I agree it can be confusing, and difficult to answer all these questions so rapidly, and in such a short time frame. I apologize if I have missed some of your points, or misunderstood some of them, but I swear I have tried to do so. Please be patient, and when you like, ask whatever you like. I am always very, very interested in discussion and debate, and love answering questions... and also, I hope you noticed by now, will admit when I do not know an answer, or don't have an opinion on something. 

Best of luck fleshing out this hypothesis going forward, I hope you'll give the gap I've identified some serious consideration on its own merits as it may prove fertile ground for finding new lines of inquiry around it.
[/quote]

Thank you, and I try. These sort of discussions are valuable to me, and always have been, because they flush out problems with my own ideas, and often inspire new lines of inquiry...

All the best, Rich

RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - proto57 - 02-11-2025

(Yesterday, 03:18 AM)rikforto Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Thank you, this sheds a good deal of light on how we might better prove Voynich's intent under The Modern Forgery Hypothesis all while showing your commitment to addressing specific ideas rather than succumbing to discourse drift. Thank you for taking the time to clear that up

Thank you again for your interest and feedback. It ain't easy, but I'm trying... thanks for noticing.

Rich

RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - proto57 - 02-11-2025

(Yesterday, 01:01 AM)Bluetoes101 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.- because watermarks are evidence used to determine age, geographic origins, and, sorry, authenticity



No, you inserted that unprompted to insert your ideas to the thread.

Well it may seem unprompted, but I do believe the discussion of the importance of watermark evidence often does relate to its ability to discover forgery. Not in all cases, but in some, and in this one. In some, because if the watermark is too late for the work, then obviously the work is fake. You can't put a new watermark in an old book.

But in this case, or in that one... in the watermark thread... it can relate to authenticity, even if the right age for the letter, because if no other use, by Marci, of that watermark is found, it is evidence that other paper was source for the 1665/66 letter. Proof, no. And if the watermark is found in Marci's papers, it is even stronger evidence in the other direction: Genuine.

And then, as you saw, Lisa objected with the "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", i.e., even if we NEVER find another Marci use of this same watermark, we can't say it did not exist somewhere, and maybe even used by the scribe that they say wrote the 1665/66 letter.

Anyway, the importance of finding/not finding lies somewhere along the scale of weak and strong evidence to genuine to forgery. But it is important evidence, and becomes all the more important the more Marci documents that are examined for the watermark. Note that I do not say "proof". Evidence is not of course, proof. So yes, I "inserted" my ideas about the possible value of the watermark as evidence toward forgery or genuine, but I disagree that it was "unprompted". The whole topic of watermarks did prompt me to point out the above value of watermarks... it is a real one, and often valuable for that purpose.


Quote:- As Lisa did, in using the "Absence of Evidence it not evidence of absence argument", which in this case was saying that even if a known Marci example was not found, the letter could still be real... yet, I would never even consider that Lisa's point be censored, or moved, for suggesting reasons the watermark find might always imply genuine.



This statement was made after your post. Yes, obviously.

Point taken... in my defense, the order of all this is swirling by now, and the thread is broken up and scattered anyway, so I lost the continuity of that discussion. I had wrongly thought the "Absence..." adage came first. But be that as it may, yes I did introduce the idea of the watermark possibly helping to determine forgery, or not... guilty as charged. What I disagree on is how much of any sort of "offense" that should be seen as, any more than someone noting the watermark was Italian, or three tassled hats. I think the moderator broke her own rules, and vastly over-reacted.

IMHO, as you know.



Quote:I don't have any compliant against you. I think some posts in here are condescending and rude to Tavie, that makes me a bit uncomfortable and I thought they were unneeded. While I don't find your theory obviously appealing to me I've been taking time to read it and will continue to.

Well thank you for taking the time to do that. I hope you find it interesting, and thought provoking, if not convincing to you. And if you have any questions about my theory, please fire away.

All the best, Rich

RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - proto57 - 02-11-2025

(Yesterday, 02:24 AM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(Yesterday, 01:59 AM)rikforto Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.... I notice that you have been very vocal and combative on this thread about the bounds of discourse and how people should engage
So -- you see how this works Rich?
You dared to make a reference that was relevant to a thread's ongoing discussion and which was no more "off-topic" than hundreds of other references, BUT it alluded to an idea that was deemed to be taboo. So that thread was shut down and you were banished to this thread ... dedicated to your theory... but where people are apparently free to go off-topic in order to criticize YOU and dwell further on your perceived misbehavior and to go on about how the discourse is to be bounded. And if you have the audacity to then respond and defend yourself, well hell -- you are just being "vocal and combative"! 
How dare you!

Thank you for noting this, asteckley... although I have to wonder if, as I pointed out in my response to rikforto, if perhaps he made a mistake and mixed me up with the angry moderators complaints against me. I think that possible, because the points made in rik's complaint are the polar opposite to what I was preaching... not combat, and all for a greater and wider "bounds of discourse", and also, NOT telling ANYONE how they should "engage", but defending the ability of people to freely converse. Also, it was Koen who introduced the charge of "derailing", not me. I only defended myself.

But maybe I'm wrong, and he didn't like my responses to the moderators. My powers of reading comprehension might be weakening in all this flurry of activity, accusations, and genuine interest alike. But it is wearying and time consuming to sort all this out... and I'm sure I am not alone in hoping it all stops. Meanwhile, you and the others who are genuinely interested in my arguments, and the arguments of others, are making an effort to talk with each other through the fog, and that's a good thing.

Thanks much for noticing, and caring enough about all this to comment.

All the best, Rich.

RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - proto57 - 02-11-2025

(Yesterday, 01:59 AM)rikforto Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. Why this hoax? is to my mind a very live question even if you establish through other means it was a hoax. I was hoping my original interlocutor would take that more seriously when I jumped into this thread.


I realized that, when answering your questions in my last response to you, I was answering (paraphrasing) "Why do I think it was first meant as a ms. from the Court of Rudolf II, and then Voynich switched the attribution to Roger Bacon?". Or something like that... that is what I was attempting to answer (clumbsily, sorry, I was getting tired... )

But then, on rereading your questions, I worry that you may have meant, or also meant, why do I think it was made at all, as a hoax, by Voynich? If so, I would list these reasons:

- Money, as he hoped for between $100,000 to $160,000... the equivalent today of about $1.7 million to over $2 million dollars

- Voynich was a subversive, anti-establishment radical. From all I know, I suspect he would have enjoyed, and did enjoy, fooling the class of people he probably despised. He could rip them off, and prove himself more clever, and superior to them, if he sold this manuscript to them

- His wife was a best selling author, a respected translator, daughter of the famous Boole, an accomplished and successful composer, an important political activist, and also fast becoming a popular and well known "celebrity". I think he loved her, and craved her respect, and her rising so far above him must have made him feel less important. He has made a big sale to the British Library, but while her fame was soaring, his had plateaued. So, perhaps, creating this work which would make him interesting and gain respect, and a fortune... all while possibly appealing directly to Ethel with its content, maybe another motivation would have been to gain her attention, respect, and maybe, love

- ... and it would have, and did, appeal to Ethel (although moreso after his death), as she had a love of colors, and flowers, and used both in her books. And the Gadfly not only used color and flowers to set the tones of scenes, but also included the use of ciphers. Her sequel, "An Interrupted Friendship", describes Native South American culture, art and religion. Ethel spent years working on the Voyinch problem, it became very important to her. She filled two notebooks with flower identifications, and made notes on provenance, the characters, and so on. If faked, Voynich could not have faked a better book for Ethel.

Those would be my main suggestions for motivation, the "why". As to "how" he would have done it, perhaps:

- He bought the Libreria Franceshini in 1908, and it was filled with a mountain of over 500,000 items of all sorts. I think the necessary blank calfskin may have been found there

- Inks would have been little problem for him, as he was a chemist. Also, his friend and associate (and possible paramour of Ethel), the "Ace of Spies" Sidney Reilly, was also a chemist, and even took a book about the composition of Medieval inks out of the Cambridge library.

- He certainly had the knowledge, and also a vast stock of books which could be gleaned from, for inspirations for the illustrations

- He may have had the talent, and much talent was not even necessary: the Voynich illustrations are quite crude

- As for time, the Libreria Franceshini would have been closed by about May, as it was pre-air conditioning, and it was the practice of many shops in Florence to close for the summer. This would have afforded him, and/or others who may have helped him, ample time and privacy

- As for multiple hands of the text, it might be explained by helpers. Voynich used the Libreria as a sort of "safe house", and is known to have housed at least two persons there, one, Phillipovitch, acting as manager when the store was open: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

So those would be my speculative answers to how and why he might have made the Voynich. Edit: Most of this, and maybe more?... is in this overview of my theory... motivations, timeline, and so on: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Rich

RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - RadioFM - 02-11-2025

What kind of evidence would convince you that it's not a modern forgery?

RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - ReneZ - 02-11-2025

(01-11-2025, 03:26 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.So, in short, if Voynich succeeded in cashing in on his "new found" Bacon attribution, it very much... IMHO... have served him, and was serving him, to not have the Voynich deciphered... assuming it could be deciphered. But I still do not agree that meaning favors genuine, in this or any other case. Hopefully though, if it has meaning it is deciphered at some point, and that may offer us the answer.

Let's assume Newbold's proof that the MS was from Bacon would increase its value.
Putting an incentive on Newbold would be a completely normal thing to do in case the MS was genuine, so this point is not in favour of either option. It is neutral and plays no role in the discussion.

The fact that Voynich hoped to make $100,000 dollars from the sale of this MS is also no argument.

At the same time he was offering perfectly genuine manuscripts from the Jesuits for 150,000.
For that see here: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - Jorge_Stolfi - 02-11-2025

(01-11-2025, 08:37 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view."If Voynich could see it, why didn't the men of the Letters see it, and so, tell Kircher about it?"

Yeah, that is a puzzling point.  As you and Jan asked, why did neither Baresh nor Marci mention Jacobus, if his signature was readable on f1r?  Baresh knew Jacobus, at least by fame, and would have recognized his name even if it was only barely visible...

And why didn't Baresh cross out Jacobus's signature, and put his own besides it?

But my question still stands: is there any evidence (like a date for that rotograph) that the signature was on f1r before Voynich could possibly have received a copy of some of Jacobus's ex libris?  

Or also: could Voynich maybe have obtained some other book from Jacobus's library, from which he could have copied that signature?  Say, 

  1. Voynich gets Marci's letter somewhere.
  2. Marci's mention of Roger Bacon's lost book gets him salivating.
  3. But the letter was either loose, or attached to a book that was obviously not Bacon's.
  4. Voynich gets the VMS somewhere else. It did not have Jacobus's signature.
  5. He thinks that the VMS fitted Marci's letter and, with it attached, could be passed off as Bacon's.
  6. But he needs to make up some evidence that the VMS was indeed the book mentioned in the letter.
  7. And he also needs an explanation for how the book got from Rudolf to Baresh.
  8. So Voynich researches Rudolf's "alchemists" to see if any would fit that role.
  9. He gets Sinapius and Tepenecz among other possible names.
  10. He does not know who this Tepenecz was and asks Garland to find out. 
  11. Garland tells Voynich that Tepenecz = Sinapius. 
  12. Voynich somehow gets a copy of the ex-libris from one of Jacobus's books. 
  13. Voynich forges Jacobus's signature on f1r.  
  14. Voynich takes the first photo of f1r.
  15. Voynich all but erases the forged signature, to make verification impossible.

I admit that I have no direct evidence for this theory, and I don't find it very likely myself.  

But is it possible?  I think the theory above (or some variant) should be considered, because I believe that an honest antiquarian is like an honest politician: an almost mathematical impossibility.  At a minimum, when he finds an object the he thinks may be worth $10 million, he will tell the owner that "it may be worth $200  if you can find the right buyer.  But that may take a long time.   I can give you $150 for it right away, deal?"  No way he will offer a million, or even $100'000 -- the owner would wake up and deduce that it must be worth a lot more.

And an antiquarian cannot count on a steady stream of cheap but valuable legitimate buys.  He may go months or years without finding one whose profit can pay his trips, rent, groceries, ... During those dry spells, cheating is no longer just a temptation, but a necessity... (Check the recent scholarly opinions on the sad story of Moses Shapira and Dead Sea Scroll Number Zero...)

By the way: did Voynich really keep that rotograph a secret?  It seems that he did not publish it, or mention it in public; but maybe he did show it to prospective buyers?

All the best, --stolfi

RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - ReneZ - 02-11-2025

(Yesterday, 11:36 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.As you and Jan asked, why did neither Baresh nor Marci mention Jacobus, if his signature was readable on f1r?  Baresh knew Jacobus, at least by fame, and would have recognized his name even if it was only barely visible...

First of all, this is guessing and double-guessing. It is better to go by the evidence, and there is quite a bit.

There is written evidence that Garland suggested the Bolton book to Voynich in 1921. There is no evidence that Voynich knew of it before. It is clear from this correspondence that Voynich used this book in 1921.
 
There is also written evidence that Voynich was not the least interested in later ownership of the MS for the first nine or so years that he owned it. He repeatedly stated that the Rudolf in the letter was Rudolf I, a contemporary of Roger Bacon, and even ticked off people suggesting that it was Rudolf II.
He only cared about Roger Bacon.

The only person of any relevance for the Voynich MS in Bolton's book is Jacobus Horcicky de Tepenec.
His name in the MS is written like this: Jacobus a Tepenecz.
In Bolton's book he is only named as Horcicky or Sinapius. 
The name "Tepenec" does not appear in the book. (The PDF is online and searchable).
Voynich could not have obtained this name from Bolton, and Horcicky is only one of many many dozens of people who could have been of interest.

This is also why Voynich was so exuberant about Garland's discovery that Horcicky (in Bolton) and Tepenec (in the Voynich MS) are the same person.

One can build an entire structure of hypotheses based on suppositions, but it is not impressive if these also contradict lots of evidence, that would then require one to state that these are all lies.