The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

[proto57]

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On the other hand, as is has often been pointed out, only 5% of historical documents have survived (or been found by historians).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:

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.