+- 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 - 02-11-2025
(Yesterday, 05:58 AM)RadioFM Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.What kind of evidence would convince you that it's not a modern forgery?
Hi RadioFM:
A few things would convince me:
- An indisputable reference to the manuscript, either contemporary to the C14, or some later, but reasonably old date, which mentions features unique to the Voynich, and which does not work against the described manuscript being the one described. Yes I know the descriptions in the letters of the Carteggio are now accepted by many, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. They may have lightly contributed to the creation of the work, I think, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. But under scrutiny, for various reasons, they come far short of serving as provenance.
- One or more of the missing pages turning up in a sealed or provably unknown collection which suitably pre-dates 1912. If the calfskin, inks and paints suitably match the remaining pages we have today, that would be proof of authenticity. As a related "aside", there was at least one attempt to pass off a fake page like this, as being found independently, but it was poor effort, and I do not believe it was offered for any testing.
- If a translation was successful, and the plain text made it clear that this was genuine and old in some acceptable way. This is difficult, and I don't know exactly what would be in such a convincing translation because of course any old content can be written in a new document. But I think we would know it when we see it... perhaps some information that was clearly not known up to, nor in Voynich's time, but became apparent in later years? For instance, some object or writing from a sealed tomb, or archeological dig, unknown until post-1912, being clearly referenced in the Voynich plain text.
- Another document of some kind... letter, page, manuscript, etc.... which is clearly written in Voynichese, and has the same artistic style and similar enough content to the Voynich, but not from it, which would then show that the Voynich is no longer unique. And like the first bullet point, found in place clearly off limits to Voynich during his life. This is a hard one, and comes under "We would know it when we see it", and probably rise to different levels of importance to different people. It would be an individual level of acceptance for everyone, and probably be controversial. But I think that a certain level of similarity and authenticity to the Voynich might convince me.
I think that is it. I've compiled that list before, I hope I didn't miss anything. What would convince you, if you are not already convinced?
As for what I think would prove the Voynich fake, I have a list for that also. But I do not share all the points on that list, as there are still several avenues I hope to pursue, looking for them, before I am on the wrong side of the grass. But I do still believe that there could be found a good number of items, and have several tests done, which would incontrovertibly prove the Voynich a modern fake, or at the least, two stages of "newer" than 1420: One I would share, as it is obvious, would be if one of the missing pages were found, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., would have obvious illustrative content that post dates 1420. Two levels of later chronology would be, IMO, 1) Post Columbus, and 2) "Much later"... later enough, as in possible 18th or 19th century. But you didn't ask this, I offer it as a tangential issue to proving the Voynich genuine. The two questions are related. But I would say about a dozen items from various collections, and maybe two further tests, I think, could prove fake to almost everyone's satisfaction.
Funny (related) story, though... I was privately offered to be shown a supposed letter by Wilfrid, in which he supposedly confessed creating the Voynich. This was back around 2013, and by a somewhat "sketchy" group of people based in Italy. They were trying to promote a book... meant as non-fiction?... with a wild premise, and I believe they were hoping to boost publicity by getting me to vouch for this letter. But I would have had to fly back to Italy just to see it, as they would not send me a copy of it. Well to say the least I was skeptical, and while I was not averse to seeing Italy again, it would be a pretty expense test for me. So I called their bluff, and suggested a highly respectable and trusted friend of mine, who lives in Italy, be allowed to take my place and see the letter. They abjectly refused. So, the gig was up.
I still would love to see their bogus letter, of course. But I'm not spending thousands of dollars to do it. Since then, these people faded back into the woodwork, or have gone through various other scams since then. I don't know. I do have a copy of their book, though.
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - proto57 - 02-11-2025
(Yesterday, 09:57 AM)ReneZ 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.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.
I don't know... as with many of these issues, people... and we of course... might disagree. I do not believe this is a neutral issue. I feel it is historically considered suspicious, and/or questionable, and/or unethical, to pay for expert opinion... especially as a percentage of a sale based on whether or not said opinion added the sale. The possibility always arises that the expert will have their opinion swayed by these offers.
It is different in, for instance, court, where paid expert testimony is often used. But while they are paid outright, they are not paid based on the results of their testimony, and often their word ends up helping the opposite side in the case. I mean, they are not told they will only be paid if their testimony works out, nor, worse, offered a percentage of the settlement, if realized. I believe it may even be illegal to make that type of offer.
Also, the opposite side of a case, when cross examining a paid or otherwise compensated witness, often asks, "Where you offered money or any other incentive for your testimony today?". Of course they do this to undermine said testimony. My point being, this is a thing: Questioning paid testimony.
I missed or forgot about that $150,00 offer. I had wrongly believed the highest prices were for the "Lives of the Martyrs", the successful sale to Morgan, at $75,000 (possibly not completely owned by him), the desired amounts for the Voynich ($100k to $160k), and the valuation of the 1475 Valturius at, I think, $75,000. Big money in manuscripts it seems. Poor Ethel and Nill... if he has managed any of these sales, like the one you bring up, there would have not been all that worry in their last years.
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - proto57 - 02-11-2025
(Yesterday, 11:36 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(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,
- Voynich gets Marci's letter somewhere.
- Marci's mention of Roger Bacon's lost book gets him salivating.
- But the letter was either loose, or attached to a book that was obviously not Bacon's.
- Voynich gets the VMS somewhere else. It did not have Jacobus's signature.
- He thinks that the VMS fitted Marci's letter and, with it attached, could be passed off as Bacon's.
- But he needs to make up some evidence that the VMS was indeed the book mentioned in the letter.
- And he also needs an explanation for how the book got from Rudolf to Baresh.
- So Voynich researches Rudolf's "alchemists" to see if any would fit that role.
- He gets Sinapius and Tepenecz among other possible names.
- He does not know who this Tepenecz was and asks Garland to find out.
- Garland tells Voynich that Tepenecz = Sinapius.
- Voynich somehow gets a copy of the ex-libris from one of Jacobus's books.
- Voynich forges Jacobus's signature on f1r.
- Voynich takes the first photo of f1r.
- 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
Wow... well those are all excellent points, and plausible scenarios I think. I've thought of a few of them, but you have added several new thoughts, such as this, which I don't think I ever knew, or had forgotten:
Quote:Baresh knew Jacobus, at least by fame, and would have recognized his name even if it was only barely visible...
And yes, we don't know... so there can be many variations of this line of speculation. To add to and comment on your points:
- yes, Voynich seems to have kept the pre-treatment rotograph a secret. I "found" it in the Voynich archives in the Beinecke, and only say "found" because it seems to not have been noted, described, nor certainly copied and published until I did. But I think that worse than it not being shared by Voynich or Ethel is the cryptic phrase penciled on it, "To be kept- Rotograph without autograph before it was chemically restored”. This implies, to me, that the importance of the pre-chemical state of the signature was deemed important to whomever wrote that (to my inexpert eyes, I think it was Ethel, not Nill nor Voynich... but IDK). In short, they knew it was important, and to the signature "story", but it was never shown. This "not sharing" of it must be considered against the version of the signature story which Wilfrid did, officially, share. Well he had slight variations of it, but none of those stories include, "I could read it before the chemicals, and it said 'Jacobius Tepencz'". That would have changed the story (and I want to reiterate that I would like to take a much better photo of that rotograph, because in person, the signature is even more apparent than in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.)
- As for the dating of that Rotograph, no, I still cannot recall if there is any evidence of this. But when I compelled the NYPL to dig for any possible photocopies of the Voynich Ms., as Ethel had mentioned she left these with them, and no further reference was made to them after her death... I (and they!) were surprised that they were still there, and uncatalogued. Anyway, here is what I wrote about the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. copy, which they would not allow me to photograph. I wrote these notes to my laptop, while examining these copies,
[quote]"F1r- The chemical stains may be there, but they are faint and less apparent than on the JPG and SID. The “Signature” is moderately visible anyway. “E” at the end of “Tepence” seems to be a capital, or at least have a lower loop not presently visible. Other than that, it looks the same as we see today, if not a bit darker. Being small on this copy, and not having a means of enlarging it, it is hard to compare to what we have now.
Strings visible in binding, attached at top. Some sort of spine leather folded back.
The letter “column” down right side appears darker on the photostats than now seen."
There was no date on these copies, to my recollection, and I don't seem to have noted any. But I do note that Ethel only mentions them in a 1930 letter, when she suggests they retrieve them (which they never did, it seems)... so, before that date, at least. In any case, the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. rotograph treatment seemed "faint and less apparent" than the modern images showed. Not sure what to make of that, except, maybe, the chemicals had darkened by then?
- There are also the images taken of the rotographs in the British Library, which were on the Voynich.net when I inherited it. Either Gillogly or Reeds uploaded them there, I suppose. They are in folder BML MS FACS 46 : You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. But unfortunately they are dark and not sharp
- Also uploaded are the famous film strips. But obviously these were copied far to dark and small to be of much, or any, use. I think Pelling found another copy of those strips in some USA archive years ago... maybe he has them linked to his site.
I think all this implies it could be valuable to seek out these filmstrips and rotographs again, attempt to date them, and get quality images of the signature from them. Maybe the NYPL would allow me a revisit to the rotographs they have, and this time, take a picture of f1r? The same with the BL rotographs... perhaps someone near or in London would take the time to stop in and do that?
"... the sad story of Moses Shapira and Dead Sea Scroll Number Zero...)"
I will look that up... it sounds fascinating! Well, our mystery is, too...
Rich
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - asteckley - 02-11-2025
Since there are often concerns expressed (and perhaps not unreasonably) that some scenarios are only speculative suppositions, it is worth reminding that the everything we suppose, or we believe we "know", about the provenance of the manuscript between ~1438 and 1912 is based on a very small amount of evidence -- specifically the following words found in letters sent to and from Kircher (which all reasonably do seem to refer to a single book):
1. "Ex pictura herbarum, quarum plurimus est in Codice numerus, imaginum diversarum, Astrorum, aliarumque rerum, faciem chymicorum arca norum referentium,"
==>
"pictures of herbs, of which there are a great many in the codex, and of varied images, stars and other things bearing the appearance of chemical symbolism
2. "cognitorum characterum"
==>
"unknown characters"
3. ""steganographicis mysterijs"
==> "mysterious secret writing" or 'hidden/cyrptograpinc writing"
(There are other versions of the English translations, but these are essentially correct.)
This description of some particular book that was being passed around at Kircher's time certainly seems to describe the VMS reasonably well, although it does raise some questions since there is a noticeable absence of the more unique features of VMS -- like the strange balneological drawings with naked ladies, and the unusual foldouts. But there are various explanations for those ommisions (which, by the way, are also speculative/suppositions.)
On the other hand, as is has often been pointed out, only 5% of historical documents have survived (or been found by historians).
So one can well argue that there is a 95% chance the book in question is still among the lost materials and therefore is NOT the VMS. Particularly since the descriptions aren’t distinctive enough to really single out the VMS.
(The probabilities are a little more complicated than that because one could counter-argue some contingent dependences, but such complications are often ignored when arguing for the positive identification.)
So IF those descriptions happen to be talking about some other book, then ALL the other connections to the actual VMS collapse -- no Rudolph, no 600 ducats, no Kircher or Marci, all of it vaporizes. The Marci letter could still be authentic -- there was about 250 years of time for someone to place it inside the front cover of the VMS because they assumed it was referring to it.
Although that raises another big question -- why did Wilfred Voynich not find it immediately when he acquired the manuscript and translate and consider its contents?
(Aside: I had surmised a reason that he did not find it immediately -- that the Marci letter was so strangely folded specifically to reduce its size and shape in order to slip it into the outer coverings of the manuscript hiding it from immediate discovery, but Lisa Fagin-Davis assures me that there is no hidden space available there for that scenario.)
Now I don't necessarily believe that the Kircher letters are referring to some other book. I wouldn't bet much money on it anyway.
But the point is, we should not forget how much of the story can get cemented into our narrative as if it were indisputable fact, when it is actually dependent on a small number of critical suppositions. And after repeating it over and over in these various discussions, we lose track of the dependencies.
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - proto57 - 02-11-2025
(Yesterday, 05:59 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Since there are often concerns expressed (and perhaps not unreasonably) that some scenarios are only speculative suppositions, it is worth reminding that the everything we suppose, or we believe we "know", about the provenance of the manuscript between ~1438 and 1912 is based on a very small amount of evidence -- specifically the following words found in letters sent to and from Kircher (which all reasonably do seem to refer to a single book):
1. "Ex pictura herbarum, quarum plurimus est in Codice numerus, imaginum diversarum, Astrorum, aliarumque rerum, faciem chymicorum arca norum referentium,"
==>
"pictures of herbs, of which there are a great many in the codex, and of varied images, stars and other things bearing the appearance of chemical symbolism
2. "cognitorum characterum"
==>
"unknown characters"
3. ""steganographicis mysterijs"
==> "mysterious secret writing" or 'hidden/cyrptograpinc writing"
(There are other versions of the English translations, but these are essentially correct.)
This description of some particular book that was being passed around at Kircher's time certainly seems to describe the VMS reasonably well, although it does raise some questions since there is a noticeable absence of the more unique features of VMS -- like the strange balneological drawings with naked ladies, and the unusual foldouts. But there are various explanations for those ommisions (which, by the way, are also speculative/suppositions.)
On the other hand, as is has often been pointed out, only 5% of historical documents have survived (or been found by historians).
So one can well argue that there is a 95% chance the book in question is still among the lost materials and therefore is NOT the VMS. Particularly since the descriptions aren’t distinctive enough to really single out the VMS.
(The probabilities are a little more complicated than that because one could counter-argue some contingent dependences, but such complications are often ignored when arguing for the positive identification.)
So IF those descriptions happen to be talking about some other book, then ALL the other connections to the actual VMS collapse -- no Rudolph, no 600 ducats, no Kircher or Marci, all of it vaporizes. The Marci letter could still be authentic -- there was about 250 years of time for someone to place it inside the front cover of the VMS because they assumed it was referring to it.
Although that raises another big question -- why did Wilfred Voynich not find it immediately when he acquired the manuscript and translate and consider its contents?
(Aside: I had surmised a reason that he did not find it immediately -- that the Marci letter was so strangely folded specifically to reduce its size and shape in order to slip it into the outer coverings of the manuscript hiding it from immediate discovery, but Lisa Fagin-Davis assures me that there is no hidden space available there for that scenario.)
Now I don't necessarily believe that the Kircher letters are referring to some other book. I wouldn't bet much money on it anyway.
But the point is, we should not forget how much of the story can get cemented into our narrative as if it were indisputable fact, when it is actually dependent on a small number of critical suppositions. And after repeating it over and over in these various discussions, we lose track of the dependencies.
All good points, I think. I'd like to add a response to this:
Quote:On the other hand, as is has often been pointed out, only 5% of historical documents have survived (or been found by historians). So one can well argue that there is a 95% chance the book in question is still among the lost materials and therefore is NOT the VMS. Particularly since the descriptions aren’t distinctive enough to really single out the VMS.
I've spent a great many hours trying to identify this work which they saw, which I call "The Baresch Manuscript". I do not believe it was the Voynich, for many of the reasons you state, and others. But what was it? From the clues we know some things about it, some of the content to look for, but also from related clues, seen against the background of their time, and the state of knowledge about languages and characters in general, and herbals in particular, I've been developing a list of characteristics that might help identify it, if not find it.
That is a huge and onerous task! It has involved so far learning the history of all written languages, and dialects, and variations in scripts... which quickly blossoms out into the thousands. This then has to be winnowed down to just those that may constitute an "unknown script" to these men, but specifcially to the short time of the letters. For instance, I obtained a copy of Kircher's book on languages and script, which JUST postdates the letters. Trying to parse out those he would have known by then, but not a decade or so earlier, is monumentally difficult.
However, I attack this problem from time to time, and hope to develop a short list of possible candidates for scripts unknown to them still in 1665. Then, a rough description of the Baresch Manuscript, in those candidate languages. The rare hope would be in finding a match to a known book. The rarest hope would be in finding the ACTUAL copy of that book that they described, and owned. Clues like it being sent to Kircher, and so a part of his collection, are important... but there are many other clues which might then help "triangulate" on the actual manuscript.
Maybe impossible, but that is that is the goal. I probably will never find it, but at least I can narrow down the possibles to some extent.
Rich
So one can well argue that there is a 95% chance the book in question is still among the lost materials and therefore is NOT the VMS.
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - R. Sale - 02-11-2025
Forgery requires content. Collective ninja investigations of the VMs illustrations have revealed several probable interpretations believed to date in the period 1400-1450. If the text is claimed to be 13th Century, this information is anachronistic.
If a forgery is meant to be an imitation of something else, why is the VMs so idiosyncratic? Why is Sagittarius a human crossbowman, and not the standard centaur with bow and arrow? <Etc.>
The secret is in the VMs cosmos. It is not only anachronistic; it is intentionally oxymoronic. That seems like a poor strategy for a forgery. The problem is in the recognition of historical detail, and that is the reader's problem, not the artist's.
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - asteckley - 02-11-2025
(Yesterday, 08:29 PM)R. Sale Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Forgery requires content. Collective ninja investigations of the VMs illustrations have revealed several probable interpretations believed to date in the period 1400-1450. If the text is claimed to be 13th Century, this information is anachronistic.
If a forgery is meant to be an imitation of something else, why is the VMs so idiosyncratic? Why is Sagittarius a human crossbowman, and not the standard centaur with bow and arrow? <Etc.>
The secret is in the VMs cosmos. It is not only anachronistic; it is intentionally oxymoronic. That seems like a poor strategy for a forgery. The problem is in the recognition of historical detail, and that is the reader's problem, not the artist's.
Yes, we've gone over all that. The objection hasn't changed. And the explanation hasn't changed.
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - ReneZ - 03-11-2025
(Yesterday, 05:59 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.On the other hand, as is has often been pointed out, only 5% of historical documents have survived (or been found by historians).
So one can well argue that there is a 95% chance the book in question is still among the lost materials and therefore is NOT the VMS.
Please rethink this...
The other/real VMS is an entirely hypothetical item. There is no 95% probability that it existed.
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - asteckley - 03-11-2025
(Today, 02:07 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Please rethink this...
The other/real VMS is an entirely hypothetical item. There is no 95% probability that it existed.
Well, it doesn't sound like there is any reason to waste the effort rethinking -- your logic is impeccable
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis - proto57 - 03-11-2025
(Today, 02:07 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(Yesterday, 05:59 PM)asteckley Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.On the other hand, as is has often been pointed out, only 5% of historical documents have survived (or been found by historians).
So one can well argue that there is a 95% chance the book in question is still among the lost materials and therefore is NOT the VMS.
Please rethink this...
The other/real VMS is an entirely hypothetical item. There is no 95% probability that it existed.
I'm not certain, Rene, and maybe I've missed the pertinent points to this recent back and forth about the "probability" of the existence of what I describe as the Baresch Manuscript... but whether I got the gist of the points of you and asteckly correct, here is my take on it...
- Yes, Rene, I do agree that the existence of a Baresch Manuscript is certainly hypothetical. The purpose of the hypothesis would be to determine if it was the Voynich, or another manuscript entirely, and then describe what it could have looked like, and maybe help in finding it, if it still exists.
- The point about the 5% and 95%, I took differently than you, I think: I may be wrong, but I think it is not that there is a "95% probability that it existed", as you wrote, but rather that, as other arguments are made about the possible existence of missing or non-existent evidence that support 1420 Genuine, one could similarly state, "Since 95% of all manuscripts are missing, we can't say the Baresch Manuscript is not among them".
- But, I would not really make that case that "it must be out there, because we can't see all lost manuscripts", and I don't think Andrew was making that case, I think he was only pointing out the misuse and therefore the the fallacy of the "absence of evidence" adage, at least in the context it is frequently used to apologize for the great many "missing" cases of evidence that would support it if they were found.
I hope I got that right, and if so, I agree heartily with that point. And again, certainly I am not claiming that the Baresch Manuscript must exist, or even probably exists, only that I hypothesize it could exist. And if it does, would like to try and define and describe what it most probably would have consisted of, and hopefully, find it... or, if not find it, find a good reference to it.
Rich