The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

[proto57]

"The Rohenc has been suspected, like the Voynich, but it is genuine, so suspected items can be real". Well I strongly disagree with Benedek, and agree with many who argue that is a fake, too. And so on...

Out of curiosity, why do you believe that the Rohonc Codex is fake and what do you mean by fake?

Hi Rafal: First of all, my opinions about the Rohonc are not based on nearly as deep a dive as I've made on the Voynich, nor the Vinland map either, for that matter. But yes I think is a fake/forgery/hoax... that is, not a genuine manuscript, but something fake meant to look like one.

My reasons are the general look of it, first of all. It just looks fake to me. Now you or anyone are welcome to dismiss that as unscientific, and baseless in and of itself, and I'm fine with that. But like many here, I've looked at literally thousands of manuscripts, and parts of manuscripts, and this is one of those that stands out as inauthentic. There are other crude illustrations in other works, of course... but true inability is hard to fake. People think it is easy to fake simplicity and innocence and artlessness... I think it is harder to do than to illustrate to one's own skill level. Yes, again, that is only an intuitive sense in the case of the Ronhonc, one which I have no doubt I could not explain to your satisfaction, and I would also understand that. But, you asked, and that is one of the reasons...

So I looked into the book to some extent over the years, and lo and behold I am far from alone. I found the information which Wikipedia outlines as,

In 1866, Hungarian historian Károly Szabó (1824–1890) proposed that the codex was a hoax by Sámuel Literáti Nemes (1796–1842), a Transylvanian-Hungarian antiquarian, and co-founder of the National Széchényi Library in Budapest. Nemes is known to have created many historical forgeries (mostly made in the 1830s) which deceived even some of the most renowned Hungarian scholars of the time. Since then, this opinion of forgery has been maintained by mainstream Hungarian scholarship, even though there is no evidence connecting the codex to Nemes specifically.

Looking at the known and suspected forgeries by Nemes, and the arguments pro and con for forgery- and I'm sure you know them all- I feel that my first suspicions were probably correct. I agree with many, this is most likely a fake. Ironically, the aforementioned Benedek Láng, who assured me that the Rohonc codex is certainly genuine, also wrote an article about Sámuel Literáti Nemes, and lists his known forgeries. Chapter Seven, page 129 of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. In his article, "The Forgeries of Sámuel Literáti Nemes", Benedek gives pro and con arguments for the Ronhonc also being a forged work by Nemes. And, in reading that, I think the pro-forgery outweighs the genuine arguments. With respect to Benedek, I do not agree with his reasoning... I still think it a fake. You have most certainly read the article, yourself, but for anyone interested in this debate, there it be, linked above.

Also, one of my reasons is the language... I clicked on your account, by the way, because I thought you might be a friend of mine, but see you are not (well not him, not that I wouldn't like to be your friend!), and also see you have suggested translations of the text of the Ronhonc. And I only had a short time to look at your work, so I don't have any idea whether or not I would find it convincing.

But here is the thing: My thinking the Rohonc most likely a fake would have zero bearing or affect of any kind on the validity of yours, or anyone's, translation of the work. This is because most forgeries... the overwhelming number of them.. while fake, still have meaning.

But, of course the opposite is rarely true: Most meaningless documents are actually fakes. And not yours, but I have seen several proposals for translations of the Rohonc, and found them totally unconvincing. I think probably contains some bits and pieces of meaningful material, but is mostly gibberish. Again, from seeing the attempts, and the given results... never fully convincing to me. So, in short, the fact I have not yet seen a translation adds to my belief this is a fake manuscript; and even if it has meaning, it can still be a fake manuscript. Like the Voynich.

And, the provenance... or, lack thereof. Wikipedia again,

The origin of the codex is unknown. A possible trace of its past may be an entry in the 1743 catalogue of the Batthyánys' Rohonc library, which reads "Magyar imádságok, volumen I in 12" ("Hungarian prayers in one volume, size duodecimo"). Both the size and the assumed content of the volume described fit the codex, but no further information is given in the catalogue, rendering an exact match to the codex impossible.

I've been chastised in the past for suggesting that lack of provenance matters, being told it does not. Yes, for some crazy reason everyone is always desparit to find it! I'm being facetious... of course it matters, especially when you can't find any with a very questionable work like the Ronhonc. It is one of the pillars of authenticity, and if the others do not exist, more weight bears on the remaining, provenance column. And the Rohonc has none. Yes, that reference above is sort of kind of a hopeful one, but not convincing to me at all. It smacks of the 1903 and Wildmann references, claimed to be "of the Voynich", which, by their stark weakness, actually emphasize the abject lack of any convincing Vms provenance, and even, the given provenance working against those items being of the Voynich at all... no, I think it matters for both works, and adds to my belief both are fakes.

What else? I think there is more, but I'll stop there, as those reasons alone have led me to believe the Rohonc Codex is one of those old forgeries/fakes/hoaxes that were often convincing in the past, while actually not being even all that convincing in its own time.