The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

[proto57]

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. 

Everyone forgive me for bringing the Rohonc Codex here but there are actually several similarities to Voynich Manuscript.

So I indeed made my solution of Rohonc Codex using results of Kiraly and Tokai. You can check it here: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
I am 100% sure that the text there is meaningful. As for its date of creation I don't have such a strong opinion and generally don't have a horse in that race but I believe it's rather authentic.

There are actually 2 issues both with Rohonc and Voynich:
a) is the text meaningful or gibberish?
b) was it created in the 1400s (Voynich) and 1500s (Rohonc) or quite recently, shortly before its "discovery"

I believe these issues are independent and I hope that you would agree. Because actually many people made a mistake and saw them dependent.

Both Voynich and Rohonc raised a lot of enthusiasm when discovered and nobody initially considered them a fake. Several people tried to read them and failed. The initial theories failed - Voynich being a manuscript by Roger Bacon and Rohonc being some Hungarian nationalistic thing written in a form of Hungarian runes ( You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. )

So people started claiming they are fake - we cannot read them, they don't make sense, they are not the thing we expected them to be so they must be fake.
I would say it's a logical error.

The theory that Rohonc is fake and created by Sámuel Literáti Nemes in an old 19th century theory that nobody really questioned later. The guys who accepted it generally weren't the sharpest pencils in the box. For example they claimed that the script cannot make sense as it has over 800 unique symbols and nobody would be able to remember and use that much fluently. Somebody should really gift them a book in Chinese  

But as we said, having sense doesn't mean that something is genuine and vice versa. For example I am closest to opinion that VM is gibberish but is authentic. So it may be a called fake but you must add it's a medieval fake  

Both Rohonc and Voynich have some similarities in their histories:

Voynich:
- discovered in the 20th century
- imagery suggests 1400s
- carbon dating of vellum suggests 1400s
- there are some documents that seem to mention its existence before 20th century (Kircher correspondence, De Ricci census)
  but they theoretically could be forged or relate to another manuscript

Rohonc:
- discovered in the 19th century
- imagery suggests 1400-1600, to put it safely with wide margin
- watermark on paper suggests 1500s
- there is mention from library census in 1700s but it could relate to another manuscript

I would say Proto57 that you are quite "demanding". 
Imagery, used material and possible mentions are not enough for you.

Out of curiosity, if I may ask, do you treat all manuscripts with such cautiousness or Voynich and Rohonc are special?
And what convinces you (if it does) that stuff like Leningrad Codex ( You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. ) is genuine?

Hi Rafal: A few points about what you wrote, above:

So people started claiming they are fake - we cannot read them, they don't make sense, they are not the thing we expected them to be so they must be fake.I would say it's a logical error.

Perhaps "people" do use this line of reasoning, but as I explained to you, I do not. I do not reject either the Voynich nor the Rohonc on the basis of "they don't make sense", or "they are not the thing we expected them to be".

As I wrote, most forgeries do make sense. Think "The Protocals of the Elders of Zion", the "Howard Hughes Will", the "Diary of Hitler", the "White Salamander Letter", "The Oath of a Freeman", the "Vortigern, an Historical Tragedy" (fake Shakespeare play), the 1909 "Autobiography of Shakepeare", and on and on an on. Hundred of them... probably, actually, tens of thousands of forgeries all make perfect, readable sense in some context.

Did you translate the Rohonc? I hope so. That would be really cool. I just haven't examined your proposal, but I in no way contend you did not, nor that you could not, based on my belief the Rohonc is fake. Even if fake, it very well may have readable text in it. I hope you are right, and we can read it.

Now the opposite is somewhat true, because if a text is nonsense, then it is probably fake, which brings me to your point here:

But as we said, having sense doesn't mean that something is genuine and vice versa. For example I am closest to opinion that VM is gibberish but is authentic. So it may be a called fake but you must add it's a medieval fake

I mean, by definition, if meaningless, it must be a fake of some sort... old or new, hoax, forgery, whatever. And you realize this, by adding the disclaimer, "... you must add it's [the Voynich] a medieval fake". But fake text is fake text, so if you are incorrect, and the Rohonc is gibberish, then yes, that adds to my belief, and the belief of many others, that the work is a fake, and most likely by Nemes.

You have not said if you read Benedek Lange's paper? He lists the known forged works of Nemes, then explains how the family that owned the Rohonc had a connection to Nemes Literati, as he supplied them with books. No, no direct lineage, but it is circumstantially damning, IMHO. Also, the style of illustration of Nemes other forged works is strikingly similar to the (very poor) illustrations and characters in the Rohonc. Lange's defenses of the Rohonc basically amount to there not being a reference to the Rohonc in Neme's writings, as there are for some other forgeries; and also, that the Rohonc is longer than his other forgeries, and a couple of other points like that. But nothing that directly shows that Nemes could not have done it. But I don't want to speak for Benedek, one can read this for themselves, and make up their own minds: "You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.".

The guys who accepted it generally weren't the sharpest pencils in the box. For example they claimed that the script cannot make sense as it has over 800 unique symbols and nobody would be able to remember and use that much fluently. Somebody should really gift them a book in Chinese.

First of all, implying that those who disagree with you are somehow not smart is a form of false argumentation (demonization... ask me how I know), and undermines your case. Am I also stupid because I disagree with you? As for the stated reasoning you give for their believing it is fake (as it has over 800 unique symbols) I have not personally heard, and like you, but might agree with you it is not a good argument for fake. But the thing is, I have heard many OTHER arguments, and you went to the "low hanging fruit" here. If you want to make your case it is real, take on the tough arguments... such as the stylistic similarities to Neme's work, and his connection as a supplier to the family who owned it. Cherry picking those points you feel are vulnerable won't convince anyone.

I believe these issues are independent and I hope that you would agree. Because actually many people made a mistake and saw them dependent.

Of course I agree with you. We discuss all of these manuscripts in concert, but only to contrast and compare the evidence relating to each individual case. That is helpful, and why I consider your bringing it up in this thread totally appropriate. Reasoning, testing, forensics, history, decipherment attempts... all these are helpful to compare between even widely dissimilar and independant works. But yes, I absolutely agree with you that whether one is fake or not does not affect the other in the least bit.

That being said, both the Vineland Map AND the Rohonc have been used by others to claim the Voynich is real. In the case of the Vineland Map, right here, in the Ninja forums. I was told "since" it is real, the Voynich is real. Funny how the person who told me that is not now saying "Since the Vinland Map is fake, the Voynich is fake". No, crickets on that. And as I said, Benedek himself has said, in person to me, that the Ronhonc being real tells us the Voynich is real. But no, I am with you, I disagree with both of them that there is any connection like that. They are independent, and even that the Vinland Map being a fake has no bearing whatsoever on the Voynich being fake or real.

THAT being said, it does call into question the whole structure of investigation... the experts, the institutions, the scientists, paleographers, and on and on. Because so many of these cases are rife with considerations far beyond the actual needs of determining the veracity of the item itself. This is not a "conspiracy" claim, it is a fact of life. I often post this quote by Nancy L. Kelker & Karen O. Bruhns, authors of "Faking Mesoamerica":

"Unfortunately, it is not uncommon to find professionals--- art historians, museum curators, and even well-known archaeologists--- championing these fake works. Some of these erstwhile defenders suffer from the "missing link of history" syndrome, in which the most glaring errors of a forgery are dimsissed in the desire to see a fraudulent work as a legitimate copy of some now-lost, previously unknown, ancient manuscript. The discovery of said manuscript--- or at least its ever so faithful copy--- is guaranteed to plug major holes in scholarship as well as rocket its discoverer to fame, fortune, and guest appearances on the Today Show--- or even better, invitations to weekends at well-heeled collectors' country estates. Those suffering from the "missing link" syndrome are perhaps the most dangerous because their misplaced enthusiasm, coupled with their professional reputations, presents the greatest opportunities for the pollution of science to arise."

In any case, Rafal, I think you have me wrong in assuming I am saying your translation is necessarily wrong, as I have not even examined it very closely. I will, if you want me to, and if you don't mind my giving my opinion. But my believing... not knowing, but believing it most probable... that the Ronhonc is a fake, and probably by Nemes, does not in any way impact the possibility that you have solved the cipher of the book, and that it has meaning you can read. They are separate issues entirely, and I wish you luck with getting the word out there.