The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

[Jorge_Stolfi]

The Modern Forgery Hypothesis: "Voynich found a stack of old calfskin, and penned a varied and enigmatic herbal of questionable quality and origin, using his wide ranging knowledge of literature as a rough source.He had the materials, the access to knowledge, the ability and the motivation to do so.[1]

In that form, the theory is highly unlikely, to say the least.  

For one thing, it fails at the same spot where all "ancient hoax" theories fail: why would Voynich create that manuscript?  Which contains no "bait" that would make it attractive to book collectors?  Like alchemical symbols, recognizable famous names, an "LCF" signature below the illustrations, ...

The Vinland Map forger would not have spent his resources and time forging a map of an un-identifiable coastline that could be anywhere in Europe or just a fantasy place.  It would have sold for hundreds of dollars rather than hundreds of millions.

But the "modern forgery" theory also presumes that the forger in ~1910 had the ability to fake details that would resist 100 years of intense scrutiny and evolving forensic science.  Even the concept of "digital image" would have been utterly unimaginable to him.

What I think is possible is that Voynich twisted, frankensteinized, or outright forged evidence about the history of the VMS in the 1600s, in order to support his claim that the book we have was a Roger Bacon original.  

Marci's letter is quite probably genuine, like the letters by Baresh to Kircher; but I think it is possible that they did not refer to the VMS, but to some other book that Marci sent to Kircher.  In this variant of the theory, Voynich got Marci's letter but not the book it was originally attached to.  (Or he got the book, but saw that it was worthless.)  

So, the theory goes, he would have attached the letter to the VMS, which he got from who knows where.  Because he thought that some millionaire out there could accept it as strong evidence that this bizarre book was a Bacon original.  

Jacobus' signature on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. may well be legit.  But note that it does not imply or suggest that the book was ever owned by Rudolf, or was the book that Raphael mentions in the letter; it is only loosely consistent with both claims.  

Yet I think it is still possible (just possible, not likely) that Voynich managed to get a copy of Jacobus's ex libris from one of his books, and forged his signature on the VMS (with the "N. 19"), photographed it, and then all but washed it out with chemicals to make any forensic verification impossible.  Because Jacobus as the owner before Baresh would provide an explanation for how the book could have gone from Rudolf's library to Baresh's bookshelf.

All the best, --stolfi