The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

[proto57]

As for the patterns detected in the writing of the Voynich, by many and varied tests, yes some have detected "language-like" patterns. But two things about that: If there is meaning in the Voynich, it is not a sign of genuine, as most forgeries actually have meaning... think of the Protocals of the Elders of Zion, the Howard Hughes will, the Oath of a Freeman, the Diary of Hitler... and on and on. Yet I've seen several people in lectures, and in writing, incorrectly equating meaning=genuine in the Voynich.

I chose my wording carefully to indicate that I felt this held even if it were a fake and there was no underlying plain text. This differs from many of the examples you give; there is no need to explain what Russian is or why the Protocols are written in it to make sense of the forgery---though I am given to understand there were linguistic lines of evidence to establish it was unlikely the product of any Jewish group. For the VMS, there are looming questions like: who are the hands (are they all Voynich?), why are the languages separable but similar, how was the text actually composed? These don't necessarily have to be resolved to consider the MFH proved on other grounds, but my point remains that so long as they aren't, they are serious loose ends that bear serious consideration.

If pressed on the matter, I do think if it is a meaningful text then it is more likely to be genuine in this case, if only because it's proved a very crafty cipher that was well ahead of even the 20th Century's huge increase in cryptographic tools and know-how, and that's such an incongruous choice if Voynich's goal was to cash in on a newfound Bacon. But I offer that not because I think that clinches the argument so much as I think it shows Stolfi's point that I thought was inadequately addressed when I first jumped into this discussion. Multiple features of the text need to be explained, and this hypothesis does not, as of yet, fully explain them.

Those are all good points, of course... and so far, so little is known about the nature of the Voynich text that I don't think anyone can answer them. And so I also don't think we can only give educated guesses to what it all means. Really all of us could come up with lists of them. A few of my own opinions on these issues:

- If the Voynich is genuine I could see it being gibberish, unlike most real works. Maybe something 15th century to fool others for reputation or profit

- If it has meaning, real or fake, old or new, I think the type of cipher is different than those that are usually assumed and tested for. I've suggested a type of numerical cipher along the lines of Selenius, and also Biliteral, but high on my personal list would be some form of Steganography... not "stenography". Any of these would hide the underlying text "in plain sight", and not directly relate, as a cipher/code/conlang would, to the observed text. And if one accepts the possibility that it could be modern, effort should be expended on more modern methods. This was You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.... to not let preconceptions about the VMs age cause one to skip testing newer methods*. I equated that to the old "looking under lampposts" adage:

   

- I do tend toward the text being meaningless, however, and only there to give an impression of hidden meaning. I feel this way because I don't think any of the test results have yet shown otherwise, convincingly; some of the results seem to point to gibberish; as I said, there is evidence that even gibberish will reflect patterns of meaningful use of language; complex ciphers will mostly disturb the pattern we do see; too much repetition; the ciphers I've suggested, and some others would not convey enough information per page.

- I feel and have long suggested that those who do seriously attempt to decode/decipher/translate Voynichese all pick a section and all stick to it. I have suggested the first two paragraphs of f1r: This, so that results, when compared to each other, will have the same text as a control. Also, I guess that the author would have been more careful at first, so these passages would more likely be devoid of mistakes. And lastly, that this area would most likely contain information global to the manuscript as a whole, and therefore... possibly... be more recognizable and helpful as "cribs"... such as author name, dedicatory name, purpose of the work, and so on. So, if only partially deciphered, may be more helpful than an interior page, which would only have, like "tulip" and "cook" or whatever.

Anyway, I really appreciate your willingness to have this discussion. And I think... hope... you understand that, despite some negative projections of my attitude and intent, I in no way am trying to change anyone's mind, and only find that open minded discussions like this are really helpful, as they get myself and others to think about these problems in ways that may not occur in isolation.

Rich

* A great book demonstrating the importance of keeping an open mind is You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. by Andrew Robinson. Ventris was of the opinion that Linear B must be Phoenician, but he kept and open mind to the ideas of the late Alice Kober that it could be Attic Greek. If he was stubborn, and only looked to his own beliefs, he never would have solved it. He was also of the mind that open and free discussion was important... long before the internet, of course... so he had a mailing list to share ideas with other researchers. Personally I see his methods and attitude as a very important ones to solving any mystery, especially this one.